CreateDebate


Debate Info

94
87
YES NO
Debate Score:181
Arguments:103
Total Votes:227
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (52)
 
 NO (51)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11165) pic



Can government create jobs and wealth?

Gov

YES

Side Score: 94
VS.

NO

Side Score: 87
4 points

1) The government can create jobs. A job only requires that there is a transaction through which some person x is compensated in some manner for y labor. How that compensation is substantiated is irrelevant to whether person x is in fact doing a job.

2) The government can create wealth in the same way that any economic entity creates wealth. That is, through Human activity, which exists independent of public or private sectors, is wealth created.

Side: yes
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
2 points

Econ 101: Umm first NO allow me to explain. When a private-sector worker creates something of value where previously nothing existed, the resulting new dollars inevitably trickle down to others through the goods and services he or she buys. But when a public-sector job is created, it simply means existing dollars trickle from the person who earned them to someone else — usually someone a politician considers more deserving.

The private sector creates wealth, the public sector spends it

Side: No
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
3 points

Econ 101: Umm first NO allow me to explain.

Please stop trying to explain things to me.

The transfer of novel technologies from the public to the private sector accounted for more than 50% of productivity growth in America over the last half century ("University Technology Transfer of Government-Funded Research Has Wide Public Benefits" (more here). And since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act this technology transfer has become even easier.

Government workers and research funded by public dollars generate novel technologies. The fact that some researcher at NASA created Macro-Fiber Composite material (it's a real thing) instead of a private sector worker doesn't magically make that Composite material disappear from the face of the earth. It is a novel technology that was created through public research. And it has, as you put it, trickled down to others through the goods and services they buy. That is, by your definition, it is wealth.

Side: yes
1 point

"Government can’t replace -- can’t create jobs to replace the millions that we lost in the recession, but it can create the conditions for small businesses to hire more people, through steps like tax breaks," Obama said.

Since government has no assets, government spending has three sources of misrepresented stimulus.

1. Taxation doesn't create new jobs or wealth because it only transfers wealth from one who creates new wealth. Sure, government employees received incomes, but it is at the expense of those who produce. Government employees don't produce anything new, they only take from the general public.

2. Government borrowing is just as inadequate as taxation, yet at least in taxation, it is paid. It reduces investment in capital, labor and land. Consequently, this translates into fewer new factories, machines, and homes being built. Not only does this decrease in private investment slow economic growth, it results in additional unemployment in these industries.

3. The worst source of additional government spending is creating new money either by simply printing more money or lower interest rates. Thus, this monetary event always results in inflation by eroding the value of the currency.

Side: No
brycer2012(1001) Disputed
4 points

Government employees don't produce anything new, they only take from the general public.

How so? If a person that works for NASA creates some new invention, then they are creating something, not taking away from society.

Side: yes
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
0 points

You're argument is an inane one. Protip: all new jobs are created by pre-existing capital. It doesn't matter where it comes from: whether it's taxed or loaned (a transfer of capital from one source to another) or even newly minted. If the capital can be used to hire people in positions that didn't previously exist, then new jobs have been created. If those people produce something novel (like a government created micro-machined artificial lung that outperforms existing clinically used artificial lungs) or already existing (a videogame), and it's sold or implemented in the market, wealth has been created. The government can, has, does, and will do both for as long as you and I live (probably...). To suggest otherwise is to betray a gross ignorance of reality or outright dishonesty.

Side: yes
2 points

This could very easily devolve into a semantics debate, but yeah, it can.

Simply because a firm has a coercive monopoly doesn't mean it isn't producing "wealth" (depending on exactly what you mean by that).

Side: yes
1 point

the side with no argument is winning?

I think its as simple as...raising the tax just a bit more % to pay for a new job which is directly made by the government using the tax money to pay, an example..A Dog Pound, of course this is already there, but its an example, this would be great in other countries which don't have some.

Side: yes
1 point

I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to go through this, or how long it's going to take before the anarchists realize no one agrees with their crazy views and stop annoying everyone in forums,

But we are government. Government is a body of people working together within a society.

If there were no such thing as a government, humans would make one, it is our instinct, we are pack animals.

Our particular government happens to be a democracy, which happens to be working extraordinarily well from a historic perspective.

The type of economy every western democracy has adapted happens to be capitalism. It doesn't have to be any more than the type of government has to be a democracy. As such though, capitalism too happens to be working quite well all things considered.

However, you cannot have a successful capitalist society, without social oversight and programs. That would no longer be a democratic government because only those 1% or 2% with inordinate wealth would have influence on government. A purely capitalist society would quickly fall into either fascism or feudalism, both of which we see historically do not work well at all for the vast majority.

Okay, now that we are clear on definitions (I know we're not because we've been through this a million times now).

Yes, "government" as it were, is no more or less capable of creating jobs and wealth than whichever undefined capitalist-anarchy these "independents" like Ron Paul seem to be in favor of.

The difference is, the number of people who have any sort of opportunity.

In the world of capitalist-anarchy, no amount of work will get you anywhere. It's a world of no minimum wage, no education if you're not rich, no retirement if your not rich. You work your whole life for slave wages and die young. That's pure capitalism. In a democratic capitalist society (which we are) everyone has opportunity.

Side: yes
2 points

I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to go through this, or how long it's going to take before the anarchists realize no one agrees with their crazy views and stop annoying everyone in forums.

Unfortunately, the minority (anarcho-capitalists) are at the mercy of majority's incompetence (liberals and progressive conservatives).

But we are government. Government is a body of people working together within a society.

If we are the government, what government agency do you work for? What is your title in this agency? What control do you have over government bureaucrats? To make sure that they are not being abusing the system by which they create. None.

If there were no such thing as a government, humans would make one, it is our instinct, we are pack animals.

Wrong, there is things such as self governance.

Government only has a role in protecting fellow citizens, foreign invaders, property, and enforce contracts.

Our particular government happens to be a democracy, which happens to be working extraordinarily well from a historic perspective.

Seriously, what school did you go to?

The United States is a constitutional federal republic represented by a democracy.

A purely capitalist society would quickly fall into either fascism or feudalism, both of which we see historically do not work well at all for the vast majority.

Since there never has been a pure capitalist society, your point is moot.

However, many communist and socialist republics has turned towards totalitarian governments. For example, there is the USSR, China, and North Korea.

"One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." (1984, George Orwell)

Of the all the economics system, they can be separated into two categories.

One is individualism, which is capitalism. There is only one system of individualism. Capitalism hasn't failed yet.

Two is collectivism, which is socialism and communism, and fascism. All of these have failed.

WHY HAS COLLECTIVISM FAILED AND CAPITALISM THRIVED?

Because collectivism merely transfers wealth while capitalism creates new wealth.

Okay, now that we are clear on definitions (I know we're not because we've been through this a million times now).

No, you haven't cleared anything besides your inept knowledge of our government because you don't even know that the United States government is a constitutional federal republic represented by a democracy.

In the world of capitalist-anarchy, no amount of work will get you anywhere. It's a world of no minimum wage, no education if you're not rich, no retirement if your not rich. You work your whole life for slave wages and die young. That's pure capitalism. In a democratic capitalist society (which we are) everyone has opportunity.

That is pure exaggeration of liberals.

For instance, minimum wage is the reason for unemployment. WHY? It is $7.50 per hour, which means that those who have skills under $7.50, they are automatically shifted out of employment and put on welfare.

Now, consider the infinite wisdom of government whom enacted a minimum wage of $100 per hour. What do you earn in a hour? Do you make $100 per hour? Probably Not, So, you would be unemployed as well because nobody would be able to hire you.

The job market is based on skills and supply and demand.

Within this rant and random rambling of much to do about nothing, there is not a shred of evidence that government creates jobs or wealth.

The fact remains that government only transfers wealth.

Side: No
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

Frankly your mis-characterization of all things American besides pure capitalist greed is quickly going from comically tragic to disturbingly unpatriotic.

Where was all your anti-government anti-common worker rhetoric (minimum wage) when Bush was in office? I don't remember you on this site then. I'm trying to figure out if you are literally a crazy person who sees big bad government in the shadows, or if your a cynical right wing ideologue who understands Republican policy is directly responsible for current economics and so has to make up wild stories to convince yourself that liberals are evil demons who eat babies...

At any rate.

Unfortunately, the minority (anarcho-capitalists) are at the mercy of majority's incompetence (liberals and progressive conservatives).

I want names and instances of this being the case. I'm under the impression that anarcho-capitalists have the same rights exactly as everyone else.

If we are the government, what government agency do you work for? What is your title in this agency? What control do you have over government bureaucrats? To make sure that they are not being abusing the system by which they create. None.

I vote, therefore I have a say in government. Government does not do anything that the people do not have over site over in one manner or another. What's more, this admin is a hundred times more transparent than the last one - again, where were you 2 years ago with this crazy talk?

The point is, I don't have to work in a government agency in order to be a part of the US, which is a government of the world.

Wrong, there is things such as self governance.

Government only has a role in protecting fellow citizens, foreign invaders, property, and enforce contracts

Mhm, give that a try for three days. You are pro-capitalist economy. Economy is impossible outside of government. Outside of some sort of government, there is no agreed monetary value, no rules, no law. You would have to trade chickens for dental care and nothing is stopping bandits from stealing your chicken on the way there.

What you want is all the stuff government provides, without responsibility for maintaining that government. It's like a kid wanting allowance but refusing to mow the lawn.

Seriously, what school did you go to?

The United States is a constitutional federal republic represented by a democracy.

Yeah I know. It is a democracy like I said... wait what kind of economy do we have? Oh yeah, capitalism. I was describing the government + economy.

Since there never has been a pure capitalist society, your point is moot.

No it isn't. I can deduce that setting fire to a house, would burn down the house. Similarly I can deduce allowing pure capitalism in any type of government, would lead inevitably to all power held by a very select few, with 0 say for anyone else in how that power is used - which could be any number of things from fascism to feudalism - but it certainly would no longer be a democracy.

As for the proceeding lines - you've gone utterly off topic. You are setting up a strawman. My argument with you is not one of socialism vs capitalism. It's democracy and capitalism with over site and social programs vs pure capitalism. I'm actual quite moderate - which is why you need to continuously set up these strawman arguments.

No, you haven't cleared anything besides your inept knowledge of our government because you don't even know that the United States government is a constitutional federal republic represented by a democracy

Again, I was describing both economy and government. You are not separating government from a particular government's economic system. This isn't my misunderstanding, it is yours.

For instance, minimum wage is the reason for unemployment. WHY? It is $7.50 per hour, which means that those who have skills under $7.50, they are automatically shifted out of employment and put on welfare.

That's a ridiculous argument. There is no economic worth in hiring two people for 3.75 an hour instead of one for 7.50. Either way neither has economic means to add anything of value to the economy, or even buy the product they are making.

No one could live on that wage, no one cannot raise children, it would create in essence, a cast of peasants. Again, very Unamerican of you. People deserve an honest days pay for an honest day's work. It is one of the many laws put in place directly after the great depression, and which lead to 30 years of prosperity and steady growth until people forgot and began again with the deregulation anti-common worker bs starting with Regan.

Name a country without a minimum wage with a living standard above that of a third world country.

Side: yes
1 point

Regardless of whether it's a good thing, the government CAN create jobs and wealth. The real question is whether or not it's a good idea. But as for the resolution, yes the government can create jobs and wealth

Side: yes
2 points

Yes Big Govco can create by how much they want to pass laws on adding taxes and more regulation where maybe none is needed. They are the hand on the faucet whether they want to tighten and restrict or open up the valve and let more flow that being business wealth and jobs. From the policies passed down by government they the private sector "Market" makes adjustments on the framework allowed to operate in. If incentives are given and business is less burden markets respond in hiring and liquidity in the economy. When things are tightened and uncertainty with what Govco is going to do Markets sit on the fence and usually lay off and de-leverage, which is what is happening now. That is why I find it absolutely insane that they would want to raise any taxes right now in a deep recession.

Side: yes
1 point

Well, it is not a matter of a good or bad thing, it is a matter of economics, and your lack of evidence clearly shows how government can indoctrinated.

READ CAREFULLY.

Government possesses no assets or wealth, thus, it must tax those with assets or wealth, therefore, government merely transfers wealth. Finally, it transfers jobs from the private to public. Hence, there is no net job creation or growth.

Public sector is inherently incapable of creating wealth due to the fact it doesn't pursue profit.

Side: No
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

I suppose you don't have a job if you work for a non-profit organization then.

Side: yes
1 point

YES on a micro-perspective, meaning considering only the people who will receive the transferred jobs.

But NO on a macro-perspective, where we will also consider the people from where the jobs came from. In this perspective, the net job produced is zero. It was just a matter of transferring of jobs.

Same is true for wealth.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes, of course the Government can create jobs as they employ many, many people. And a Government can also create wealth; although an extreme case, the Nazi Government created wealth for Germany by taking the gold reserves of other countries.

Side: yes
1 point

Wrong, as noted in numerous other posts, government jobs are a transfer of jobs from the private sector to the public jobs via taxation. Taxation is redistributing resources rather than creating because there is no market.

Side: No
1 point

Government as those who distribute taxes or borrow in the name of government (for deficit spending) have the lever which determines who will work harder by their construction of the tax code, and distribution of those taxes. When they pay government contractors, (war and weapons makers) or private business (i.e., prisons), they distribute taxes to those persons. When they tax businesses, (or those persons who own businesses), they send the message to work harder, or work less hard (by giving tax cuts).

Government is simply the lever (i.e., of the faucet) that tends to create jobs, or to reduce jobs by the choices they make in the messages of stimulus or of tax fairness they choose.

To insure they work for the American people, government must know where income comes from for all in order to choose wisely, and spur the economy, or cool it down to prevent inflation.

Side: YES

The Government can and should create jobs and wealth. Everyone needs a push for success in life.

Side: YES

The biggest fallacy of all political rhetoric is that government can create jobs and wealth. Fundamentally, this ultimately refers to the broken window fallacy.

Government is economically incapable of creating jobs and wealth. It is impossible because of taxation. Since government possesses no assets or wealth without coerced taxation, taxation simply reallocates money paid by taxpayers to government projects; it prevents from new investment in capital, labor, land or maybe even entrepreneurship.

It merely shifts attention and valuable resources from one industry to another.

What this reallocation of resources does is it hides the true costs of government interference in the market. Government projects assume that it only knows how to allocate resources better than consumers or businesses know how to spend or invest.

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
3 points

The biggest fallacy of all political rhetoric is that government can create jobs and wealth. Fundamentally, this ultimately refers to the broken window fallacy.

I assume you mean that the tax dollars that people pay could go towards paying others which means (supposedly) more jobs for those who take in the money.

It's actually a lot more complicated than that, however, because you're referring to necessary data rather than conjecture. For example, if a person is taxed and loses ten percent of his income, that is ten percent that could have paid for someone to work, right? Well, what if that ten percent funds two government jobs and if the tax didn't exist, those two jobs are gone but the person's income instead goes to pay for one job (such as an accountant). In this case the "broken window\" pays for more jobs than the unbroken one does (in reference to the tailor).

There are doubtless many permutations of this scenario, and the simple point is that without actual data, you don't know which is more efficient usage of money.

Government is economically incapable of creating jobs and wealth.

You've never heard of government jobs?

Since government possesses no assets or wealth without coerced taxation, taxation simply reallocates money paid by taxpayers to government projects; it prevents from new investment in capital, labor, land or maybe even entrepreneurship.

As mentioned above, it could be the case that government invests tax dollars more effectively so that more jobs are created by it than if the money were left alone to be invested privately.

What this reallocation of resources does is it hides the true costs of government interference in the market. Government projects assume that it only knows how to allocate resources better than consumers or businesses know how to spend or invest.

Sometimes it does.

Side: yes
1 point

For example, if a person is taxed and loses ten percent of his income, that is ten percent that could have paid for someone to work, right? Well, what if that ten percent funds two government jobs and if the tax didn't exist, those two jobs are gone but the person's income instead goes to pay for one job (such as an accountant).

Sure, taxation provides income and an well being for a government employees, yet it is transferring wealth from those who are productive, but fundamentally, the government employee is creating anything new. They uses existing money.

The Keynesian legacy that government can reduce unemployment with large spending programs is the biggest fallacy in economics.

Government spending has three sources of misrepresented stimulus.

1. Taxation doesn't create new wealth because it only transfers wealth from one who creates new wealth.

2. Government borrowing is just as inadequate as taxation, yet at least in taxation, it is paid. It reduces investment in capital, labor and land. Consequently, this translates into fewer new factories, machines, and homes being built. Not only does this decrease in private investment slow economic growth, it results in additional unemployment in these industries.

3. The worst source of additional government spending is creating new money either by simply printing more money or lower interest rates. Thus, this monetary event always results in inflation by eroding the value of the currency.

You've never heard of government jobs?

First, how is this question?

Actually, there are 4 million federal employees and 16 million state/local employees.

As mentioned above, it could be the case that government invests tax dollars more effectively so that more jobs are created by it than if the money were left alone to be invested privately.

Government doesn't invest money. It spends or wastes. If the government is going to spend our money, it should be putting money that yields a return.shouldn't they be putting it into something that is going to make us some money?

Sometimes it does.

No, because no one entity or person is smarter than the invisible hand. The invisible hand

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

You've never heard of government jobs?

Yes of course we all have. But where does those government jobs get their money from? Even a company that sells stuff to the government like Northrop or any other company that gets government contracts from. Where does the money flow start? It all has to be created in the private sector. None of these jobs would be created at all if it was not for complete private sector. Example of "Real Money" You have a restaurant I own insurance company. I come to your restaurant and pay you for a dinner. You have just created free market capitalism. None of that revenue you got was derived from government. You are now taxed that profit that you just made, most times 30%. Both you and I have business that hire and create jobs where money is created. Non of which we get any money from government because we are private if we did receive money from government we would be getting those monies from taxes which you just paid on when you made profit when i ate at your restaurant. That is the only way government can survive is by the independent business owner private sector with that money being created nothing else would be possible.

there would be no government jobs there would be no NASA. Look to any country that has overwhelming government jobs when you do you will see those countries have no currency strength and mostly impoverished because they do not have a healthy private sector in which they can take from in taxes and spend. so what do they do countries that have weak private they print out their own money more and more of their own money that they don't have to collect from private sector. Eventually what happens is that other countries like Germany, China, Brazil end up have better bonds and currency rate and become more powerful with what they can buy. I can go on and on but that would be a whole lesson plan. Let's hope that they reduce spending so that our currency doesn't keep dropping and commodities like gas, cotton, copper keep going through the roof. I'm not going to like to pay $4 or 5$ a gallon if that happens.

Side: No
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

what about the investment by the government in darpa or nasa?

Side: yes
2 points

Unless the government agency charges a fee or service charge, it is taxation, which takes from the general population, and DARPA and NASA are not investments, but rather expenditures with limited budgets. Those could easily be privatized where investment is potentially unlimited.

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

what about the investment by the government in darpa or nasa?

They would never exist if there wasn't free market private sector money that they take by someone in taxes and give it to them. I'm not saying Government is bad for doing these things, obviously this is a good thing to have these and jobs being there. It's that the more private free money "Real Money" created on the free markets is the driving force the more we can sustain. when we get to a level where Government jobs is almost 50% of private sector we are at a turning point where it is unsustainable, and we end up like Greece eventually. That's why the deficit is a big issue right now, when those bonds come home to roost we are going to either cut spending or tax the shit out of people and business's more. Let's hope that they cut spending because if they decide to go after business more they will just move themselves to another more pro-business friendly country, which is already happening now. It's a scary scenario high taxes have never done nothing but create more poverty. Main reason is that rich people don't care where they live when a place becomes to much for them they get up and take themselves and employees to other states and countries.

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

If you break it down to it's essence every job created comes from private sector. Yes our government gives money to some companies like NASA and DARPA but that's money the government takes from private sector in revenue they take it and spend it and it creates jobs but the jobs from theses companies are the direct trickle down effect that comes from companies that are not government related. Every job truly created comes from non-government jobs. That is a fact you can google economics and the overwhelming majority of econ scholars would agree.

Side: No
dave93(85) Disputed
0 points

Well then how did the great depression end? Was it not because of programs under FDR such as the CCC? What you are arguing is that Hoover's decision to leave the economy alone would yield better results than FDR's New Deal. Well, historically, that is extremely incorrect, since Hoover himself admitted his mistake and though fiscally conservative, enacted changes that led to the U.S. government spending money to ease suffering in the Great Depression

Side: yes
5 points

Well then how did the great depression end?

The Great Depression ended because of government spending subsided and private investment ensued.

Government spending is not economically necessary to end a downturn or depression; it is economic poison. In today’s economic context, the antidote is first and foremost a massive reduction in government spending preferably tax cuts are desirable, but only once our deficit is cut, which means fix the entitlement programs.

What you are arguing is that Hoover's decision to leave the economy alone would yield better results than FDR's New Deal?

Precisely, with the huge explosion of government spending, deficit spending protracted the Depression.

Well, historically, that is extremely incorrect, since Hoover himself admitted his mistake and though fiscally conservative, enacted changes that led to the U.S. government spending money to ease suffering in the Great Depression.

Where is the proof that Hoover recanted his guilt of faulty policies?

Supporting Evidence: Timeline (www.huppi.com)
Side: No
3 points

The government can't create jobs in the private sector because companies have to do the hiring. The government can't create wealth because it is not infinitely rich. To keep "creating wealth" it would have to generate revenue, most likely from taxes.

Side: No
3 points

If government only takes, how can it create? Look at Robin Hood!

He never created wealth, he only took wealth from the wealthy.

Side: No
1 point

no of course,but sometimes......for e.g the indian govt,select a govt. job....after few days..u'll feel wht the thing i am?????am i a robot?????

they will use u like a broom...if u work well.one of my uncle came 2 india ...got a govt. job...and now....

he became bald....his bp rose higher....he started singing and dancing in his bathroom....at last he came 2 canada and now he is working in a private company,he is looking better than b4.that's why be careful......govt. job sucks!!!!!!

Side: No
1 point

Government can if they stand back and not mingle and choke business with too much regulation and taxes. Which is what Obama wants and is why he is going to get served Nov 2 he is such an ideologue that even then it won't sink in why he lost his majority.

Side: No
1 point

The problem right now is the lack of leadership in Washington and at the front of it starts with Obama. He is so unenthusiastic on his speeches. I remember the great president Ronald Reagan when he would speak the whole nation would watch him with optimism because he believed that each individual new best what was good for them and believed in the American dream. Ronald Reagan at the beginning of his presidency had over 10% unemployment ski high interest rates in the high teens and cold war with Russia. At the end was low interest rates unemployment to 5.3% and was the main reason for the end of the Cold war and the Berlin wall coming down. In his presidency over16 million new jobs and a huge expansion of personal wealth. He also did this with a Democratic majority both House and Senate. He also was the reason why people have the mortgage tax deduction on homes. If Obama wanted to learn how to be a good president he should take a hard look at him.

I guess the point of all this is that Obama plays the blame game and he has no reason too he had both majority in both houses but because of his weak leadership and policies and his hardcore anti-colonialist ideology he has separated himself from the average American and his own party. It's not just republicans voting against him I know alot of Democrats who are voting against their own party come this midterm.

I'm a part of that I voted for Obama and like many others we feel that we have been severely lied too about what he was going to do and that was focus on the economy with a laser like focus. Instead he wants to tax those who create jobs the small business anybody making 250k a year. Those people who make that much by the way are usually owners of a small business with 4 employees so it is absolutely ludicrous to think that this is good. It's so obvious to those out there and we will make our correction come Nov 2nd to stop all of his madness.

Side: No
1 point

Well this one kills jobs and is proven by all the exemptions.... a job killer.

If it is so right then why????????
Side: No
1 point

if Americans leader can't stop shipping our good jobs overseas then we are doomed! Americans cant continue to make ends meet or put food on the table by: Jim cutting Sally's lawn, Bob washing Teddy's business suits, or Fred removing dog poop from Sally's lawn!As time goes by, slowly but surely The rich get richer and the poor get more poor!!We have to manufactore things here in America to maintain a strong middle class!

Side: No
1 point

Government can not create anything without first taking it from someone else. This is known as wealth transfer. But it is not creating any new wealth only redistributing wealth which someone else has created. Any job a gov't makes removes the potential jobs in the private sector to pay for that job! So the net jobs is a loss of 3 jobs to each one made by government. Plus the tax share of the jobs left now goes up! Government should never think about getting into the job or wealth business!

Side: No

Government spending is consumption, and spending doesn't create jobs or wealth, it consumes. Only savings and production creates jobs and wealth.

Side: NO

Government creates "jobs" and "wealth." They give unemployed men jobs hitting bricks with eating utensils and pay them for it so that they can say "Look, unemployment is down and GDP is up! See, government does work!"

Side: NO
1 point

Firstly lets split this question into the following two for better analysis:

1. Can government crate wealth?

2. Can government create jobs?

Answer to first question:

Well before we can even start answering this question we must first solve the following conundrum:

What creates wealth? From where does wealth come from?

Luckily for us economic science solved this conundrum already. - The wealth comes from the more efficient use (or in other words from better utilization, or in yet another more economic jargon better allocation) of scarce resources.

This and only this creates wealth.

Thus in order to find out if government can create wealth we cannot just look if government employees can combine the factors of production in order to create something what has some value.

Just building some building or providing some service is not an act of wealth creation itself.

In order to consider output of particular combination of production factors as an addition to the wealth of our society we must first consider the following:

Does the value of this product or service outweighs the cost of production?

But this is little tricky. We do not measure costs in money in economics. The true cost of anything is always paid in opportunities or in another words the cost of anything is always measured in its opportunity cost.

In short opportunity cost can be illustrated by following example:

If you can choose only one from two investments which are in every aspect equal except for their yield such as:

Investment A yield in dollars 1000

Involvement B yield in dollars 999

If you choose B you will be in economic loss of 1 dollar.

Your benefit is 999 dollars but your opportunity cost is 1000. You are in economic loss.

If you choose A your benefit is 1000 and your opportunity cost is 999 so you have an 1 dollar economic profit or in other words you created a 1 dollar worth of wealth.

Insofar, in order for government to create a wealth, its representatives must not just manage to create something new or something profitable or valuable but to create something which outweigh all opportunity costs associated with it.

It is not sufficient to show that police, welfare and so on have value. Of course all of this has some value. But is value of those services an other things provided by government higher than their opportunity costs?

Economic science again already given us answer. Here is a long story short:

In all areas where there are no market failures or I should better say failures to have a market the answer is clear no. In this case government cannot allocate scarce resources more efficiently than private sector.

In a few areas where market failures such as negative or positive externalities or excessive market power are present on could argue IN THEORY that government can produce wealth, PROVIDED that it can solve these market failures more efficiently as a private sector itself can.

Thus yes there is theoretical possibility that for example:

Under assumptions that education yields positive externality (which we can really only assume) subsidizing education could lead to more efficient allocation of scarce resources provided that the opportunity cost of this subsidy (dead-weight loss from taxation and transfers which enabled this subsidy etc etc, list of all opportunity cost could go on and on) is lower than the benefit from this positive externality (which so far we cannot measure, it can be only estimated at best, if there even is a positive externality) government can create a wealth, provided that this positive externality could not be subsidized more efficiently from private sources.

So yes in theory government in some rare cases might be able to actually create a wealth but we cannot measure it so far and until we will be able to measure it we can only hypothesize on whether government can create wealth.

In all those cases in which government cannot allocate, or I should better say help people to allocate, our scarce resources more efficiently, it actually destroys wealth.

Thus just this Econ 101 concepts shows that things are much more complicated as people who are not trained economic professionals often think (BTW. It is sad that Econ is not aught in schools as much as literature or history etc.).

Now to the second question:

Can government create jobs?

Answer is simple. Yes it can.

Even digging holes in middle of the dessert and then filling them again is a job.

Even jumping on one leg can be a job.

So yes government can create jobs.

But question should be rather if government can crate a jobs which are efficient. Jobs which are not efficient are only a dead-weight for the country's economy and those actually destroy wealth should not even be created. The whole society is actually better off without such inefficient jobs.

In order to answer question whether government can create jobs which are efficient read the question one again. The answer is exactly same.

There is a hypothetical possibility that government can crate efficient job in some rare case that there are market failures or rather failures to have a functioning market in some labor markets present, but there is no way to measure it.

So to sum it up can government create wealth and jobs? The answer is that there is no way to measure it. In theory it could, but the real life shows that governments rather destroy wealth and create only inefficient jobs.

However, we can for sure tell that private sector can and is creating wealth and efficient jobs.

Side: NO

The general idea of creating jobs and wealth is about efficiency but importantly it is productivity. It is the premise that by this job existing it increases the standard of living for the individual and the economy. Government jobs are unproductive because these jobs destroy wealth by consumption due to the fact that money was transferred only from one hand to the other. Nothing was exchanged in the process where no money, labor or capital was previously engaged prior to the transfer.

Side: NO
1 point

Your conclusion is Yes and Theoretically, but your argument is posted under NO.

?

Side: YES