Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    You're ignoring the obvious.... Only the wealthy can afford to buy the influence of politicians.

    And they can only buy power from politicians if we give the politican the power for them to sell. The more power they have the more there is to sell and the more they WILL sell. That's how it works.

     

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    They think Bernake writing a really big number of a yellow stickie and handing it to a data entry clerk is wealth creation.

     

     

    Except nobody anywhere thinks that, least of all Bernanke.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Right.  That's why he's doing it to the tune of 80 billion a month for the last five years.  Yep, you are right on top of it.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    In order to head off any possibility of a housing/real estate bubble, the central gov't is imposing caps on the price of real estate and housing.

    http://business.financialpost.com/2013/03/13/chinas-property-bubble-will-burst-in-latter-half-of-2013-says-research-firm/

    And it will fail. Price controls ALWAYS fail.

     

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    Private investment is just as corruptible as public investment.

    The fallacy is in thinking that average investors have any real sway within a game that's rigged toward the wealthiest few.

     

     

     




    True but, private investment is held responsible by the free market while public investment is a history of waste and abuse with no accountibility.

     

     



    Kind of the opposite.  We can vote out govt officials (though we often don't), but we can't vote out shady accountants and CEOs.  And the free market seldom has much concern about policing itself...hence the need for regulators and rules.

     "...but we can't vote out shady accountants and CEOs. "

    Of course we can, and the free market does this all the time.  Shady accountants and CEOs often exist because the government enables them and subsidizes them.

    Today's government has zero concern about policing itself, since liberals have expanded the Nanny State's authority to dictatorial levels... the notion of limited government is now antiquated.

     

    The truly free market polices itself; true competition will weed out the shady operators, and reward the efficient producers of great products and services. Instead the Nanny State rewards businesses like GE who "play ball" with politicians...

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    Private investment is just as corruptible as public investment.

    The fallacy is in thinking that average investors have any real sway within a game that's rigged toward the wealthiest few.

     

     

     




    True but, private investment is held responsible by the free market while public investment is a history of waste and abuse with no accountibility.

     

     



    Kind of the opposite.  We can vote out govt officials (though we often don't), but we can't vote out shady accountants and CEOs.  And the free market seldom has much concern about policing itself...hence the need for regulators and rules.

     "...but we can't vote out shady accountants and CEOs. "

    Of course we can, and the free market does this all the time.  Shady accountants and CEOs often exist because the government enables them and subsidizes them.

    Today's government has zero concern about policing itself, since liberals have expanded the Nanny State's authority to dictatorial levels... the notion of limited government is now antiquated.

     

    The truly free market polices itself; true competition will weed out the shady operators, and reward the efficient producers of great products and services. Instead the Nanny State rewards businesses like GE who "play ball" with politicians...




    Well said.

    Don't expect the progressives to get it.  Rather than take personal responsibility and initiative, they think there is something magical that happens when government does it:  it get's better, cheaper, and faster.  Unfortunately, if fails almost every time.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Of course we can, and the free market does this all the time.  Shady accountants and CEOs often exist because the government enables them and subsidizes them.

    Today's government has zero concern about policing itself, since liberals have expanded the Nanny State's authority to dictatorial levels... the notion of limited government is now antiquated.

     




     

    Your ideological ignorance is quite becoming on you.

    So tell us again how it was the 'libruls' who passed the largest, unfunded expansion of Medicare with the Part D benefit.

    Or how it was the 'librul' administration who went to Congress, hat in hand, asking for trillions of dollars to bail-out Wall St firms from a fate of their own creation. How a 'librul' administration famously stated; "We have to abandon the free market in order to save it."

     

    How does it feel to be so self-deluded about reality that you feel the need to project your own personal failures onto others?

    [/QUOTE]

    That's check and mate on this subject.  When push came to shove, half the GOP would not eat its own dog food - their solution was massive government spending.  You're never going to see Dems react in panic by slashing spending.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelldog1. Show kelldog1's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

     

     WAKE UP!  LOOK AROUND THE WORLD, BRAZIL, TURKEY, SYRIA, THE OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTS HERE IN THE US....HECK EVEN THE ARAB SPRING WAS IGNITED BY ECONOMIC DECLINE AND DISPARITY.....

    CAPITALISM MAY BE A "GREAT INVENTION, BUT IT IS A MAN MADE INVENTION AND QUITE FLAWED.

    WE ARE WITNESSING WHAT HAPPENS IN SOCIETIES WHEN WEALTH BECOMES TOO CONCENTRATED.....REVOLUTIONS USUALLY ENSUE.

    PEOPLE DESERVE THE OPPORTUNITY AND DIGNITY TO WORK AND MAKE A LIVING WAGE.

     I BELIEVE THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN  RIGHT.

    IF THE "PRIVATE SECTOR" FAILS TO CREATE EMPLOYMENT IT IS UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN WITH FISCAL STIMULUS AND PROGRAMS TO CREATE JOBS. BY INVESTING IN INFRASTRUCTURE, FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, ETC....THE GOVERNMENT CAN CREATE JOBS, STRENGHTHEN THE ECONOMY, AND HELP THE USA BECOME MORE  COMPETITIVE ON A GLOBAL BASIS


    THE RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES HERE AND AROUND THE WORLD AREN'T TOO BRIGHT. YOU WOULD THINK THAT THEY WOULD PLACATE THE UNDERCLASS....WITH LIVING WAGES, QUALITY OF LIFE, ETC BUT IT SEEMS THEY ARE A GREEDY, ARROGANT BUNCH AND DON'T GIVE A SHITE!

    HERE'S A CLUE ...THE 1% ARE OUTNUMBERED BY THE 99%.

    THEY WILL LEARN A HARD LESSON. THE "REVOLUTION" HAS ALREADY BEGUN! ....AND IT WILL BE TELEVISED!!!!!!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    It's the job of the legislators to legislate. That is spelled out in the dang Constitution. How the heck can you take away a politicians "power" to write bills?

    You're getting warmer. A strict adherence to the Constitution by all branches of the federal government would go a very long way in curbing the corruption inherent in the kind of maaive beurocracy that we have today.

     

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrCricket. Show MrCricket's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]It's the job of the legislators to legislate. That is spelled out in the dang Constitution. How the heck can you take away a politicians "power" to write bills?

     

    You're getting warmer. A strict adherence to the Constitution by all branches of the federal government would go a very long way in curbing the corruption inherent in the kind of maaive beurocracy that we have today.

     

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

    [/QUOTE]

    how do you ensure that all branches of government strictly adhere to the constitution? ruling class corruption has been around since the beginning of capitalism and it will be around until the end of capitalism. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrCricket. Show MrCricket's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

     All throughout his new book, The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America, David A. Stockman is critical of the Chicago School, especially its intellectual leader during the last half of the twentieth century, Milton Friedman. He captures the irony of the so-called free-market Chicago School on the very first page of his introduction, where he writes of the “capture of the state, especially its central bank, the Federal Reserve, by crony capitalist forces deeply inimical to free markets and democracy.”

    This is a deep irony because it was Chicago School economists such as George Stigler who wrote of the “capture theory of regulation” when it came to the trucking industry, the airline industry, and many others. That is, they produced dozens of scholarly articles demonstrating how government regulatory agencies ostensibly created to regulate industry “in the public interest” are most often “captured” by the industry itself and then used not to protect the public but to enforce cartel pricing arrangements.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Of course we can, and the free market does this all the time.  Shady accountants and CEOs often exist because the government enables them and subsidizes them.

    Today's government has zero concern about policing itself, since liberals have expanded the Nanny State's authority to dictatorial levels... the notion of limited government is now antiquated.

     




     

    Your ideological ignorance is quite becoming on you.

    So tell us again how it was the 'libruls' who passed the largest, unfunded expansion of Medicare with the Part D benefit.

    Or how it was the 'librul' administration who went to Congress, hat in hand, asking for trillions of dollars to bail-out Wall St firms from a fate of their own creation. How a 'librul' administration famously stated; "We have to abandon the free market in order to save it."

     

    How does it feel to be so self-deluded about reality that you feel the need to project your own personal failures onto others?

    [/QUOTE]

    Not quite as delusional as you, sitting here six years into the Keynsian model dropping money out of helicopters, and the problem is no better, and likely worse.

    Free markets and restraining government are the only things that have a chance to save us.  Following the progressive path of we didn't spend enough, print enough money, take over enough of the economy, so we have to do more, ends in one place, and only one place, a nation of destitute serfs ruled by the government class.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Private investment is just as corruptible as public investment.

    The fallacy is in thinking that average investors have any real sway within a game that's rigged toward the wealthiest few.

     



    The game rigged towards the wealthiest few is enhanced by the current economic policies of print and spend that are embraced by Obama and the Keynesians.

    Bernanke's QE programs create money when they buy back government debt and buy assets like securitzed mortgages. The money goes to the banks. Who gets use of that money first? Peopele with money and access to the banks or the rest of us?

    Low interest rates and tighter lending requirements also favor wealthier people and corporations. Who gets access to loans? Poor people with lousy credit, or wealthier people with good credit and plenty of cash?

    As much as you might like an egalitarian society, you generally cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear (you can but you'd have to be a chemist). Ultimately it is up to people to improve their status on their own. 

    What do poor people get from government spending? Some get continued benefits or get to keep their jobs (teachers, etc.). That does not help grow the economy. Why? Weren't most people already getting wages and benefits? Obama's stimulus just maintained the status quo?

    Government spending does not directly take away jobs from the private sector, but where does the money come from? It is either from taxes or from borrowing, both of which take money from the private sector. Certainly you'd have to agree that if the private sector got to keep more of thier money, that wouldn't mean that jobs were created. But you'd also have to agree that taking money away from the private sector does not help with creating new jobs.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Of course we can, and the free market does this all the time.  Shady accountants and CEOs often exist because the government enables them and subsidizes them.

    Today's government has zero concern about policing itself, since liberals have expanded the Nanny State's authority to dictatorial levels... the notion of limited government is now antiquated.

     




     

    Your ideological ignorance is quite becoming on you.

    So tell us again how it was the 'libruls' who passed the largest, unfunded expansion of Medicare with the Part D benefit.

    Or how it was the 'librul' administration who went to Congress, hat in hand, asking for trillions of dollars to bail-out Wall St firms from a fate of their own creation. How a 'librul' administration famously stated; "We have to abandon the free market in order to save it."

     

    How does it feel to be so self-deluded about reality that you feel the need to project your own personal failures onto others?

    [/QUOTE]

    Part D is not the only part of Medicare that is not funded. The rest of it is under-funded too. Neither situation has been addressed by "libruls" - EVER. So whining about Bush getting Part D passed is hypocritical if you are doing anything about it either.

    Both parties were complicit in bailing out the banks. Key among the drivers was Timothy Geithner who was head of the NY Fed. Oh, isn't he the "librul"  Obama's Sec'y of the Treasury, who also cheated on his income taxes? 

    Obama has been in office for over 4 years.How many banking officials have even been investigated, nevermind indicted or convicted? How many times has Obama said "no crimes were committed"?

    Google "William Black" if you want to learn more about how banks are getting away with fraud while "libruls" with the power to prosecute say "no crimes were committed". He made several presentations to OWS rallies. I am guessing you were too busy pooping in the bushes to have listened to him rake "libruls" over the coals??

    Stop pointing at one side or the other. They are both to blame.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    Government spending does not directly take away jobs from the private sector, but where does the money come from?

    There comes a point at which government spending DOES take away jobs from the private sector. No one is arguing against the obvious shared need for defense and basic infrastructure, the legitimate and necessary use of government. The problems arise when goverment expands beyond the essential and taxes must be levied to support it. 

    Just imagine how much better off we'd be if, instead of "investing" in a bunch of destined to fail green businesses, that money was available to be invested in wealth producing concerns. These are where new jobs come from and the taxes that provide the foundation to support government services.

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]Government spending does not directly take away jobs from the private sector, but where does the money come from?

     

    There comes a point at which government spending DOES take away jobs from the private sector. No one is arguing against the obvious shared need for defense and basic infrastructure, the legitimate and necessary use of government. The problems arise when goverment expands beyond the essential and taxes must be levied to support it. 

    Just imagine how much better off we'd be if, instead of "investing" in a bunch of destined to fail green businesses, that money was available to be invested in wealth producing concerns. These are where new jobs come from and the taxes that provide the foundation to support government services.

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree, but I said "directly" because they can borrow money and spend it. Maybe it is picking hairs.

    They really f'd up with that hand out to Obama's friends in green energy. It was nothing more than laundering taxpayer money to give to the DNC.

    If they were really interested in alternative nergy they would have invested in companies that could produce clean energy to replace fossil fuels. RIght now that would be more in R&D for things like fusion or fuel cells, etc. BUt no, they gave the $ to their political pals that make electric cars that have to be charged by electricity from dirty fossil fuel plants.

    The Obama Administration has politicized virtually the entire bureaucracy. Tax payer money is being laundered. THey might as well just give it to the DNC.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]Government spending does not directly take away jobs from the private sector, but where does the money come from?

     

    There comes a point at which government spending DOES take away jobs from the private sector. No one is arguing against the obvious shared need for defense and basic infrastructure, the legitimate and necessary use of government. The problems arise when goverment expands beyond the essential and taxes must be levied to support it. 

    Just imagine how much better off we'd be if, instead of "investing" in a bunch of destined to fail green businesses, that money was available to be invested in wealth producing concerns. These are where new jobs come from and the taxes that provide the foundation to support government services.

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not in the long run.  Environmental concerns aside, suppose our energy research is driven only by bottom lines.  That money stays in the hands of 'investors' to spend as they choose.  Meanhwile, China's research is driven by population growth and the fact that their air is so polluted that factory fires go un-detected.  Which country would you bet on to reduce dependence on fossil fuels?  And when that country finds a way to affordably power a modern home with minimal sunlight and wind, where do you think that investor money will turn?

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    Then fund basic not-for-profit research at accredited academic research facilities slomag and let the investors do their jobs in picking the marketplace winner and loser technologies. That's a much better scenario than allowing some politician the opportunity to direct money to friends and supporters (usually in exchange for a campaign contribution.)

     

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why govt spending doesnt create jobs

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Then fund basic not-for-profit research at accredited academic research facilities slomag and let the investors do their jobs in picking the marketplace winner and loser technologies. That's a much better scenario than allowing some politician the opportunity to direct money to friends and supporters (usually in exchange for a campaign contribution.)

     

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.




    That brings us back to the the original point of the thread - what creates more jobs: funding not-for-profit research at a university or funding several competing companies within the wind and solar energy industries?  I agree that the door is open for cronyism, but energy isn't just a commodity - it's a national security concern.  Companies like Solyndra are akin to defense contractors, and all things being equal, providing funding to a cross-section of renewable energy companies is much less prone to cronyism and corruption, and far more exposed to oversigh, than the traditional defense contractor model.

     

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share