$278,000 per Stimulus job

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Ironic that even before I saw this post I was going to comment that the stimulus bill is to Democrats as the Iraq invasion is to Republicans: an ill-considered, expensive, indefensible action that neither side could adequately justify beforehand, nor is willing to admit never achieved its stated goals...but only because resources were inadequate.

 

You're all retards.

Retarded to try and pump up the economy in a deep recession? To give people jobs while local and state goverments are cutting jobs?

[DC Tom]

Retarded to try and pump up the economy in a deep recession? To give people jobs while local and state goverments are cutting jobs?

 

If you think that people are "given" jobs, you're too retarded to even comprehend why the other retards are retarded.

[Magox]

If you think that people are "given" jobs, you're too retarded to even comprehend why the other retards are retarded.

DC you nailed it! Thats part of the problem with todays liberals thinktank. They believe that jobs should be created by government money in order to stimulate the economy enough to get it going into a self-sustaining mode. The problem is that if jobs are just "given" just so that they are just "given", then chances are that its wasteful, that it wont be a self-sustaining job.

 

I've made this comparison before, those that know me have heard me say a few times, that the strategy behind the stimulus was to serve as a bridge. That on one side of the bridge was before the recovery on the other side THE recovery. The distance I have argued has always been way too distant for there to be a bridge built. We simply dont have the resources to build a bridge that long.

 

In order to improve the economy, it has to be structurally changed.

 

Such as:

 

1) Improve economic relations with growing economies, this is our best hope to produce more goods to be sold.

 

2) Improve the tax code, schumpterian economic philosphy highlighted innovation. If companies have more capital to work with, it improves their odds to innovate.

 

3) Again, regarding innovation, we have to do something about improving our educational system, throwing more money at it isn't the only solution. Also, we have to have more job retraining programs subsidized by the government. Too many people are without job skills today.

 

4) reduce the overall size of government, if the size of government is smaller, then taxes will go down, if taxes go down, then we all have more money to buy things with.

 

These are just a few ideas, but the idea of "giving" a job just to "give" a job will get you the exact result of what we are seeing today. Which is that the "stimulus" bill gave us a temporary bump in jobs, and once the money ran out, job hiring went back down.

 

Thats why the idea of a stimulus bill was never a well though out idea.

[IDBillzFan]

DC you nailed it! Thats part of the problem with todays liberals thinktank. They believe that jobs should be created by government money in order to stimulate the economy enough to get it going into a self-sustaining mode.

I read a new Paul Krugman article this morning (he's always good for a laugh), and in a nutshell he highlights the one basic belief by liberals as to why no one is hiring. To quote his article linked here: "...businesses aren’t holding back because they lack confidence in government policies; they’re holding back because they don’t have enough customers — a problem that would be made worse, not better, by short-term spending cuts."

 

Compare that with Marco Rubio's outstanding speech yesterday linked here, where he states "We don't need new taxes. We need new taxpayers," and adds "I have never met a job creator who told me that they were waiting for the next tax increase before they started growing their business. I've never met a single job creator who's ever said to me I can't wait until government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job."

 

The fact of the matter is that ANYONE paying attention to private companies have heard them say over and over and over again that they are not hiring specifically because they lack confidence in government policies and regulations. Krugman can say whatever he wants to keep his high readership within the ranks of the progressive left, but for a guy who supposedly earned a Nobel Prize for economics, he's a freaking nitwit.

[Magox]

I read a new Paul Krugman article this morning (he's always good for a laugh), and in a nutshell he highlights the one basic belief by liberals as to why no one is hiring. To quote his article linked here: "...businesses aren’t holding back because they lack confidence in government policies; they’re holding back because they don’t have enough customers — a problem that would be made worse, not better, by short-term spending cuts."

 

Compare that with Marco Rubio's outstanding speech yesterday linked here, where he states "We don't need new taxes. We need new taxpayers," and adds "I have never met a job creator who told me that they were waiting for the next tax increase before they started growing their business. I've never met a single job creator who's ever said to me I can't wait until government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job."

 

The fact of the matter is that ANYONE paying attention to private companies have heard them say over and over and over again that they are not hiring specifically because they lack confidence in government policies and regulations. Krugman can say whatever he wants to keep his high readership within the ranks of the progressive left, but for a guy who supposedly earned a Nobel Prize for economics, he's a freaking nitwit.

Krugman is an economic philosopher who doesnt have the slightest clue in what small businesses need in order to have job growth.

[DC Tom]

Krugman is an economic philosopher who doesnt have the slightest clue in what small businesses need in order to have job growth.

[GG]

Krugman is the Donald Trump of economists. People think that he's an economist by trade, while he earns most of his income from his name and ready access to media.

[Barack Obama]

Krugman is the Donald Trump of economists. People think that he's an economist by trade, while he earns most of his income from his name and ready access to media.

 

Krugman won a Nobel Prize. That takes a ton of talent and effort, trust me I know.

[Magox]

Krugman won a Nobel Prize. That takes a ton of talent and effort, trust me I know.

[TPS]

In order to improve the economy, it has to be structurally changed.

 

Such as:

 

1) Improve economic relations with growing economies, this is our best hope to produce more goods to be sold.

 

2) Improve the tax code, schumpterian economic philosphy highlighted innovation. If companies have more capital to work with, it improves their odds to innovate.

 

3) Again, regarding innovation, we have to do something about improving our educational system, throwing more money at it isn't the only solution. Also, we have to have more job retraining programs subsidized by the government. Too many people are without job skills today.

 

4) reduce the overall size of government, if the size of government is smaller, then taxes will go down, if taxes go down, then we all have more money to buy things with.

 

These are just a few ideas, but the idea of "giving" a job just to "give" a job will get you the exact result of what we are seeing today. Which is that the "stimulus" bill gave us a temporary bump in jobs, and once the money ran out, job hiring went back down.

 

Thats why the idea of a stimulus bill was never a well though out idea.

 

I sort of agree with most of what you say. #1 is kind of vague though. We have good economic relations with the BRICKs don't we? What else should be done?

I completely agree about Schumpeter, as I use him all the time in my classes. However, I don't know that tax cuts lead to innovations. I'd rather move toward stronger partnerships with Higher Ed and Corps and research. Not that I am against a tax cut for corps, rather I'm sceptical that a tax cut will significantly increase innovations?

Is there a magic bullet to fix k-12 education when the social system is completely f'd up?

 

The last one is difficult: what's the optimal size of government? Those on the right seem to think that the private sector will miraculously fill a void if government shrinks. That is true to a certain extent. However, government's role since WW2 has been to generate additional consumption. Government spends a trillion or two dollars every year to maintain demand in the economy. This is my general macroeconomic view. My libertarian view is that the beast must be starved because the congressional whores funnel money to those who pay them most...

Edited July 11, 2011 by TPS

[Rob's House]

I sort of agree with most of what you say. #1 is kind of vague though. We have good economic relations with the BRICKs don't we? What else should be done?

I completely agree about Schumpeter, as I use him all the time in my classes. However, I don't know that tax cuts lead to innovations. I'd rather move toward stronger partnerships with Higher Ed and Corps and research. Not that I am against a tax cut for corps, rather I'm sceptical that a tax cut will significantly increase innovations?

1. Is there a magic bullet to fix k-12 education when the social system is completely f'd up?

 

The last one is difficult: what's the optimal size of government? Those on the right seem to think that the private sector will miraculously fill a void if government shrinks. That is true to a certain extent. However, government's role since WW2 has been to generate additional consumption. 2. Government spends a trillion or two dollars every year to maintain demand in the economy. This is my general macroeconomic view. My libertarian view is that the beast must be starved because the congressional whores funnel money to those who pay them most...

1. More federal funding.

 

2. Since the only money the government spends is money that is taken out of the private sector via taxes (or borrowed and therefore must be paid back) there is actually no additional demand, as that money would be used by it's original owners had it not been taxed to begin with.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Rob's House

[Magox]

I sort of agree with most of what you say. #1 is kind of vague though. We have good economic relations with the BRICKs don't we? What else should be done?

I completely agree about Schumpeter, as I use him all the time in my classes. However, I don't know that tax cuts lead to innovations. I'd rather move toward stronger partnerships with Higher Ed and Corps and research. Not that I am against a tax cut for corps, rather I'm sceptical that a tax cut will significantly increase innovations?

Is there a magic bullet to fix k-12 education when the social system is completely f'd up?

 

The last one is difficult: what's the optimal size of government? Those on the right seem to think that the private sector will miraculously fill a void if government shrinks. That is true to a certain extent. However, government's role since WW2 has been to generate additional consumption. Government spends a trillion or two dollars every year to maintain demand in the economy. This is my general macroeconomic view. My libertarian view is that the beast must be starved because the congressional whores funnel money to those who pay them most...

It's hard for me to go into detail in how we can improve our trade relations with the BRIC and periphery nations, but I have some examples of how we could. Make concessions with China about things that we do that bother them in exchange for lifting certain tariffs. The point is that I would have U.S emissaries sent there all the time, meaning that it would be a central focus of my administration to do what it takes to increase our sales of our goods to them. Effort, maximum effort combined with concessions. I know that sounds broad, but I absolutely believe much more can be done.

 

 

In regards to tax breaks = more innovation, well, I'm not advocating that this is the only form of promoting innovations as I noted in #3. But it's rather simple, if you don't have money, then your odds of innovating more lessens, if you have more, then your capabilities go up. And since we live in capitlistic society that is extremely competitive, fighting for profits, higher stock shares etc. I absolutely believe there is enough incentive for the top companies to try to allocate more funds to innovate in the name of the almighty profit and higher share price. So yes, I do believe it is a key component. NOt the only, but a key one.

 

I don't have an extreme view in reducing the size of government, but I do know that if you continue to keep spending much more than what you are raising in revenues, then eventually a problem will come about. I also do know that the states that have the highest tax rates in the U.S are the ones who have the largest debt burdens, I also do know that the nanny state governments across Europe FOR THE MOST PART, are all facing major problems and the hurdles are becoming much higher to overcome than what they were before, and if you look at their gross spending to the overall economy and the high taxes that they had always implemented to pay for their government services, you will see that high taxation isn't the solution.

 

So, while I do agree there has to be a balance, I would say that things are way too heavily tilted to the spending side. So heavily tilted that I do believe we have to raise taxes. Maybe in the future if and when we can get ourselves to a more manageable situation, we will be able to lower taxes, and I dont just mean federal, I mean state and local.

[TPS]

1. More federal funding.

 

2. Since the only money the government spends is money that is taken out of the private sector via taxes (or borrowed and therefore must be paid back) there is actually no additional demand, as that money would be used by it's original owners had it not been taxed to begin with.

Is the sarcasm button supposed to be on with #1?

 

As for 2, since the government has essentially been accumulating debt for the past 100 years or so, when exactly will it pay the money back? Or, are you saying that IF the government actually paid the money back 100 years from now, that the decrease in demand next century offsets the increase in demand this year? Finally, since the FED has purchased about $1 trillion in treasuries over the past year or so, who pays that back?

[Rob's House]

Is the sarcasm button supposed to be on with #1?

 

As for 2, since the government has essentially been accumulating debt for the past 100 years or so, when exactly will it pay the money back? Or, are you saying that IF the government actually paid the money back 100 years from now, that the decrease in demand next century offsets the increase in demand this year? Finally, since the FED has purchased about $1 trillion in treasuries over the past year or so, who pays that back?

1. Yes

 

2. Then the spending is an artificial hike in demand and we're seeing now where that kind of shortsighted fiscal irresponsibility gets us.

[TPS]

1. Yes

 

2. Then the spending is an artificial hike in demand and we're seeing now where that kind of shortsighted fiscal irresponsibility gets us.

How is government demand artificial? If the government borrows money then pays unemployed urban youth to clean parks, make trails, etc, and those kids spend their money on whatever they choose, how is that artificial demand?

 

I don't disagree that government is too large and wastes a lot of resources, but that libertarian argument that government can't create wealth just doesn't fly. The reason the private sector is accumulating assets (household savings rate is up and businesses are accumulating profits) is becuase of government deficits--this follows from national income accounting. It wasn't a coincidence that the private sector was running deficits when government ran surpluses from 1999-2001.

 

I agree with the short-sightedness, especially the supply-side policies that racked up huge deficits after the Clinton surpluses....

[IDBillzFan]

How is government demand artificial? If the government borrows money then pays unemployed urban youth to clean parks, make trails, etc, and those kids spend their money on whatever they choose, how is that artificial demand?

How much do we pay the urban youth to do this? We'll assume it includes insurance for workman's comp, right? Did you factor that in to the cost? What percentage of unemployed urban youth will be employed? Half of them? All of them? Only 10% of them? How much do we have to borrow relative to our return on investment. In other words, we need goals, so if we borrow X amount to pay these kids,, we need them to put Y back into the economy, right? What are the goals to ensure this happens? Got a business plan, do you?

 

Also, when they're done cleaning parks and making trails, what will they do next? I mean, you only have so many parks to clean and trails to make. What then? Surely these aren't temporary jobs, right? And you can't fire them because then you have to pay them unemployment, which kind of defeats the purpose of hiring them in the first place. Do they get health insurance? Pensions? Are they unionized, and if they're not, will the unions be okay when the urban youth starts doing jobs that the unions typically do?

 

When you're done answering those questions, come back to earth, have a drink of water, and think hard about how little you know about what you're suggesting.

 

It's easy to stand up and say things like "We need to get to work. We need shared sacrifice. We need to eat our peas." Anyone idiot can do it, as you have undoubtedly noticed lately.

 

Wait. Let me guess. You're just an ideas guy, right? Borrow money to pay kids to clean parks. It's brilliant. Let someone else figure out the details.

 

Oh...another brilliant idea? Take live tuna fish, and FEED them mayonnaise.

 

Oh, man, this is great stuff.

 

I can't wait to hear your other ideas.

[TPS]

How much do we pay the urban youth to do this? We'll assume it includes insurance for workman's comp, right? Did you factor that in to the cost? What percentage of unemployed urban youth will be employed? Half of them? All of them? Only 10% of them? How much do we have to borrow relative to our return on investment. In other words, we need goals, so if we borrow X amount to pay these kids,, we need them to put Y back into the economy, right? What are the goals to ensure this happens? Got a business plan, do you?

 

Also, when they're done cleaning parks and making trails, what will they do next? I mean, you only have so many parks to clean and trails to make. What then? Surely these aren't temporary jobs, right? And you can't fire them because then you have to pay them unemployment, which kind of defeats the purpose of hiring them in the first place. Do they get health insurance? Pensions? Are they unionized, and if they're not, will the unions be okay when the urban youth starts doing jobs that the unions typically do?

 

When you're done answering those questions, come back to earth, have a drink of water, and think hard about how little you know about what you're suggesting.

 

It's easy to stand up and say things like "We need to get to work. We need shared sacrifice. We need to eat our peas." Anyone idiot can do it, as you have undoubtedly noticed lately.

 

Wait. Let me guess. You're just an ideas guy, right? Borrow money to pay kids to clean parks. It's brilliant. Let someone else figure out the details.

 

Oh...another brilliant idea? Take live tuna fish, and FEED them mayonnaise.

 

Oh, man, this is great stuff.

 

I can't wait to hear your other ideas.

Dude, This was an example, in response to the argument that "government demand is artificial," which is why I said "if the government" did this....

If you get worked up over me making up an example, you need to take a vacation or have a few beers.

 

That said, there are govt programs that fund these types of activities.

[IDBillzFan]

Dude, This was an example, in response to the argument that "government demand is artificial,"

A really, really bad example, but okay. It was an example. I'm glad to hear you're really not that stupid.

[Rob's House]

Dude, This was an example, in response to the argument that "government demand is artificial," which is why I said "if the government" did this....

If you get worked up over me making up an example, you need to take a vacation or have a few beers.

 

That said, there are govt programs that fund these types of activities.

Apparently you didn't understand the original argument to begin with. The assertion was that the demand created by government would be created by the private sector because the money the government uses to create that demand is first confiscated from people and businesses who would otherwise use that money, and would therefore have created roughly the same amount of demand.

 

The artificial demand is the spending of money that was not taxed, but rather borrowed, which in the short term creates demand, but it also creates debt, and you see where that's gotten us.

[TPS]

A really, really bad example, but okay. It was an example. I'm glad to hear you're really not that stupid.

Gee, I wish I was a smart as you.