GOP Gets Their Wish - Unemployment is Up

[DontBeStupid]

It's sad that schools do not teach the basic economic fact that Governments Consume Capital. The more Government Consumes, the lower the resulting economic growth and job creation.

GDP = C+I+G+X-M

Want to try your statement again?

I'd like to see you explain how that translates into real job creation..and what kinds of jobs are created when government spends money on just making government bigger...and how that impacts the private sector.

And then overlay the impact of massive increases in regulation.

No problem. First though, what do you consider a "real job" because I know that many on these boards don't want to count certain jobs as "real".

 

[kaz]

It's sad that schools do not teach the basic economic fact that Governments Consume Capital. The more Government Consumes, the lower the resulting economic growth and job creation.

GDP = C+I+G+X-M

Want to try your statement again?

Demonstrating her point?

I've already explained this to you. While G is in the equation, which you cling to like a little boy who found a candy bar, G comes out of the private sector. The private sector would have spent it to create value (i.e., make an evil profit), Government just spends it. I agreed with you that the money doesn't disappear, but harm the economy it does. Even the most liberal of economists would agree with that. They might support government spending for ideological reasons, but they would not argue that government spending is as good as private spending.

 

[Neotrotsky]

It's sad that schools do not teach the basic economic fact that Governments Consume Capital. The more Government Consumes, the lower the resulting economic growth and job creation.

GDP = C+I+G+X-M

Want to try your statement again?

Why should he?
You are using a static equation which is really nothing more than an expenditure approach or output accounting method. It measures only one point in time. It is not dynamic

The poster is describing what is referred to as "crowding out" or a reduction in private consumption or investment that occurs because of an increase in government borrowing

Even Keynes, a favorite among statists, noted the effects of the government directly increasing employment on public works may include “increasing the rate of interest and so retarding investment in other directions.”

 

[kaz]

They want a smaller government. They want to shrink government.

Well, they got their wish and 39,000 people lost their jobs

Government is shrinking? Can I have some of what you're smoking? That's gotta be some great shit...

 

[DontBeStupid]

I've already explained this to you. While G is in the equation, which you cling to like a little boy who found a candy bar, G comes out of the private sector. The private sector would have spent it to create value (i.e., make an evil profit), Government just spends it. I agreed with you that the money doesn't disappear, but harm the economy it does. Even the most liberal of economists would agree with that. They might support government spending for ideological reasons, but they would not argue that government spending is as good as private spending.

Maybe you explained it and I missed it because your opinion makes no sense.

If a company makes $1B in profits, and the government takes $2M in taxes and uses it to hire workers to build a better road that leads consumers to that very company, how can you say that absolutely nothing of value has been created? How can you say that harms the economy when workers had jobs and more consumers can get to the business?

 

[mudwhistle]

The GOP leadership, and many on these boards, have been screaming forever now about smaller government. The need to shrink government. Well, what do you think that looks like? It looks like 39,000 people losing their jobs in one month.

This is what many conservatives wanted. Why isn't there more celebrating?

Probably because it's not worth celebrating.

To be honest, misery is the Democrats ally. Where do they get most of their support from?

From the poor. What better way to increase their base then to put more of us into that category.

Well sorta. See the misery caused by Conservative policy is an ally when you have to clean up the mess.

But I digress..lets try a real world example.

Once a upon a time, a shinning liberal city on a hill (well one with a natural harbor and not much of a hill) built the tallest buildings in the world. They were a symbol of liberal capitalism working together to generate wealth for everyone in the city. Then along came a conservative hero, lets call him Ronald Reagan, who wanted to slay the big bad commies in Afghanistan. But instead of taking them on, mano a mano, they funded conservative religious crazies to chop them to little bits. Then..another conservative hero, lets call him George HW Bush continued the policy and even did business with the family of one of the top conservative religious nuts, lets call him Osama Bin Laden.

Fast forward to the big bad evil villian, lets call him Bill Clinton. He said, that Osama Bin Laden was a badmother,,conservatives say "Shut your mouth"...

But he wants to attack America, says Clinton!

Conservatives say, Attack Iraq..they are the bad guys! And then..conservatives try to remove the villian Clinton from office.

The son of the old conservative hero, lets call him George W. without the H..Bush..assumes the throne. 8 months later...despite the warnings of the CIA, the villian Clinton and CNN..a plot to destroy the buildings the liberal city on the hill, succeeds! And lo and behold..it's the brother of a man that George W. Bush started a business with!! No way!

Those buildings took a decade to put up..and hours to knock down. They DID NOT get rebuilt during George W. Bush's administration.

The economy is sort of like that. Centuries to build up..and 8 short years to completely devastate.

Sorry chief..3 years ain't long enough to fix it. Especially when the very people that caused it to crash are working tooth and nail to make sure you don't.

The reason it's taking longer to build is because new safety measures have to be taken to built the buildings in hopes the thing doesn't collapse like a deck of cards again. The Freedom-Towers are going to be the most advanced design in the world by the time they're done.

But another reason it's taking so long is because it's tough to get anything done in a Liberal city. What used to take a matter of months now takes over a decade because environmental impact studies, every special interest group in the universe trying to put in their 2 cents on the construction, and what the buildings will contain had to be discussed to make sure every Tom, Dick, and Akmed is happy with it.

 

[kaz]

No problem. First though, what do you consider a "real job" because I know that many on these boards don't want to count certain jobs as "real".

A "real" job is a sustainable job. That means it has to create value. The worker contributes to the ongoing maintainability of their job itself by performing well.

A government job creates no value, it is ongoingly depended on the ability of politicians to plunder someone else who creates value which is not contributed to in any way by the government worker. So a government job is in itself parasitic, it is not sustainable on it's own, and it's not a real job.

 

[boedicca]

GDP = C+I+G+X-M

Want to try your statement again?

I'd like to see you explain how that translates into real job creation..and what kinds of jobs are created when government spends money on just making government bigger...and how that impacts the private sector.

And then overlay the impact of massive increases in regulation.

No problem. First though, what do you consider a "real job" because I know that many on these boards don't want to count certain jobs as "real".

I'm asking about private sector employment. Government jobs consume taxes, they don't fund the operations of government.

Also, please factor into the equation the G portion consuming 10% more of GDP than it collects in tax receipts, thus increasing the debt burden...and project what happens to the economy when interest on the cumulative debt consumes the entire discretionary spending budget.

 

[kaz]

If a company makes $1B in profits, and the government takes $2M in taxes and uses it to hire workers to build a better road that leads consumers to that very company, how can you say that absolutely nothing of value has been created? How can you say that harms the economy when workers had jobs and more consumers can get to the business?

So your standard is that if anything government did helped the company then all government is justified because even you can't believe that more then a small percent of government workers are actually doing things that benefit companies.

 

[Sallow]

Probably because it's not worth celebrating.

To be honest, misery is the Democrats ally. Where do they get most of their support from?

From the poor. What better way to increase their base then to put more of us into that category.

Well sorta. See the misery caused by Conservative policy is an ally when you have to clean up the mess.

But I digress..lets try a real world example.

Once a upon a time, a shinning liberal city on a hill (well one with a natural harbor and not much of a hill) built the tallest buildings in the world. They were a symbol of liberal capitalism working together to generate wealth for everyone in the city. Then along came a conservative hero, lets call him Ronald Reagan, who wanted to slay the big bad commies in Afghanistan. But instead of taking them on, mano a mano, they funded conservative religious crazies to chop them to little bits. Then..another conservative hero, lets call him George HW Bush continued the policy and even did business with the family of one of the top conservative religious nuts, lets call him Osama Bin Laden.

Fast forward to the big bad evil villian, lets call him Bill Clinton. He said, that Osama Bin Laden was a badmother,,conservatives say "Shut your mouth"...

But he wants to attack America, says Clinton!

Conservatives say, Attack Iraq..they are the bad guys! And then..conservatives try to remove the villian Clinton from office.

The son of the old conservative hero, lets call him George W. without the H..Bush..assumes the throne. 8 months later...despite the warnings of the CIA, the villian Clinton and CNN..a plot to destroy the buildings the liberal city on the hill, succeeds! And lo and behold..it's the brother of a man that George W. Bush started a business with!! No way!

Those buildings took a decade to put up..and hours to knock down. They DID NOT get rebuilt during George W. Bush's administration.

The economy is sort of like that. Centuries to build up..and 8 short years to completely devastate.

Sorry chief..3 years ain't long enough to fix it. Especially when the very people that caused it to crash are working tooth and nail to make sure you don't.

The reason it's taking longer to build is because new safety measures have to be taken to built the buildings to the same thing doesn't happen again. The Free-Towers are going to be the most advanced design in the world by the time they're done.

But another reason it's taking so long is because it's tough to get anything done in a Liberal city. What used to take a matter of months now takes over a decade because environmental impact studies, every special interest group in the universe trying to put in their 2 cents on the construction and what the buildings will contain.

Well if you'd live here..you'd know that basically isn't true. Construction is constantly going on around the city and new buildings go up all the time.

New York has one of the best infrastructures in the world.

The problem with the WTC is to many fucking conservatives think they should have a say. And they caused this crap in the first place.

This is local. Not national.

 

[kaz]

The problem with the WTC is to many fucking conservatives think they should have a say. And they caused this crap in the first place.

Have you ever been to NY? This is just tripping.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The poster is describing what is referred to as "crowding out" or a reduction in private consumption or investment that occurs because of an increase in government borrowing

I very much doubt Boedicca was referring to "crowding out" as I have raised this issue multiple times and he has never mentioned that once. That's partly my point. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He just hates government spending because it's government spending. Period. Full stop.

As to "crowding out" yes, that is a concern, but clearly not a concern right now as interest rates are at historic lows. Even if rates were rising and crowding out was happening, that still does not lead to "The more Government Consumes, the lower the resulting economic growth and job creation." It simply doesn't. Especially when we start talking globally.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the government spending money and hiring workers. There simply isn't.

 

[boedicca]

The poster is describing what is referred to as "crowding out" or a reduction in private consumption or investment that occurs because of an increase in government borrowing

I very much doubt Boedicca was referring to "crowding out" as I have raised this issue multiple times and he has never mentioned that once. That's partly my point. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He just hates government spending because it's government spending. Period. Full stop.

As to "crowding out" yes, that is a concern, but clearly not a concern right now as interest rates are at historic lows. Even if rates were rising and crowding out was happening, that still does not lead to "The more Government Consumes, the lower the resulting economic growth and job creation." It simply doesn't. Especially when we start talking globally.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the government spending money and hiring workers. There simply isn't.

I'm a gal, you sad little idiot. And I am making the point about "Crowding Out". That is exactly what Obamanomics has done by increasing the size of government by more than 25% in less than three years on Borrowed Money.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The problem with the WTC is to many fucking conservatives think they should have a say. And they caused this crap in the first place.

Have you ever been to NY? This is just tripping.

He lives there. Does that count?

 

[boedicca]

Oh yeah. New York City is Totally Dominated by Conservatives.

That's the ticket.

 

[DontBeStupid]

If a company makes $1B in profits, and the government takes $2M in taxes and uses it to hire workers to build a better road that leads consumers to that very company, how can you say that absolutely nothing of value has been created? How can you say that harms the economy when workers had jobs and more consumers can get to the business?

So your standard is that if anything government did helped the company then all government is justified because even you can't believe that more then a small percent of government workers are actually doing things that benefit companies.

Nope. Never said it. Never even hinted at it. I'm merely pointing out that Government can create value, for businesses and consumers. They can benefit the economy. Despite your thinking to the contrary that they never do.

 

[boedicca]

If a company makes $1B in profits, and the government takes $2M in taxes and uses it to hire workers to build a better road that leads consumers to that very company, how can you say that absolutely nothing of value has been created? How can you say that harms the economy when workers had jobs and more consumers can get to the business?

So your standard is that if anything government did helped the company then all government is justified because even you can't believe that more then a small percent of government workers are actually doing things that benefit companies.

Nope. Never said it. Never even hinted at it. I'm merely pointing out that Government can create value, for businesses and consumers. They can benefit the economy. Despite your thinking to the contrary that they never do.

I call shenanigans. How? How does the government create Net Value?

 

[DontBeStupid]

So your standard is that if anything government did helped the company then all government is justified because even you can't believe that more then a small percent of government workers are actually doing things that benefit companies.

Nope. Never said it. Never even hinted at it. I'm merely pointing out that Government can create value, for businesses and consumers. They can benefit the economy. Despite your thinking to the contrary that they never do.

I call shenanigans. How? How does the government create Net Value?

Define "net value".

 

[Neotrotsky]

I've already explained this to you. While G is in the equation, which you cling to like a little boy who found a candy bar, G comes out of the private sector. The private sector would have spent it to create value (i.e., make an evil profit), Government just spends it. I agreed with you that the money doesn't disappear, but harm the economy it does. Even the most liberal of economists would agree with that. They might support government spending for ideological reasons, but they would not argue that government spending is as good as private spending.

Maybe you explained it and I missed it because your opinion makes no sense.

If a company makes $1B in profits, and the government takes $2M in taxes and uses it to hire workers to build a better road that leads consumers to that very company, how can you say that absolutely nothing of value has been created? How can you say that harms the economy when workers had jobs and more consumers can get to the business?

It really depends if something is a public good or a natural monopoly then the gov't has more of a role to play than not- example military. A road can be such a thing but lets assume for now that it is not.

As for example are we to assume that there are no transactions cost to the gov't building this road? a highly unlikely situation

So for your example, we have a road that has to be built for a cost of $2 million dollars.


How much does it cost the gov't to collect that money?
How much does it cost the gov't to distribute those funds?
etc

The point is, it is more than $2 million dollars or more than $2 million of tax money.

So if we had an economy in balance, a company wanted to build this road but the gov't decided to build it. Even if the gov't hired the original company that was going to build, it did so at a higher cost,
less efficient and the extra money it had to use was taken from the consumer, depressing their demand and causing negative disruption in the market.

Quite often, gov't interjection into the market causes and creates many of the problems in the first place and then the gov't will go on to demand to fix these problems as well.

The gov't can not create wealth, it can only move it around.
If not true then Cuba would be one of the richest countries in the world and the Soviet Union would still be in power.

Why do you think no wants Cuban money or when the Soviets where in power, their money?
Because their societies produced very little real goods or services of any relative value that anybody wanted.
Which is why these countries where always so dependent on resource cash goods like oil or sugar

What else would anybody want from their countries?

 

[mudwhistle]

No problem. First though, what do you consider a "real job" because I know that many on these boards don't want to count certain jobs as "real".

A "real" job is a sustainable job. That means it has to create value. The worker contributes to the ongoing maintainability of their job itself by performing well.

A government job creates no value, it is ongoingly depended on the ability of politicians to plunder someone else who creates value which is not contributed to in any way by the government worker. So a government job is in itself parasitic, it is not sustainable on it's own, and it's not a real job.

I also remember the days when the Democrats were bitching about all of the jobs that were created during the Bush years. They claimed every one of them was low paying entry-level jobs.

Course how the heck would they know that, unless they were just assuming.

Add to that the fact that Obama was counting overtime as another job created.