GOP Gets Their Wish - Unemployment is Up

[boedicca]

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".

You don't know? You're the one who claimed that it government can create value. Creation of value by definition means a net increase in value above the costs of the inputs.

Please explain how government does this, and include the opportunity costs of diverting the capital consumed by government away from the private sector. For such a net value analysis to be valid, opportunity costs should be included as well.

If you are having trouble with this concept, here's a lesson:

Net present value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sallow]

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.

Ever been? For like 47 years.

Was born here. Spent 3 years in California and Puerto Rico.

 

[mudwhistle]

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".

Sit around and take up other people's time with your stupid questions when you can punch it in on Google or Bing in a few key strokes.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Ever been? For like 47 years.

Was born here. Spent 3 years in California and Puerto Rico.

That explains why you're so screwed up.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

That equation assumes 'G' is worth something. It isn't. Government produces almost nothing that anyone would pay for voluntarily. That's why government uses force to extract the money from your pocket.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

If you look at strictly building the road, sure, a private company could do it for cheaper, lets say, but is that better for the economy? Take the Company with $1B in profits. They use $1.5M to build the road. Is that better for the economy? I get the impression you would say yes, but from my view, that's less money injected into the economy and less people employed in the process so I would say no.

Also, don't think that government spending must ALWAYS come from consumers in the form of taxes now or later. That's a myth.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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

Define "net value".

Why don't you get off your lazy ass and look it up yourself.

Sit around and take up other people's time with your stupid questions when you can punch it in on Google or Bing in a few key strokes.

I could look it up and write up a response and the Boedicca would simply say what I was referring to was not really "net value". I look at something society as a whole can use and consider that net value. If she doesn't, then this conversation is done before it started.

 

[bripat9643]

So for the record, when Democrats predict global warming and it happens, you think they are happy, right? When Democrats predict the war in Iraq will lead to our being a target of more terrorism and it happens, they are happy, right? When Democrats predict not enough welfare will lead to hungry children and it happens, they are happy, right?

So prove me wrong, do you agree with those statements about Democrats which use the same logic you did against Republicans? Or are you a partisan hack? You tell me.

You're being dishonest to the conversation because that's not what's happening here. The GOP and the Tea Party and many conservatives nationwide have been actively calling for less government. They want a smaller government. They want to shrink government.

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

If one side is asking for something, and then gets it, shouldn't that side be happy about it?

I'm ecstatic that 39,000 tics on the ass of society got canned. However, that's not nearly enough. When 500,000 have been canned, then the benefits will become obvious. For every tic that gets canned, four private sector jobs will be created.

 

[bripat9643]

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 produces something that people are actually willing to purchase voluntarily. That rules out 95% of all government jobs.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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

Define "net value".

You don't know? You're the one who claimed that it government can create value. Creation of value by definition means a net increase in value above the costs of the inputs.

Please explain how government does this, and include the opportunity costs of diverting the capital consumed by government away from the private sector. For such a net value analysis to be valid, opportunity costs should be included as well.

If you are having trouble with this concept, here's a lesson:

Net present value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Net Present Value? Really? There's the problem. If we hold the government to that standard we would never have entered WW2.

 

[bripat9643]

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.”

The main thing wrong with the equation is that it assumes 'G' is something people actually want. Who wants the "services" the Department of Energy provides? The EPA? Who wants higher energy prices, higher home prices, higher interest rates, higher banking fees, financial panics or any of the other "services" government provides?

 

[DontBeStupid]

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 produces something that people are actually willing to purchase voluntarily. That rules out 95% of all government jobs.

It also rules out all service jobs.

Well done.

 

[bripat9643]

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 actually believes we are going to cry about 39,000 tics on the ass of society being separated from the government tit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

NYC has a third world infrastructure, you cannot easily get to either of the main airports, especially JKF. The LIE should be 6 lanes each way, the Subway stations are cleaner then they've ever been but still look like Bladerunner, theres no wireless service on Metro North where 50% of the seat always face backward because the union slobs dont want to turn a car around.

 

[Neotrotsky]

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.

If you look at strictly building the road, sure, a private company could do it for cheaper, lets say, but is that better for the economy? Take the Company with $1B in profits. They use $1.5M to build the road. Is that better for the economy? I get the impression you would say yes, but from my view, that's less money injected into the economy and less people employed in the process so I would say no.

Also, don't think that government spending must ALWAYS come from consumers in the form of taxes now or later. That's a myth.

Not at all, all taxes will eventually get "pushed" down to the bottom or the consumer.
Free market is NOT no gov't. The gov't role should be limited and used to promote competition.

While I have no problem with gov't using fiscal policy to manipulate the economy, it is no different than our own budgets. Debt today means declined consumption in the future to pay it off.

Evern Keynes meant for the gov't interjection to be short term and pulled back when it was done. Most people underestimate the ability of a bureaucracy to live on and on.

Instead, our political system has developed under both parties, more of a crony capitalism where the gov't acts like a feudal king dishing out its protections to favorite parties, as long as they do the gov'ts "bidding" .

When businesses lobby Congress or the President, they are not seeking more competition' they are seeking more profit.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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 actually believes we are going to cry about 39,000 tics on the ass of society being separated from the government tit.

Your compassion for your fellow citizens is an inspiration to us all.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Unfortunately for your ridiculous scenario, 95% of the money the government takes out of our hides is transferred to useless tics who produce nothing that is of value to anyone.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

yes, government CAN create value for businesses and consumers, and I CAN win the lottery. Both outcomes are equally likely.

 

[bripat9643]

DontBeStupid actually believes we are going to cry about 39,000 tics on the ass of society being separated from the government tit.

Your compassion for your fellow citizens is an inspiration to us all.

I have no compassion for useless tics who are sucking the life out of me and all my descendents. I want 90% of them to become unemployed immediately, if not sooner.

 

[bripat9643]

A real job produces something that people are actually willing to purchase voluntarily. That rules out 95% of all government jobs.

It also rules out all service jobs.

Well done.

Your belief that consumers are not willing to purchase services deserves an award for its stunning idiocy.

Have you ever been to see a doctor? Dentist? Have you ever paid someone to mow your lawn?