Pro-Wrestler Smacks Down Keynesian

[Ravi]

Nope, that isn't what I said and it certainly isn't what I meant.

I did not say that you said it or that it is what you meant. I said that if you take the view that people keeping their money is stopping the government from creating jobs then why should we not give them all of our money and let them create jobs for all of us and provide everything else that we'll need.

You didn't do anything but say I was wrong. But it is you who is wrong, the government can and does create jobs as my examples showed. Also, there is no stealing involved. There is a price to pay for living in America, and taxation is one of those prices. There is nothing wrong with taxing people...the wrongness comes when it is too much of a burden. In our entire history, taxation has never reached the point where it was too much of a burden. I pay taxes and yet I still make a profit...else I wouldn't even bother working and neither would anyone else.

I also explained why you were wrong. We are not discussing the fairness of taxes, we are discussing whether the government can create jobs. I told you why they cannot create jobs, and backed this up with a book and article that you could have read.

I don't need to read a book to know you are wrong. All of my examples showed government creating jobs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nope, that isn't what I said and it certainly isn't what I meant.

I did not say that you said it or that it is what you meant. I said that if you take the view that people keeping their money is stopping the government from creating jobs then why should we not give them all of our money and let them create jobs for all of us and provide everything else that we'll need.

You didn't do anything but say I was wrong. But it is you who is wrong, the government can and does create jobs as my examples showed. Also, there is no stealing involved. There is a price to pay for living in America, and taxation is one of those prices. There is nothing wrong with taxing people...the wrongness comes when it is too much of a burden. In our entire history, taxation has never reached the point where it was too much of a burden. I pay taxes and yet I still make a profit...else I wouldn't even bother working and neither would anyone else.

I also explained why you were wrong. We are not discussing the fairness of taxes, we are discussing whether the government can create jobs. I told you why they cannot create jobs, and backed this up with a book and article that you could have read.

I don't need to read a book to know you are wrong. All of my examples showed government creating jobs.

No, all of your examples showed the government using the money it took from the taxpayers to "create" jobs. Therefore, the taxpayers were not able to use that money to create jobs. Therefore, the same number of jobs the government "created," it also destroyed.

 

[mash107]

What does the government produce that is of value? Besides fear and despair, that is... if you find those valuable

The centralized state produces nothing that could not be produced in a superior manner through decentralized libertarian organization. But the state functions as the chief defender of capitalism, and it is the public sector that has created the fortunes of the wealthy.

So the very enemy of capitalism is its only defender?

 

[Ravi]

I did not say that you said it or that it is what you meant. I said that if you take the view that people keeping their money is stopping the government from creating jobs then why should we not give them all of our money and let them create jobs for all of us and provide everything else that we'll need.

I also explained why you were wrong. We are not discussing the fairness of taxes, we are discussing whether the government can create jobs. I told you why they cannot create jobs, and backed this up with a book and article that you could have read.

I don't need to read a book to know you are wrong. All of my examples showed government creating jobs.

No, all of your examples showed the government using the money it took from the taxpayers to "create" jobs. Therefore, the taxpayers were not able to use that money to create jobs. Therefore, the same number of jobs the government "created," it also destroyed.

So none of those jobs exist...the teachers, the uniform makers and sellers, etc. They don't really exist, correct? Spending money is useless because it doesn't make the economy grow.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't need to read a book to know you are wrong. All of my examples showed government creating jobs.

No, all of your examples showed the government using the money it took from the taxpayers to "create" jobs. Therefore, the taxpayers were not able to use that money to create jobs. Therefore, the same number of jobs the government "created," it also destroyed.

So none of those jobs exist...the teachers, the uniform makers and sellers, etc. They don't really exist, correct? Spending money is useless because it doesn't make the economy grow.

Those jobs exist, at the expense of somebody else's job.

 

[Ravi]

No, all of your examples showed the government using the money it took from the taxpayers to "create" jobs. Therefore, the taxpayers were not able to use that money to create jobs. Therefore, the same number of jobs the government "created," it also destroyed.

So none of those jobs exist...the teachers, the uniform makers and sellers, etc. They don't really exist, correct? Spending money is useless because it doesn't make the economy grow.

Those jobs exist, at the expense of somebody else's job.

At least you admit they exist. What do you suppose it costs each taxpayer? 1/10 of a penny? 1/100th? How far is that is going to go if you get to keep it in your bank account?

 

[DavidS]

tff! The guy looks just like Joe the Plumber.

This is NOT Joe the Plumber. Kane could deliver a chokeslam to Joe the Plumber (that would rock!)

 

[mash107]

So none of those jobs exist...the teachers, the uniform makers and sellers, etc. They don't really exist, correct? Spending money is useless because it doesn't make the economy grow.

Those jobs exist, at the expense of somebody else's job.

At least you admit they exist. What do you suppose it costs each taxpayer? 1/10 of a penny? 1/100th? How far is that is going to go if you get to keep it in your bank account?

If you divide the money taken, then yes, over 300 million.. it's not much. But it doesn't work like that. A company that wants a job created borrows capital from bank/market/etc which is saved/invested in by an unknown number of people if they have no saved capital on hand. It doesn't matter if it's 5 rich people or 30,000 poor people that had saved/invested; the company that wants this money doesn't care how or why it's there. Also, there are way more companies that want to create jobs (think of the number of brilliant ideas out there that just needs money) than there exists available capital, so the question is not whether there are enough jobs wanted to be created, but rather enough capital. When there is no capital, the jobs simply don't get created, but also jobs are destroyed. It's simply government that delves into this stockpile of capital to fund itself, wars and other programs that eliminates way more jobs than it can ever hope to create. It doesn't matter if it's taxed, borrowed, or inflated.. available capital is reduced whenever government spends.

 

[Shogun]

I tellya.. When I think "ECONOMIC ADVICE" nothing shines like a beacon out of the darkness quite like... a pro wrestler.

 

[Paulie]

What does the government produce that is of value? Besides fear and despair, that is... if you find those valuable

The centralized state produces nothing that could not be produced in a superior manner through decentralized libertarian organization. But the state functions as the chief defender of capitalism, and it is the public sector that has created the fortunes of the wealthy.

This is ridiculous. A government is not REQUIRED to create wealth. Being that gold has always been the historic medium of exchange, and probably always will be, a group of people could establish a private market with 0 government intervention, and through trade could attain, redistribute, and build wealth.

There has never even been a NEED for a government to "create" wealth. You can argue that it protects wealth as it is generated, through regulation, but you simply can not make the case that it "creates" it. The government can only create paper money, which is NOT wealth in and of itself. It's what you DO with that paper money that creates and builds your wealth. Every piece of paper the government creates, devalues the overall wealth of the society.

Come on kid, you should know this shit being the anarchist you claim to be.

 

[Paulie]

Nope, that isn't what I said and it certainly isn't what I meant.

I did not say that you said it or that it is what you meant. I said that if you take the view that people keeping their money is stopping the government from creating jobs then why should we not give them all of our money and let them create jobs for all of us and provide everything else that we'll need.

You didn't do anything but say I was wrong. But it is you who is wrong, the government can and does create jobs as my examples showed. Also, there is no stealing involved. There is a price to pay for living in America, and taxation is one of those prices. There is nothing wrong with taxing people...the wrongness comes when it is too much of a burden. In our entire history, taxation has never reached the point where it was too much of a burden. I pay taxes and yet I still make a profit...else I wouldn't even bother working and neither would anyone else.

I also explained why you were wrong. We are not discussing the fairness of taxes, we are discussing whether the government can create jobs. I told you why they cannot create jobs, and backed this up with a book and article that you could have read.

I don't need to read a book to know you are wrong. All of my examples showed government creating jobs.

But they didn't show where other jobs were lost. You would need to prove that the sum of government jobs created exceeded the sum of private jobs lost.

 

[Ravi]

I did not say that you said it or that it is what you meant. I said that if you take the view that people keeping their money is stopping the government from creating jobs then why should we not give them all of our money and let them create jobs for all of us and provide everything else that we'll need.

I also explained why you were wrong. We are not discussing the fairness of taxes, we are discussing whether the government can create jobs. I told you why they cannot create jobs, and backed this up with a book and article that you could have read.

I don't need to read a book to know you are wrong. All of my examples showed government creating jobs.

But they didn't show where other jobs were lost. You would need to prove that the sum of government jobs created exceeded the sum of private jobs lost.

No, I actually don't for the sake of this argument. I proved that the government can and does create jobs. You Libertarians keep trying to claim your way is the best way...YOU need to prove that.

btw, if people don't have jobs they don't spend money so doing nothing will just lose more jobs and more money.

 

[Paulie]

I don't need to read a book to know you are wrong. All of my examples showed government creating jobs.

But they didn't show where other jobs were lost. You would need to prove that the sum of government jobs created exceeded the sum of private jobs lost.

No, I actually don't for the sake of this argument. I proved that the government can and does create jobs. You Libertarians keep trying to claim your way is the best way...YOU need to prove that.

btw, if people don't have jobs they don't spend money so doing nothing will just lose more jobs and more money.

As a free marketer, I have no problems with job loss from lack of spending. That's the market correcting itself, like it SHOULD. You can't expect full employment in perpetuity, it's an impossible desire.

And yes, you really should show how government job creation could exceed the subsequent private job loss, becuase your point is that government can just *POOF*, create a new job and all is well. If another job is subsequently lost in the private sector, what good came of it? You traded a perfectly good private sector job, for a government job that not only grows the size of government, but requires more taxation.

You seem to be perfectly fine with taxing everyone to create a government job, regardless of who LOSES their job somewhere else because of it. That's your plan to fix things? Magically create new jobs with tax money and put someone else out of work?

 

[editec]

He's so stupid that he thinks the government has never created jobs.

LOL! And you guys give me a hard time for not understanding economics.

The government can't create jobs. To create a job the government must take money from the private sector and thus destroy a job.

tff! The guy looks just like Joe the Plumber.

He's a little bigger than that I believe.

Capitalists cannot create jobs,

For capitalism to create a job it must take money from the private sector thus destroy a job.

That makes just about as much sense as what you just wrote Kev.

Oh, I'm, wrong?

Tell me, if capitalism is not borrowing money (thus competing for money to be borrowed, just as the government deos) then why do corporations float bonds?

Everything you think you know about economics is jaded by your goofy presuppositions which are inherently biased, sport.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He's so stupid that he thinks the government has never created jobs.

LOL! And you guys give me a hard time for not understanding economics.

The government can't create jobs. To create a job the government must take money from the private sector and thus destroy a job.

tff! The guy looks just like Joe the Plumber.

He's a little bigger than that I believe.

Capitalists cannot create jobs,

For capitalism to create a job it must take money from the private sector thus destroy a job.

That makes just about as much sense as what you just wrote Kev.

Oh, I'm, wrong?

Tell me, if capitalism is not borrowing money (thus competing for money to be borrowed, just as the government deos) then why do corporations float bonds?

Everything you think you know about economics is jaded by your goofy presuppositions which are inherently biased, sport.

Capitalism doesn't create jobs, bud. The market creates jobs, and since the market is every person and every transaction in the private sector it can't possibly be taking jobs or money from the private sector now can it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't need to read a book to know you are wrong. All of my examples showed government creating jobs.

But they didn't show where other jobs were lost. You would need to prove that the sum of government jobs created exceeded the sum of private jobs lost.

No, I actually don't for the sake of this argument. I proved that the government can and does create jobs. You Libertarians keep trying to claim your way is the best way...YOU need to prove that.

btw, if people don't have jobs they don't spend money so doing nothing will just lose more jobs and more money.

No, all you proved, once again, is that the government took money out of the private sector to create a job. This means that the private sector could not create that job or it's equivalent.

 

[Paulie]

Ravi's diligently googling, have patience

 

[Ravi]

But they didn't show where other jobs were lost. You would need to prove that the sum of government jobs created exceeded the sum of private jobs lost.

No, I actually don't for the sake of this argument. I proved that the government can and does create jobs. You Libertarians keep trying to claim your way is the best way...YOU need to prove that.

btw, if people don't have jobs they don't spend money so doing nothing will just lose more jobs and more money.

As a free marketer, I have no problems with job loss from lack of spending. That's the market correcting itself, like it SHOULD. You can't expect full employment in perpetuity, it's an impossible desire.

And yes, you really should show how government job creation could exceed the subsequent private job loss, becuase your point is that government can just *POOF*, create a new job and all is well. If another job is subsequently lost in the private sector, what good came of it? You traded a perfectly good private sector job, for a government job that not only grows the size of government, but requires more taxation.

You seem to be perfectly fine with taxing everyone to create a government job, regardless of who LOSES their job somewhere else because of it. That's your plan to fix things? Magically create new jobs with tax money and put someone else out of work?

I showed above that the government can create jobs, and not just government jobs because support industries spring up as private industries and also hire. Read back up the thread.

Who loses a job somewhere else? This is what we were told with the whole trickle-down theory of voodoo economics...tax cuts create jobs. Jobs weren't created, CEOs got big bonuses.

The question of who is better at creating jobs, the government or the private sector, is a valid question. But the answer to that question is, "it depends."

At this time the private sector isn't creating jobs, in fact it is shedding them faster than Soggy is shedding brain cells. At this time perhaps the government is the only one that can create jobs.

 

[editec]

The government can't create jobs. To create a job the government must take money from the private sector and thus destroy a job.



He's a little bigger than that I believe.

Capitalists cannot create jobs,

For capitalism to create a job it must take money from the private sector thus destroy a job.

That makes just about as much sense as what you just wrote Kev.

Oh, I'm, wrong?

Tell me, if capitalism is not borrowing money (thus competing for money to be borrowed, just as the government deos) then why do corporations float bonds?

Everything you think you know about economics is jaded by your goofy presuppositions which are inherently biased, sport.

Capitalism doesn't create jobs, bud. The market creates jobs, and since the market is every person and every transaction in the private sector it can't possibly be taking jobs or money from the private sector now can it?

Government creates jobs all the time, Kev.

If they didn't you wouldn't be bitching about government so.

CApitalists compete for money just as the government does, sport.

That's why the major borrowers in our system are corporations.

 

[Paulie]

No, I actually don't for the sake of this argument. I proved that the government can and does create jobs. You Libertarians keep trying to claim your way is the best way...YOU need to prove that.

btw, if people don't have jobs they don't spend money so doing nothing will just lose more jobs and more money.

As a free marketer, I have no problems with job loss from lack of spending. That's the market correcting itself, like it SHOULD. You can't expect full employment in perpetuity, it's an impossible desire.

And yes, you really should show how government job creation could exceed the subsequent private job loss, becuase your point is that government can just *POOF*, create a new job and all is well. If another job is subsequently lost in the private sector, what good came of it? You traded a perfectly good private sector job, for a government job that not only grows the size of government, but requires more taxation.

You seem to be perfectly fine with taxing everyone to create a government job, regardless of who LOSES their job somewhere else because of it. That's your plan to fix things? Magically create new jobs with tax money and put someone else out of work?

I showed above that the government can create jobs, and not just government jobs because support industries spring up as private industries and also hire. Read back up the thread.

Who loses a job somewhere else? This is what we were told with the whole trickle-down theory of voodoo economics...tax cuts create jobs. Jobs weren't created, CEOs got big bonuses.

The question of who is better at creating jobs, the government or the private sector, is a valid question. But the answer to that question is, "it depends."

At this time the private sector isn't creating jobs, in fact it is shedding them faster than Soggy is shedding brain cells. At this time perhaps the government is the only one that can create jobs.

You confuse the tax cuts with the inflationary boom that the Fed caused.

It's easy to blame the tax cuts, because they were focused on in the media during the last 7 years and were a hot button issue. No one takes into consideration that loose credit and monetary inflation are going to create jobs, because there's more money chasing labor. When that inflationary boom dries up and the misallocated capital comes home to roost, we get downturns, which leads to lost jobs.

It's just as easy to say the tax cuts DID create jobs, because from 2003 when they were re-implemented, until 2007 when the credit crisis went mainstream, unemployment fell.

It went up a tad after the first cuts, which was expected since we were once again entering a business cycle from the Fed's previous intervention. But from 2003 on, when they were extended, they dropped dramatically.

You can blame them for the unemployment now if it makes you feel better, but you have no hard data to really prove it. You just ASSUME it. You really can't argue though, that increasing the money supply eventually leads to what we're seeing today. Too much money gets misallocated, and a correction is inevitable.