Why Government Spending Does Nothing for Jobs

[bripat9643]

Really?

How about infrastructure like paving our roads and building bridges??? This certainly makes a lot of jobs.

No it doesn't. It just diverts money from projects the consumers would have preferred to projects they prefer less. The net result is an overall reduction in consumer satisfaction.

When the government built the interstate high system, it put a perfectly good railroad system out of business, and it spent hundreds of billions doing it. Before the interstate system was built we had a perfectly good system of railroads that the taxpayers didn't have to spend a dime on. So how did we benefit?

 

[candycorn]

Really?

How about infrastructure like paving our roads and building bridges??? This certainly makes a lot of jobs.

No it doesn't. I just diverts money from projects the consumers would have preferred to projects they prefer less. The net result is an overall reduction in consumer satisfaction.

When the government built the interstate high system, it put a perfectly good railroad system out of business, and it spent hundreds of billions doing it. Before the interstate system was built we had a perfectly good system of railroads that the taxpayers didn't have to spend a dime on. So how did we benefit?

Not having to live next to a train track for one thing.
Not being at the whim of railroad tycoons for another.

You're a professional idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

Really?

How about infrastructure like paving our roads and building bridges??? This certainly makes a lot of jobs.

No it doesn't. I just diverts money from projects the consumers would have preferred to projects they prefer less. The net result is an overall reduction in consumer satisfaction.

When the government built the interstate high system, it put a perfectly good railroad system out of business, and it spent hundreds of billions doing it. Before the interstate system was built we had a perfectly good system of railroads that the taxpayers didn't have to spend a dime on. So how did we benefit?

Not having to live next to a train track for one thing.

ROFL! Yeah, right, living next to a super highway is so much better. If a smart person didn't want to live next to railroad tracks, he wouldn't buy a house next to them. You are obviously too stupid for that.

Not being at the whim of railroad tycoons for another.

Instead you're at the whim of politicians - another big improvement. NOT!

Railroads had to compete with each other. You were no more "at their whim" than you are at the whim of general motors.

You're a professional idiot.

ROFL!

You just proved you're an idiot. You can't even figure out how to avoid living near railroad tracks.

 

[Surfer]

Throwing money at problems seldom fixes them.

 

[longknife]

Read it and weep, liberal turds.

The authors of a June 2013 IMF working paper, “Does Public-Sector Employment Fully Crowd Out Private-Sector Employment?,” answer in the affirmative. After examining data from both developing and advanced economies, Alberto Behar and Junghwan Mok find that a public-sector job comes at the expense of a private-sector job. In other words, paying someone to dig holes and fill them up doesn’t reduce unemployment.

Today’s proponents of increased government spending aren’t necessarily arguing for hiring more government workers, whose ranks have been diminished over the last four years. They do want the federal government to provide some extra oomph to an economy that is barely eking out 2 percent growth four years after the recession ended.

Another dose of stimulus is both unnecessary and counterproductive in the medium and long term. There seems to be widespread agreement -- among academics and economists at the IMF, European Central Bank, World Bank and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, if not among the policy setters themselves -- that government spending has a sizeable negative impact on growth.​

Why Government Spending Does Nothing for Jobs - Bloomberg

You and I both know this won't change a single mind on the left. But, nice post.

 

[boedicca]

Bastiat's Parable of the Broken Window sums up how government spending crowds out private investment quite well:

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.


Parable of the broken window - Mises Wiki

 

[NYcarbineer]

We do a fine job spending on education....
And the kids that do graduate some can barely read or
do complex math.

Well, we could end public education altogether and let the private for-profit sector handle it.

Then it would end up like college; your kids would graduate from high school with fifty thousand or so in high school student loans,

and looking for someone to loan them the money to go to college.

The goal is to have Latourneau (sp?) K-12, DeVry K-12, University of Phoenix K-12... How much you want to bet that tuition is always going to be greater than the voucher you get from the government?

People don't get that public schools are what hold down tuitions in private schools. If for example you start handing out vouchers to go to private school,

you just increase demand, and with it, up go the prices.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really?

How about infrastructure like paving our roads and building bridges??? This certainly makes a lot of jobs.

No it doesn't. It just diverts money from projects the consumers would have preferred to projects they prefer less. The net result is an overall reduction in consumer satisfaction.

When the government built the interstate high system, it put a perfectly good railroad system out of business, and it spent hundreds of billions doing it. Before the interstate system was built we had a perfectly good system of railroads that the taxpayers didn't have to spend a dime on. So how did we benefit?

Or you could have a system like Germany, where they have great roads and great railroads.

 

[boedicca]

Well, we could end public education altogether and let the private for-profit sector handle it.

Then it would end up like college; your kids would graduate from high school with fifty thousand or so in high school student loans,

and looking for someone to loan them the money to go to college.

The goal is to have Latourneau (sp?) K-12, DeVry K-12, University of Phoenix K-12... How much you want to bet that tuition is always going to be greater than the voucher you get from the government?

People don't get that public schools are what hold down tuitions in private schools. If for example you start handing out vouchers to go to private school,

you just increase demand, and with it, up go the prices.

Then you must be horrified over ObamaCare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the government doesn't create jobs, why do Congressmen freak out at the idea of cutting defense spending,

because of the number of defense dependent jobs they have in their districts?

 

[Moonglow]

Would be shocking to those employed by the government that it doesn't provide jobs.

The only thing black rule in Africa is demonstrated is that blacks aren't fit to rule. Apparently savagery is genetic.

They get a paycheck, but they don't produce anything. They are just mouths the taxpayers have to feed.

You obviously didn't even read the article

so get rid of all of them, to include the military.

 

[boedicca]

The purpose for national defense isn't a jobs program, bub.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The goal is to have Latourneau (sp?) K-12, DeVry K-12, University of Phoenix K-12... How much you want to bet that tuition is always going to be greater than the voucher you get from the government?

People don't get that public schools are what hold down tuitions in private schools. If for example you start handing out vouchers to go to private school,

you just increase demand, and with it, up go the prices.

Then you must be horrified over ObamaCare.

I supported the inclusion of a public option.

 

[boedicca]

You supported expanding demand without increasing supply, which is why the Obamanation is projected to cost far far more than was projected during the Kabuki Theater to ram it through.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The purpose for national defense isn't a jobs program, bub.

That in no way changes the fact that defense spending creates thousands of jobs in this country,

contrary to the nonsensical premise of the OP.

What gets 'crowded out' if the government buys ten thousand tanks? Who's standing in the wings ready to employ elsewhere all the people needed to build ten thousand tanks,

if the government decides not to buy those ten thousand tanks?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You supported expanding demand without increasing supply, which is why the Obamanation is projected to cost far far more than was projected during the Kabuki Theater to ram it through.

I support a healthcare system more like Sweden, or France, or Japan, or any number of others,

but change like that will never happen, so I'm not going to waste alot of time arguing for it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The goal is to have Latourneau (sp?) K-12, DeVry K-12, University of Phoenix K-12... How much you want to bet that tuition is always going to be greater than the voucher you get from the government?

People don't get that public schools are what hold down tuitions in private schools. If for example you start handing out vouchers to go to private school,

you just increase demand, and with it, up go the prices.

Then you must be horrified over ObamaCare.

So you're saying that the horror of Obamacare is your belief that it bears a striking resemblance to what a school voucher program would look like?

lol, oops.

 

[candycorn]

Would be shocking to those employed by the government that it doesn't provide jobs.

They get a paycheck, but they don't produce anything. They are just mouths the taxpayers have to feed.

You obviously didn't even read the article

so get rid of all of them, to include the military.

Nice.

 

[boedicca]

People don't get that public schools are what hold down tuitions in private schools. If for example you start handing out vouchers to go to private school,

you just increase demand, and with it, up go the prices.

Then you must be horrified over ObamaCare.

So you're saying that the horror of Obamacare is your belief that it bears a striking resemblance to what a school voucher program would look like?

lol, oops.

No. A school voucher system doesn't mean we have to have School Choice Exchanges.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

We are closing in on $17 trillion in debt.
So we should print more money and borrow more money
so we can spend more money.....

Hmmmmmm...

Oh yeah, just let the GOP spend more on a couple of more useless wars, and create another attempt at the Second Great Republican Depression.

Spending on infrastructure is investment. The same as spending on education.

Our spending on education is an investment that isn't paying off. Time to defund it.