.

I absolutely do. My first thought is "where was the PRODUCTIVE capital stolen from to 'create' that government job in the first place"?

Yes. A "government created job" is somehow and in someway paid for by the taxpayer, the more we have "gov created jobs" the higher our taxes will be.

IRS needs more workers to track down Miss Lerners emails as the current time frame laid out is ridiculous.

quote:

---

hell it can even create jobs in a net-positive way...for the present. but the money borrowed to fund those jobs in the present will take away jobs in the future

---

Which is cringe-worthy

Your prof was correct. Private jobs is driven by profits. Profits is driven by many things including efficiency and proficiency, which you will never get with gov jobs

quote:

---

They can create jobs easily enough, it's a question of if the capital expended to create these jobs could have been more productive if left in the market. The answer is almost inevitably yes.

---

quote:

---

I remember thinking that my economics professor was a tool for repeatedly telling us that ANY intervention or favoritism by government results in decreased efficiency for an economy as a whole. Now, I'm not so sure. I suppose I am getting old.

---

I basically agree with the above with a few exceptions. I think expenditures on setting up a basically orderly society (court system, law enforcement, patent office, etc) creates a basic framework in which business can thrive.

Businesses do better in a minimal government setting than in anarchy.

Also spending on infrastructure: roads, water, sewage, power, etc. (Not that the construction of these things cannot be contracted to a private party.) Again, allows commerce to take place in a more efficient manner.

Lastly, education. Public education is a boon to the economy as screwed up as it is.

But those aren't what most politicians mean by "creating jobs."

And most jobs "created" at the state and local level are really just jobs swiped from another state or locality. But in the case of Louisiana getting those jobs, screw those other states!

quote:

---

But those aren't what most politicians mean by "creating jobs."

And most jobs "created" at the state and local level are really just jobs swiped from another state or locality.

---

Yep. When I was in Tampa, they paid a company to create 300 white collar jobs in the area. 7 years later they bought a company in Atlanta and got paid to create 300 "new" jobs by relocating those people from Atlanta to the county just north of Tampa. They then laid off most of the people in Tampa since they were now replaced by the people in the neighboring county. I'm sure they did a swap out, but anyway a lot of people LOL'd at how stupid it was but the politicians still enjoyed the headlines. Companies are gaming us big time.

I guess the next step would be to get Louisiana to pay them to move the jobs over here and then when that's done, get Georgia to pay them to move them back, and so forth and so on.

Of course because they don't think it is possible.

Fracking appeared out of business, not from government funded research. And then they accuse liberals of believing in unicorns.

quote:

---

Of course because they don't think it is possible.

Fracking appeared out of business, not from government funded research. And then they accuse liberals of believing in unicorns.

---

Nobody within reason will argue that they cannot create jobs. The crux of the matter is if the money involved in creating said jobs is a better use of capital than allowing to remain in the original owner's pocket.