- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:12 pm
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:12 pm
.
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:15 pm to Asgard Device
A true free market conservative does not subscribe to government created jobs
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:15 pm to Asgard Device
I absolutely do. My first thought is "where was the PRODUCTIVE capital stolen from to 'create' that government job in the first place"?
This post was edited on 3/27/14 at 9:20 pm
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:18 pm to Asgard Device
Yes, because the government doesn't create shite.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:19 pm to stuntman
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.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:21 pm to Asgard Device
well government can create jobs
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
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
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:23 pm to Asgard Device
IRS needs more workers to track down Miss Lerners emails as the current time frame laid out is ridiculous.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:28 pm to Asgard Device
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.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Which is cringe-worthy
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
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:34 pm to Asgard Device
Difference in emphasis.
Conservatives would say "jobs were created" meaning the economy grew probably due to tax cuts or deregulation.
Leftists say "we created" jobs probably because of more government workers or stimulus grants to cronies.
Conservatives would say "jobs were created" meaning the economy grew probably due to tax cuts or deregulation.
Leftists say "we created" jobs probably because of more government workers or stimulus grants to cronies.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:44 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Difference in emphasis.
Conservatives would say "jobs were created" meaning the economy grew probably due to tax cuts or deregulation.
I'm going to put you down for "no."
What I am talking about is something that I hear pretty much daily. There's some government program, government department, or market intervention that is touted as creating jobs.
It happens more on a state and local level, although Solyndra is a famous example on the Federal side - particularly because it went belly-up. Even if Solyndra would have succeeded, I would still cringe at the thought that government created jobs by propping Solyndra up. Everything comes from something and nothing happens in a vacuum. Economic multiplier effects be damned.
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.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:00 pm to Asgard Device
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
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:02 pm to Asgard Device
I cringed when our dear leader said this after spending $787 billion.
Dear leader did not cringe when he said it. He laughed.
quote:
"Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected."
Dear leader did not cringe when he said it. He laughed.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:15 pm to Asgard Device
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!
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:19 pm to BigJim
quote:
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.
Those monopolies are just as inefficient as any other.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:22 pm to BigJim
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.
This post was edited on 3/27/14 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:27 pm to Asgard Device
Don't hate the player hate the game
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:29 pm to Asgard Device
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.
Fracking appeared out of business, not from government funded research. And then they accuse liberals of believing in unicorns.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:30 pm to Asgard Device
O wait sorry unless it's NASA. For some reason.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:33 pm to Tigah in the ATL
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News