Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:31-51|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Government Jobs do NOT Create Economic Growth

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 5:32:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:32:27 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:14:21 PM, BigRat wrote:

Here's a real question. If high speed rail is so great, why has no business person thought of starting a high speed rail line here?


If it was so wonderful, there would certainly be plenty of money to make.

Business people are stupid (as demonstrated by their constant failure in the market)

Capital investment is a barrier to entry.

"business" has built commuter trains, but they use existing heavy rail lines.

If the freeway is so great, how come no business thought to build an interstate freeway system prior to Truman/Eisenhower?

What a pathetic response...

If something is really demanded, some businessperson will come along to meet the need. How did we get airlines?

Hmmm. Yes, business people. Capital investment was a big barrier to entry there too, but it still took place.

Had the government not build the interstate, somebody else would have eventually. That is, if it was a worthwile project.

Geeze, you really need to read a book. You are very misinformed.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:20:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 11:24:56 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
Unless you count the expansion of the military in WW2. :P

Deficit spending doesn't count, this is technically money that doesn't exist, which is fraud.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:22:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.

No, it could theoretically do so, but technically all you are doing is shifting wealth. You are using tax payer money to create jobs, using someone else's money to create wealth does not show growth in the private sector.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:22:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 1:33:37 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/13/2013 7:16:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
They simply shift money from one pocket to another. The private sector ultimately dictates how well the economy is, the government jobs are payed for by taxpayers, and since taxes aren't investments you get returns on, gov't created growth does not improve the economy, it just dips in to the pockets of taxpayers to pay for the jobs. Can someone logically refute this?

In a vast majority of cases, you are correct. But some government jobs do create economic growth. I work at My states transportation department and can attest to the fact that our roads and infrastructure have a significant impact on economic activity. Now the road construction jobs themselves dont generate any net ecomoc growth (by of the broken window fallacy), but the jobs planning and maintaining the infrastructure do in many ways.

Good point, but this is inadvertently improving the economy, not directly.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:23:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:20:36 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:14:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.

Didn't expect that response from you, although I agree with you. Has college officially liberally indoctrinated u :p?

No. I don't believe in economic growth via government spending but I'm not ignorant enough to ignore the fact that money from the government is still money in the economic system.

If you didn't have to pay that money in taxes, you would still be spending it anyways, right? So the government is virtually taking your money that you would spend anyways, and instead spending it on what they think it should be spent on.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:26:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:35:19 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:20:33 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.
If the money is taxed from the whole population, then they cant use it to invest in the economy. Where does the net economic growth come from with government jobs?

Well, if you buy am iPod or Nikes or whatever, the wages for the manufacture of those items goes to Haiti or Bangladesh or whatever other 3rd world country in which those companies have their plants. The rest goes toward overhead and profit, and little of the money multiplies and fuels the economy, with the exception of the portion dedicated to the distributor (Best Buy, etc).

A government employee will buy a basket of goods which includes housing, and this money necessarily has to remain in the domestic economy.

This is but one of the many ways gov't spending grows the economy.

Infrastructure is actually much bigger, in terms of growth.

It takes more people to keep up the distributor store, sell the product, clean the distributor store, and check you out then it does to make the product itself. Also, expect more jobs to leave America due to bama' increasing the minimum wage to 9 bucks an hour.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:28:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 7:16:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
They simply shift money from one pocket to another.

All of economics is moving money from one pocket to another. Public and private sector are no different in that regard.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:35:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Government can hire people to build things. There's really no logical way you can say that government can't create economic growth. Government has actually been widely successful with infrastructure projects.
Grand Poobah of DDO
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:36:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 6:28:51 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/13/2013 7:16:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
They simply shift money from one pocket to another.

All of economics is moving money from one pocket to another. Public and private sector are no different in that regard.

The government is supposedly not a business or corporation. They do not independently generate revenue that often, they receive it by force from the citizenry. GDP is defined as: "Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time." http://en.wikipedia.org...

Does the government directly provide a good or service that is bought by the people, except for the occasional toll both on roads?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:37:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 6:35:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Government can hire people to build things. There's really no logical way you can say that government can't create economic growth. Government has actually been widely successful with infrastructure projects.

How do they pay for it?

By shifting money from one pocket to another. That government worker is being payed with taxpayer money. Does that show true economic growth? No, one piece of legislation could have all those workers building that infrastructure/building layed off/fired just as easily as they were hired.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 7:56:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 10:42:40 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/13/2013 7:58:30 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/13/2013 7:16:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
They simply shift money from one pocket to another. The private sector ultimately dictates how well the economy is, the government jobs are payed for by taxpayers, and since taxes aren't investments you get returns on, gov't created growth does not improve the economy, it just dips in to the pockets of taxpayers to pay for the jobs. Can someone logically refute this?

How would you define government jobs? So if government invest in some companies (small business loan for example), are the jobs created by such investments considered government jobs or non-government jobs?

I guess it would vary on how much the gov't owns the business, but even the gov't investing in the private sector doesn't create wealth, all it does is shift wealth.

Not necessarily. Banks, for example, create wealth by making loans. So why doesn't government investment create wealth? Joint-adventure would reduce the risk of losing money, and if the investment turns into profits, one can say that government jobs do create economic growth (wealth). A well known example would be the born of Silicon Valley. (well, you must count these jobs as government jobs of course).
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 8:42:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 6:35:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Government can hire people to build things. There's really no logical way you can say that government can't create economic growth. Government has actually been widely successful with infrastructure projects.

Government can boost short term GDP. It has not, historically, been good at creating valuable infrastructure at an reasonable cost (not that government has never been built anything of value but it is true that the private sector could have done the same things at a lower cost).

If you want long term economic growth and higher standards of living, you need to look at the private sector.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 9:27:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 6:37:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/13/2013 6:35:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Government can hire people to build things. There's really no logical way you can say that government can't create economic growth. Government has actually been widely successful with infrastructure projects.

How do they pay for it?

By shifting money from one pocket to another. That government worker is being payed with taxpayer money. Does that show true economic growth? No, one piece of legislation could have all those workers building that infrastructure/building layed off/fired just as easily as they were hired.

Banking is one example of private profiteering which, in of itself, creates nothing. So yes, if you were to take resources away from that sector and allocate it directly to production, it would be creating growth that otherwise wouldn't have been created.

It seems Libertarians look at the market like it's a magic garden that grows...growth...everywhere. But there's really only a few different sectors that growth can theoretically come out of. Those would be energy, raw materiel, labor and innovation. Everything else is just "moving money around", as you would put it. It isn't just the government that does it.

It only seems evident that the private market creates the wealth because the means to energy and raw materials are not typically owned by the government.

When you focus resources towards those sectors, it advances growth faster. One fault of the private sector here is easily observable in that fact that many people, who are willing and able, are unable to find jobs. That's wasted resources. Government can hire these people. This also increases competition in the labor market, improving wages.
Grand Poobah of DDO
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 9:29:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 6:35:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Government can hire people to build things. There's really no logical way you can say that government can't create economic growth. Government has actually been widely successful with infrastructure projects.

This.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 9:29:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 5:04:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:56:07 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:53:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:45:32 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:37:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:

The above equation makes sense, and agree with it. yours still doesn't.

As I said, it's been a while...shouldn't have squared e, but at .05 savings, my equation would have come to 2.7 without squaring e (it was a shortcut to get to an approximate...)

close enough.

Typically if you're going to square something it's best to express it with a ^, so it would be e^2, which makes more sense.


e can also be used for 10, 5e2 is equal to 500. I often write it down in that notation, since its easier to writhe 6e6 then 6*10^5.

thanks...never knew that. (the ^ part...I know the standard scientific expression)

i guess you don't use excel that much then.

Not for squaring things. I can make pivot tables. Or, I used to be able to. I try not to use Excel anymore if I can help it. Excel is for secretaries.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 9:36:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 9:29:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/13/2013 6:35:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Government can hire people to build things. There's really no logical way you can say that government can't create economic growth. Government has actually been widely successful with infrastructure projects.

This.

Say wha?
Grand Poobah of DDO
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 9:59:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 9:36:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/13/2013 9:29:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/13/2013 6:35:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Government can hire people to build things. There's really no logical way you can say that government can't create economic growth. Government has actually been widely successful with infrastructure projects.

This.

Say wha?

I've always believed government has an essential role in infrastructure. Government is part of the reason there's a big demand for construction firms, engineering firms, urban planners and designers. Government can be a good customer in some instances.

By government though I mean state and local.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 6,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 10:58:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 9:59:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/13/2013 9:36:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/13/2013 9:29:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/13/2013 6:35:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Government can hire people to build things. There's really no logical way you can say that government can't create economic growth. Government has actually been widely successful with infrastructure projects.

This.

Say wha?

I've always believed government has an essential role in infrastructure. Government is part of the reason there's a big demand for construction firms, engineering firms, urban planners and designers. Government can be a good customer in some instances.

By government though I mean state and local.

So now that the government has essentially built most of the roads in the United States, we should introduce anarchy because 1% costs of maintaining the infrastructure should be quite easy to manage?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 11:40:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 10:58:12 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/13/2013 9:59:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/13/2013 9:36:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/13/2013 9:29:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/13/2013 6:35:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Government can hire people to build things. There's really no logical way you can say that government can't create economic growth. Government has actually been widely successful with infrastructure projects.

This.

Say wha?

I've always believed government has an essential role in infrastructure. Government is part of the reason there's a big demand for construction firms, engineering firms, urban planners and designers. Government can be a good customer in some instances.

By government though I mean state and local.

So now that the government has essentially built most of the roads in the United States, we should introduce anarchy because 1% costs of maintaining the infrastructure should be quite easy to manage?

Tell that to the 7,000 bridges in this country that need to be retrofitted or rebuilt.

The next infrastructure project we need is a low orbit satellite communications network. This might be a bit beyond the anarchist model to produce.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:08:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 6:22:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.

No, it could theoretically do so, but technically all you are doing is shifting wealth. You are using tax payer money to create jobs, using someone else's money to create wealth does not show growth in the private sector.

So private companies spending money grows the economy, government spending money just shifts wealth. Ok. So what happens when government money ends up in the hands of a private company who then spends it?
slo1
Posts: 5,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 9:27:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2013 7:16:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
They simply shift money from one pocket to another. The private sector ultimately dictates how well the economy is, the government jobs are payed for by taxpayers, and since taxes aren't investments you get returns on, gov't created growth does not improve the economy, it just dips in to the pockets of taxpayers to pay for the jobs. Can someone logically refute this?

This is just completely wrong thinking. If there is no return on the tax monies collected and spent for national defense, then why don't we just get rid of national defense?

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.