Friday, August 17, 2012

What Part Was The Mistake Rep Ryan? The Jobs Perhaps?

"Representative Paul D. Ryan said on Thursday it was a mistake to have requested funds in 2009 from the federal stimulus bill after voting against it."

So what part of that was a mistake? Could it be the effort to help create jobs for his constituents?

"The Congressional Budget Office said the stimulus increased employment by 1.3 million to 3.3 million people."

So why would it be a mistake to increase employment? Could that be because the Republicans figure that anything that helps employment during President Obama's term hurts their 2012 election chances? Could that be because they've cynically decided that helping the American people is against their political interests? Could that be because they've fanatically decided that they know what's best for us so much that they figure it's OK to hurt us for a while as long as it helps them get back in power in the long run?

3 comments:

  1. "So why would it be a mistake to increase employment? "

    because the only employment that government can create in the public AND private sectors is entirely dependant on the use of force to confiscate and redirect wealth and resources into politically choosen industries/businesses, without that, those jobs wouldnt exist, these businesses wouldnt make it a day in the free market where their survival is dependant on voluntary trade, not legislative force and a check from the treasury. that could hardly be considered investing in an economy built for long term growth, as many left liberals wrongly call it...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. Jones, you're apparently a believer in the idea that govt spending can only crowd out private spending. That notion has been thoroughly debunked.

    As one among the many examples that show that government can work in symbiosis with private industry, consider the Eisenhower Highway System. It's ludicrous to claim that an equivalent network of highways would have come about by way of toll highway construction (especially since even toll highways are usually built initially with govt involvement ... usually even primary leadership and financing from govt). The highway system has undeniably contributed greatly to commerce and helped our private enterprise expand.

    Further, consider that govt investments in technology gave rise to the Internet (core networking technology invented within DARPA) and fostered the growth of our technology industry in many ways even beyond private research.

    While it is true that the govt will influence the path of industry to go in a direction other than that in which it would otherwise have gone, it is also true that this influence can be -- and repeatedly has been in practice -- a symbiosis that drives our industries further than they would have gone on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  3. debunked? how so? the burden of proof is on you. Every dollar the govt spends is taken from the private sector, the majority of it through direct taxation (this includes borrowing) and the rest through inflation, which is a form of taxation. Therefor, any dollar the govt spends is one dollar less the private sector, or society, had to spend. Society is now one dollar poorer and the govt and the politically well connected are now one dollar richer.

    I dont have as much a problem with highways, or infastructure in general, aslong as its paid with earmarked userfee's (gas taxes, property tax, etc) that go specifically to infastructure and not through the general fund or with borrowed money. I do think one problem we see throughout history when the govt manages infastructure is it leads to ALOT of waste, in both capital and resources. Construction on govt contracts is in the overwelmingmajority of cases much more inefficient than construction on private sector contracts. We see this both on the history of railroad contruction and in highway construction, so wealth and resources are destroyed when the govt manages our infastructure. I agree with you that is debateable atleast to assume that private industry would have built the highway system at that time, the highway system was built for troop movements and to keep nuclear weapons mobile, and the private sector would never have a need for that.

    And that doesnt even touch on all this talk of infastructure investment, that somehow wealth is magically created by the govt paying contractors to mill and repave highways, with borrowed funds that taxpayers will have to repay plus interest. This is classic 'Broken Window Theory Fallacy' origionally written by liberal political theorist Frederic Bastiat and later by the classical liberal economist Henry Hazlitt in Economics In One Lesson. This is the lesson of what is seen vs what is unseen.

    "Further, consider that govt investments in technology gave rise to the Internet (core networking technology invented within DARPA) and fostered the growth of our technology industry in many ways even beyond private research."

    it also wastes alot of money on technology grants, or any type of grant. The internet would have and was coming about with or without taxpayer money. If research cant attract private investment, if the only way a company can get capital is to lobby the govt to take money from society with force and to give it to them against the will of society, than its safe to say there isnt any legitimate market value of that research or that product to society. capital and resources are simply taken from society and their best economic use and redirected to the politically connected to be wasted.

    "While it is true that the govt will influence the path of industry to go in a direction other than that in which it would otherwise have gone, it is also true that this influence can be -- and repeatedly has been in practice -- a symbiosis that drives our industries further than they would have gone on their own."

    sure, it drives the companies that received taxpayer money further than they would have gone on their own, that's the problem. If a company cant survive by providing society with a good service or product at a cheap price than it needs to go bankrupt, not be artifically propped up with society's money and resources. In doing this, wealth and resources are taken from economically efficient companies and put into economically wasteful and inefficient companies. The loser is society as a whole, the winner is government and the polically well connected wealthy. Resources are scarse, society and a free market price system is the best way to determine the most efficient and beneficial use of our scarse resources and capital, not gov't, if that was the case the mid 1900's socialism and communism around the world would have had great success.

    ReplyDelete