Lib media goes wild over unemployment "decline"

RoccoR · Dec 11, 2011

Patrick, et al,

My I offer an alternative senario.

Patrick said:
Well for example, that government can "create" jobs..

(COMMENT)

I would like to suggect that the government CAN create job; in certain situations. An example was in the National Defense Highway Act (alla Eisenhower). This is just but one example in which the National Government went about repairing and build additional infrastructure for the nation that contributed to jobs in construction, as well as promoted line of commerce that directly added the economy.

In the technical industries, the federal government (during the space race) promoted jobs in scientific research, education, and technology adaptations that made it to the commercial market (alla Kennedy).

=======================

Again, the evolution of leaders in Washington, since the time of the Greatest Generation, has been to sit on their asses and pretend to be patriotic and innovative Americans; not actually BE patriotic and innovative. They work in their own best interest; not in the best interest of all Americans.

I agree that many of the paper shuffling pieces of legislation, and the bail-out/loan schemes are not productive; counter-productive in some case. But that is because no one in Washington wants to rebuild America; it is not that we cannot. They are either to stupid or too lazy; coupled with their own personal greed.

Name one politician that has a plan to rebuild America (Infrastructure, Industry, Education, Energy, etc) and you'll see someone that doesn't have a chance of winning.

REMEMBER: We (AMERICA), under the current generation of leaders, went from walking on the Moon, to have to hitch a ride into space and outsourcing satellite launches. Hell, we can't even build a TV in America.

Most Respectfully,
R

Patrick · Dec 11, 2011

RoccoR said:
Patrick, et al,

My I offer an alternative senario.
(COMMENT)

I would like to suggect that the government CAN create job; in certain situations. An example was in the National Defense Highway Act (alla Eisenhower). This is just but one example in which the National Government went about repairing and build additional infrastructure for the nation that contributed to jobs in construction, as well as promoted line of commerce that directly added the economy.

In the technical industries, the federal government (during the space race) promoted jobs in scientific research, education, and technology adaptations that made it to the commercial market (alla Kennedy).

=======================

Again, the evolution of leaders in Washington, since the time of the Greatest Generation, has been to sit on their asses and pretend to be patriotic and innovative Americans; not actually BE patriotic and innovative. They work in their own best interest; not in the best interest of all Americans.

I agree that many of the paper shuffling pieces of legislation, and the bail-out/loan schemes are not productive; counter-productive in some case. But that is because no one in Washington wants to rebuild America; it is not that we cannot. They are either to stupid or too lazy; coupled with their own personal greed.

Name one politician that has a plan to rebuild America (Infrastructure, Industry, Education, Energy, etc) and you'll see someone that doesn't have a chance of winning.

REMEMBER: We (AMERICA), under the current generation of leaders, went from walking on the Moon, to have to hitch a ride into space and outsourcing satellite launches. Hell, we can't even build a TV in America.

Most Respectfully,
R

No matter how many times this is repeated, some are just unable to get it. Yes, yes, the government can tax the economy and give a job to someone, usually the politically connected. What usually happens is when the money runs out, the job ends. Any such "created" jobs depending on (1) taxing people, taking money out of other uses it would be put to, (2) raising the national debt, or (3) printing money - ALL OF WHICH HARM THE ECONOMY including jobs. Trying to improve the economy this way is analogously if you wanted to raise the water level in your swimming pool, so you scoop out a bucket full at one end, and dump it in the other end. It won't work, never has worked.

RoccoR · Dec 11, 2011

Patrick, et al,

Yes, it takes money to make money; we all know that. But it takes infrastructure to draw industry. The greater the infrastructure, the more the attraction.

Patrick said:
No matter how many times this is repeated, some are just unable to get it. Yes, yes, the government can tax the economy and give a job to someone, usually the politically connected. What usually happens is when the money runs out, the job ends. Any such "created" jobs depending on (1) taxing people, taking money out of other uses it would be put to, (2) raising the national debt, or (3) printing money - ALL OF WHICH HARM THE ECONOMY including jobs. Trying to improve the economy this way is analogously if you wanted to raise the water level in your swimming pool, so you scoop out a bucket full at one end, and dump it in the other end. It won't work, never has worked.

(COMMENT)

With all due respect, this is old school thinking. How much did the economy grow when the interstates were first built? And, the interstates, while in disrepair, are still here adding to the wealth of the nation.

As I said, we went from a country that walked on the Moon, to a country that has to hitchhike into space. And we lost most of the technology transfer benefits to society. Yes, it took an influx of tax dollars to bring it about, but the benefits we derived were helpful in industry and commerce. It boasted millions of jobs and made billions in our past economies. Whether it was the Teflon-coated fiberglass, the cooling and refrigeration technologies, the need for and development of advanced computers, portable cooling systems for treatment of medical ailments such as burning limb syndrome, multiple sclerosis, spinal injuries and sports injuries; lightweight breathing system for firefighters, the developed robotic arms that allows surgeons to operate multiple instruments simultaneously, or manufacturer to modernize assembly lines; the creation of the artificial heart pump; --- OR --- the multispectral imaging methods used for seeing and understanding the Martian surface that gave way to ???(can you guess)??? And this is a minuscule sample from one effort. Not counting all the other ancillary jobs it created in the process.

As long as we fail to invest in ourselves, the harder it becomes to see the taxpayer as a pool of investors for our nation. We must all want to build the nation if we are to open the 21st Century.

Just My Thought,
R

Patrick · Dec 11, 2011

RoccoR said:
With all due respect, this is old school thinking.

No actually, it's Milton Friedman school thinking, who won a Nobel prize in economics. The age of a theory has nothing it all to do with it's validity - theories stand or fall based on the evidence. Your keynsian ideas have failed in two gigantic experiments for which the people have paid the price - FDR's New Deal in the depression, and obama's trillion dollar porkulus - both resounding failures.

And we lost most of the technology transfer benefits to society. Yes, it took an influx of tax dollars to bring it about, but the benefits we derived were helpful in industry and commerce.

Back up your claims with facts. Give an accounting of the dollar value of these "transfer benefits" citing a neutral, qualified, credible, reliable source. Also demonstrate that the technologies wouldn't otherwise have been developed.

As long as we fail to invest in ourselves, the harder it becomes to see the taxpayer as a pool of investors for our nation.
Just My Thought,

The people don't require arrogant politicized bureaucrats to extract money from them for "investments", they are able to do it themselves thank you.

myp · Dec 11, 2011

Patrick, don't tarnish Milton Friedman's name by pretending you stand by his work and care for intellectual integrity and academically and practically sound theory. Because you don't. Your blatant refusal to provide evidence for what you believe in or to berate others without sound arguments is proof enough.

That aside, you blatantly cherry-pick his work for what you support through your intuition and don't provide actual evidence against his ideas that you reject. You already did it twice in this thread with the bit on war and illegal immigration (Friedman was a strong proponent of illegal immigration and how it helps the economy). Friedman also support a negative income tax, monetarism, and infrastructure which I suspect you don't and was partly mentioned by RoccoR above. More importantly than that (because it is okay to agree with people on some things and not all), you do not seem to believe in the scientific principles behind these matters that Friedman believed in. You also aren't open to listening to others ideas as he was. Friedman was a great man, a genius some might say. Don't pretend you think like he does or that your arguments stem from such meaningful analysis.

myp · Dec 11, 2011

RoccoR said:
As long as we fail to invest in ourselves, the harder it becomes to see the taxpayer as a pool of investors for our nation. We must all want to build the nation if we are to open the 21st Century.

What would you propose we do out of curiosity? How far and in what form would you like to see "investments"?

Patrick · Dec 11, 2011

myp said:
Patrick, don't tarnish Milton Friedman's name by pretending you stand by his work and care for intellectual integrity and academically and practically sound theory. Because you don't. Your blatant refusal to provide evidence for what you believe in or to berate others without sound arguments is proof enough.

You think I'm going to grow old tutoring fools on the work of probably the second most famous economist of the 20th century (after keynes)? I'm guessing there are nine year olds who know that he was a renowned anti-keynsian.

That aside, you blatantly cherry-pick his work for what you support through your intuition and don't provide actual evidence against his ideas that you reject. You already did it twice in this thread with the bit on war and illegal immigration (Friedman was a strong proponent of illegal immigration and how it helps the economy). Friedman also support a negative income tax, monetarism, and infrastructure which I suspect you don't and was partly mentioned by RoccoR above. More importantly than that (because it is okay to agree with people on some things and not all), you do not seem to believe in the scientific principles behind these matters that Friedman believed in. You also aren't open to listening to others ideas as he was. Friedman was a great man, a genius some might say. Don't pretend you think like he does or that your arguments stem from such meaningful analysis.

The wheels in your head are so loud, you don't actually hear what others say.

I cited Friedman on "government job creation", period. Because I cite him on that doesn't obligate me to agree with everything he said since he learned how to talk.

Re the illegals, he famously said:

That’s an interesting paradox to think about. Make it [illegal immigration] legal and it’s no good. Why? Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for social security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket. So long as they don’t qualify they migrate to jobs. They take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take. They provide employers with the kind of workers that they cannot get. They’re hard workers, they’re good workers, and they are clearly better off.

Re illegals, his analysis was entirely faulty - illegals DO drain the welfare system writ large. They are practically the whole Los Angeles county school system - hundreds of thousands of students - the second largest school system in the country, in a state that's billions of dollars in debt and where education is the biggest state cost. They run up everyone's medical bills and insurance bills by exploiting the health system in the southwest. In the same area they create huge costs in the criminal justice system. The "take jobs nobody else will take" argument has been deflated long ago. Further, Friedman was an >>>ECONOMIST<<<
-- he DIDN'T DEAL WITH the non-economic issues, eg the balkanization of the country, the grim political implications.

myp · Dec 11, 2011

He based his opinions on actual studies JUST LIKE MANY MODERN ECONOMISTS DO. These studies in academia INCLUDE SCHOOL COSTS, etc. and many of them suggest ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A NET POSITIVE. You still don't understand because you refuse to look at the studies because you have a prejudice against illegal immigrants for whatever reason.

And economics is the closest the macro social sciences have to actual science. To actual empiricism and logical conclusions. Politics is just a madhouse. It DOES NOT MATTER if you are just concerned with the utility of the people because economics does a MUCH BETTER job at analyzing utility. Politics only matters where it effects economics and that is accounted for within economics. So econ does a much better job in analyzing utility than politics which is often concerned with other stuff- stuff that is not important such as what party is the best or nationalism or politics for the sake of the game, things you seem to love to take an opinion on and have shouting matches about (much akin to fighting about whether team A is better than team B in sports.)

CatholicCrusader · Dec 12, 2011

myp said:
Just a side-bit, but you realize that massive government spending in war and stopping the free movement of peoples (illegal immigration) are both the opposite of "free market forces" too, right?

Gobbldeygook.

War is one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal government if it should become neccessary.

The terms "free movement of peoples" and "illegal immigration" do not even belong in the same sentence. The former is legal and the latter is not. A person is not "free" to illegally cross the border, and in fact that should not even be referred to as immigration: Its illegal activity.

myp · Dec 12, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
Gobbldeygook.

War is one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal government if it should become neccessary.

That is not a claim I am making. I am saying war spending is against market forces if government is doing the spending. Which is true.

CatholicCrusader said:
The terms "free movement of peoples" and "illegal immigration" do not even belong in the same sentence. The former is legal and the latter is not. A person is not "free" to illegally cross the border, and in fact that should not even be referred to as immigration: Its illegal activity.

Anything that is made illegal and forced coercively is done against market forces

Patrick · Dec 12, 2011

myp said:
He based his opinions on actual studies JUST LIKE MANY MODERN ECONOMISTS DO. These studies in academia INCLUDE SCHOOL COSTS, etc. and many of them suggest ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A NET POSITIVE.

OK MR. CITATION, LET'S SEE LINKS TO THOSE STUDIES.

1. Make sure you offer proof that Friedman based his comments on the particular studies you cite.

2. Give evidence that the persons/institution doing the studies are qualified, neutral, credible, and reliable.

(This should be good.

)

And economics is the closest the macro social sciences have to actual science.

As a physics major in college, who also took three courses in economics, let me note that's like saying strawberry ice cream is the closest ice cream ever gets to being a pizza.

Politics only matters where it effects economics and that is accounted for within economics.

One of your dumbest comments, and that is REALLY saying something. Politics in this country affects EVERYTHING.

myp · Dec 12, 2011

Patrick said:
OK MR. CITATION, LET'S SEE LINKS TO THOSE STUDIES.

1. Make sure you offer proof that Friedman based his comments on the particular studies you cite.

2. Give evidence that the persons/institution doing the studies are qualified, neutral, credible, and reliable.

(This should be good. )

I've given you those citations in previous posts. I will not do it again. I will give you a taste of your own medicine: use Google, sparky. And David can back me up on giving you the links in past posts, which you threw aside as "a virus" when it was actually a PDF.

Patrick said:
As a physics major in college, who also took three courses in economics, let me note that's like saying strawberry ice cream is the closest ice cream ever gets to being a pizza.

Taking 3 econ classes in college doesn't make you an expert

I've actually ironically taken 3 econ classes in college too. That aside, you probably took those several decades ago (I don't know you age, but I am assuming)- things have changed a lot since then in econ, but even back then some people (i.e. Friedman) were using sound methods.

Patrick said:
One of your dumbest comments, and that is REALLY saying something. Politics in this country affects EVERYTHING.

And as I said, that is already accounted for in econ studies. The political economy.

Fascist Canuck · Dec 12, 2011

Let me see, today's immigration is a 'net positive'? Canada's healthcare system was the best in the world. Today, not so the case. Why? Immigrants.

Canada has amongst the world's most-generous social programs, which are driving us to the poorhouse. Why? Immigrants.

Canada's literacy is dropping to historical lows. Why? Immigrants.

Canada's crime rates are through the roof in comparison with the past. Why? Immigrants.

Need I go on? I wish people would THINK before they post.

Patrick · Dec 12, 2011

myp said:
I've given you those citations in previous posts.

No links, no proof - garsh, we're all surprised at THAT, huh?

Taking 3 econ classes in college doesn't make you an expert

I didn't say it made me an expert, Captain Strawman. But even economists would laugh at your attempt to equate economics with real science.

And as I said, that is already accounted for in econ studies. The political economy.

Riiiiiiiiight.

And your non-economic comments have been limited to tossing the race card.

myp · Dec 12, 2011

Patrick said:
No links, no proof - garsh, we're all surprised at THAT, huh?

I didn't say it made me an expert, Captain Strawman. But even economists would laugh at your attempt to equate economics with real science.

Riiiiiiiiight. And your non-economic comments have been limited to tossing the race card.

I really hope you weren't as lousy and biased with your physics work (if you actually even have a degree in physics) as you are with economics and politics. If you were, however, I am sure you didn't last long. Maybe that is why you are so hateful and bitter- have a grudge against the world Patrick?

Patrick · Dec 12, 2011

myp said:
I really hope you weren't as lousy and biased with your physics work (if you actually even have a degree in physics) as you are with economics and politics. If you were, however, I am sure you didn't last long. Maybe that is why you are so hateful and bitter- have a grudge against the world Patrick?

HEE HEE HEE!

Every time I stomp you flatter than the saturday edition of the Kinshasa Times, you come up with one these weird posts. Quit it - I'm getting empathetic embarrassment for you.

myp · Dec 12, 2011

Patrick said:
HEE HEE HEE! Every time I stomp you flatter than the saturday edition of the Kinshasa Times, you come up with one these weird posts. Quit it - I'm getting empathetic embarrassment for you.

Anyone with half a brain can see who is making logical arguments and who is in his delusional fantasy world where things are so distorted that he doesn't even understand what others are trying to say. And I am not the latter

RoccoR · Dec 13, 2011

myp, et al,

Most of us tend to view the economics of American in well-defined semi-scientific terms:

Example: GNP = consumption + investment + government spending + net exports

We tend to differentiate private investment from government spending, and look at consumption as a factor of earned income minus taxes (private again).

We look at reasons for outsourcing employment and manufacturing opportunities in terms of:

Lower Wages
Lower Regulatory Costs
Tax Benefits
Ability to Downsize at Will
Improved Performance
Freeing up Resources For Core Activities
Quicker Turnaround Time
Uncertainty Over Political/Business Climate
Accelerated Time to Market
Commodification
Contractual Certainty

Economics, even the most advanced studies, are historical in nature. The axioms tell us how history unfolded and the forces in play. But the axioms cannot be used to guide us into the future and make sound monetary and economic decisions. If it could, then America would have been able to avoid the crisis it faces now. So, we must not make the mistake of accepting economic concepts are written in stone. Remember what the Great Albert Einstein said: “"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." But that seems to be exactly what we are doing, and why American Leaders are unable to rebuild the strength in commerce and industry. We keep following scholarly economic teaching expecting to get a different result. If you keep using the same logic over and over again, then you either have a very long line of successively and immensely popular (but inept) leaders, or the logic and economic theories do not work in the invironment.

myp said:
Q: What would you propose we do out of curiosity? How far and in what form would you like to see "investments"?

(BACK DROP)

I propose changing these constants in such a way – that, manufacturing and production will want to come back to the US. It is impossible to do on the basis of patriotism. Business and Corporations pay homage to “wealth;” maximizing wealth. They own no allegiance to America of the People (employees). They have no national pride in the brand summation (made in America).

(COMMENT)

The taxpayer is, in fact, an investor in the nation by virtue of the “tax dollar” contribution. Each business entity (with the government being a non-profit business) understands if you are not re-investing (in this case, tax dollars) in your business (America), you are killing your business (America).

The US spent, last year (2010) $663B on the Department of Defense.

NOTE: DOD budget of $663B is more than the combined budgets for the Departments of:

Health and Human Services – Transportation – Veterans Affairs – State and International Programs – Housing and Urban Development – Education – Homeland Security – Energy – Agriculture – Justice – National Aeronautics and Space Administration – Commerce – Labor – Treasury – Interior – Environmental Protection Agency – Social Security Administration – National Science Foundation – Corps of Engineers – National Infrastructure Bank – Corporation for National and Community Service – Small Business Administration – General Services Administration. (You could virtually double the budget of the entire rest of the government with what is allocated for DOD.)

(OCCUM’s RASOR)

What we do and How we pay for it:

You have, no doubt, noticed that a number of federal departments are in a strategic position to help rebuild America. Of these, there are about eight (8) that need to be brought online for a maximum effort to the rebuilding and rejuvenation process. In effect, their budgets need to be, in some cases, quadrupled:

Corps of Engineers – $5.1B to $20B
- Plan, and build, new commercially usable locks and dams. Initiate new civil engineering projects include Mississippi River flood control, and dredging the waterway for improved navigation.
- Design and build Gulf Coast flood protection systems.
- Design and construction management new electrical power generation facilities.
- Restoration of ecosystems and new forestry.
Energy – $26.3B to 105B
- Design and build safe and powerful, nuclear reactor production for the nation.
- Conduct energy-related research into alternative sources.
- Plan and build geothermal generation plants; massive wind farms and solar arrays in the desolate areas.
Transportation – $72.5 billion to $100B
- Plan and build fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and convenient transportation system for commerce.
  - Better airports
  - Rejuvenation current highways, and build newer hughways.
  - Rebuild the Marine port facilities
.

And so on with these agencies: (I could write for days on this subject.)
Environmental Protection Agency – $10.5B to $30B
National Science Foundation – $7.0B to $10B
National Infrastructure Bank – $5.0B to $10B
Agriculture – $26.0B to $100B
Small Business Administration – $0.7B to $1B

This would represent a reduction in the DOD Budget of approximately 22%; or, from about $663B to $520B (a difference of nearly $143B). This reduction represents (slightly less than) the combined cost of the Afghan/Iraq War for the same year --- 2010.

The idea is simple. If the nation embarks on such a course, there will arise a very real need for an educated work force, more students, and more smaller business to provide the ancillary support needed. There will be a need for real scientist and engineers, as well as construction workers. This reinvestment will circulate more money inside the US economy at both the state and local level, and it will begin to build new markets for the exchange of new technologies.

Finally, it adds to the net worth of the nation (home improvements) and gives America a competative advantage in the cost of production and the associated transportation costs.

This is just a "Thumbnail View." And Again, it is not the way the 20th Centruy Political Leader thinks, and why - if we keep choosing Leaders from the old school, they will fail us all. We need leaders who are passionate about the health and sturdiness of our nation. Not professional politicians that are greedy for power.

Most Respectfully,
R

myp · Dec 13, 2011

RoccoR, first of all I would like to thank you for a respectful and intelligent response.

I, however, disagree with some of the things you said. For one, you claim that most economics is based on axioms and history, but that is simply not true. The only popular school you might say that for is the heterodox Austrian school, which does build its theories on axiom. But the Austrians are often not even considered a major school and is often criticized for its use of non-rigorous (for lack of a better word) methods. If you look at the bigger schools and theories that are widely popular today- Keynesianism, monetarism, etc. you will see that they all base their theories on experiments, econometrics, etc.

That aside, some of the programs you suggest expanding might well have positive effects if they can generate more than what they cost in deadweight losses in market activity. I can tell you however that not all of them will do that- some are very prone to regulatory capture and might have the opposite effect. More importantly, some of the things these groups might do can be done by the private sector, which is generally more efficient. It is really just a matter of increasing confidence and having policy that incentivizes stable growth and perhaps more importantly (depending on what your views of the current crisis are) innovation. For that, I would really look to the tax code- so much of the problem is in tax loopholes. Other things would be reducing barriers to entry for small businesses (ironically expanding funding to the agencies you want to might have the opposite effect), reforming the intellectual property rights system (to avoid cases like the recent Prometheus case and Apple's patent wars), and reducing future government guarantees to the financial industry.

RoccoR · Dec 13, 2011

myp, et al,

I am in basic agreement with ALL of your observations.

myp said:
If you look at the bigger schools and theories that are widely popular today- Keynesianism, monetarism, etc. you will see that they all base their theories on experiments, econometrics, etc.

(OPINION)

Either the experiments and true metric change faster then they can be humanly used, or they are not useful in the play as it moves forward. Otherwise, the global economy would not be in the shape that it is in. The business cycle would have been altered and recessions significantly reduced in frequency.

Or, the third alternative is that in the real world, the maximization of wealth has more momentum than does long term strategies using Keynesian mechanics.

In either case, Keynesian Mechanics can be used to tell us what has befallen us and why, but not how to avoid or manage the case in mitigation. Or, the entire discussion would be mute because it would already lead us to the proper course of action with minimal adverse consequences to the economy.

In physics, there is Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle --- in Economics and Monetary Strategy there is changing reality.

myp said:
... ... ...

I can tell you however that not all of them will do that- some are very prone to regulatory capture and might have the opposite effect. More importantly, some of the things these groups might do can be done by the private sector, which is generally more efficient. It is really just a matter of increasing confidence and having policy that incentivizes stable growth and perhaps more importantly (depending on what your views of the current crisis are) innovation.

(COMMENT)

Yes, "regulatory capture!!!" This stresses the point that, not only should the citizenry be the stakeholder --- but that the planning and rebuilding be lead by the agencies -- to overcome/mitigate the impact. I agree that it would be a problem otherwise. But if Imhotep is the architect, the red-tape can be minimized. If Imhotep doesn't quickly adapt, then we (the citizenry) need to rapidly change the leader.

myp said:
some of the things these groups might do can be done by the private sector, which is generally more efficient.

(COMMENT)

There is no question, that all of these things can be done by the private sector. It is a mater of the vehicle used to sponsor the work.

Most Respectfully,
R