Politicians Cause Economic Downsizing

[native]

A recent Harvard study "discovered" something already understood by the conks on this board: that government spending kills private sector jobs.

Check out Howard Rich's article:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... downsizing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youngterrier]

Government spending creates jobs as long as money is being spent. Once that spending stops so does the jobs. When you depend on the Government to create jobs you've abandoned the free market.

[native]

Government spending creates jobs as long as money is being spent. Once that spending stops so does the jobs. When you depend on the Government to create jobs you've abandoned the free market.

Yes, yes, of course!

But you are ignoring the main point, YT. Even if the government spending could go on forever, which it cannot, the very act of government spending takes away money that would otherwise be spent on private sector jobs.

[dbackjon]

That is a false premise, native.

Maybe in the past, but in today's world, that money is siphoned overseas to Dubai, Cayman, etc - anywhere that the rich can hide it. It does NOT lead to more private sector jobs.

[native]

That is a false premise, native.

Maybe in the past, but in today's world, that money is siphoned overseas to Dubai, Cayman, etc - anywhere that the rich can hide it. It does NOT lead to more private sector jobs.

The only reason what you say might be true is that people smart enough to have money are not stupid enough to invest it where the government will frivolously squander it.

Think about it. The more that what you say is true, the more it is a condemnation of Obama and his policies.

[dbackjon]

Not a condemnation of Obama at all. The were siphoning money off long before Obama.


And government spending CAN produce lasting jobs, if done correctly.
Infrastructure, transportation, recreation spending can and has produced lasting private sector jobs.

[native]

Not a condemnation of Obama at all. The were siphoning money off long before Obama.

And government spending CAN produce lasting jobs, if done correctly.
Infrastructure, transportation, recreation spending can and has produced lasting private sector jobs.

We are long past the point that government spending can create jobs without harming the private sector, jon. Under current circumstances, even Keynes would blush at your assertion.

[CitadelGrad]

It's called the "crowding out" effect. It has been documented since the 1930s, when government spending programs did not grow the economy and later were discovered to have actually prolonged and deepened the Great Depression.

[blueballs]

It's called the "crowding out" effect. It has been documented since the 1930s, when government spending programs did not grow the economy and later were discovered to have actually prolonged and deepened the Great Depression.

This was covered in the first Econ class I took in college... basic stuff.

[Baldy]

.

[Baldy]

Not a condemnation of Obama at all. The were siphoning money off long before Obama.


And government spending CAN produce lasting jobs, if done correctly.
Infrastructure, transportation, recreation spending can and has produced lasting private sector jobs.

Silly assertion.
That's like claiming Communism hasn't worked because the right people haven't tried it, yet.

In Utopia, the government can create as many jobs as it wants to, but doing so is not sustainable in the real world. Those workers have to be paid somehow.

It's elementary economics.

[travelinman67]

Government spending creates jobs as long as money is being spent. Once that spending stops so does the jobs. When you depend on the Government to create jobs you've abandoned the free market.

This assumes
1) Government can spend tax money more efficiently than private sector as it relates to job creation.
2) The jobs government creates contribute to GDP.

Neither are true. While it is PARTIALLY true that some of the jobs government creates contribute to GDP, many, especially bureaucratic positions, actually result in negative GDP growth.
More important though, the Heritage Foundation calc'd that the annualized cost to create each "job", in correlation to Obama Administration "job stimulus" spending, was $132,000. Last cost analysis study I read before the recession assigned a "per job" private sector cost of $38,700.
Ergo, assuming direct cost assignment, for every $132,000 the feds pull from taxpayers to create one job, they just killed 2.5 jobs in the private sector.

In reality, since many govt. jobs are bureaucractic which create negative GDP growth and inhibit private sector growth, the actual "jobs lost" figure is closer to 5.5 (3 lost for every one bureaucratic position created) for every "govt job" created.

[kalm]

Not a condemnation of Obama at all. The were siphoning money off long before Obama.


And government spending CAN produce lasting jobs, if done correctly.
Infrastructure, transportation, recreation spending can and has produced lasting private sector jobs.

Yeah I call bull shit on that article as well. It's a good example of how economics is anything but an exact science including the notions that government spending doesn't grow GDP or that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Those are simply theories to support a political agenda.

To further one of dbacks examples consider the economic impact the Washington State Department of Fish and Game has on the private sector including jobs:

Geographically, Washington is the smallest western state yet it contains diverse populations of salmon, trout and warmwater fish from the coastal marine environments to the freshwaters of the interior. Although many fish populations are healthy, the state does have several salmonids listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). These recent listings have attracted a lot of attention as the habitat for the ESA listed salmonid populations affect 70% of the state's area, which happens to contain about 90% of its people. Yet, while striving to restore listed salmon populations, Washington's science-based fishery management program enables the state to rank 1st among Pacific Northwest states and 8th nationally on spending by sport fishers. 1

In 2001, 938,000 sport fishers spent $853 million dollars (or $1.7 billion per biennium) buying tackle, gas, motels, food and boats in small rural communities throughout the state. This spending provides much needed cash flow to local economies and to many small businesses. Why is that important? Washington is a small business state and with 185,000 small businesses it ranks high among all states in the number of small local businesses. It's a fact that fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing activities all support thousands of small businesses many located in rural areas of the state.
All together recreational fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing enjoyed by over 50% of our citizens contributes about $4.4 billion per biennium in spending to the economy of this state.1 Adding in estimates of just the ex-vessel value of commercial fishing brings the total to about $4.7 billion in biennial value. Whether the comparison is to the department's total biennial budget of about $295 million or to the department's general fund operating dollars of about $92 million, the return on investment ranges from 16:1 to 50:1, respectively. Said another way, for every $1 spent on science-based fish and wildlife management programs, between $16 and $50 returns to the state in fish and wildlife related spending. That is a huge statement about the value of this renewable resource to the state of Washington and to its citizens.


1. 2001 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Survey on the Economic Benefits of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Viewing
2. O'Bannon, B.K. (ed) 2000. Fisheries of the United States. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Silver Springs, Maryland

http://wdfw.wa.gov/pubaffrs/benefits_stewardship.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In general, should government shrink as conditions improve? Sure. Do we want government involved in production? No.

But government spending can help the private sector, and during times of crisis government is often the lender, insurer, and employer of last resort.

[native]

...economics is anything but an exact science including the notions that government spending doesn't grow GDP or that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Those are simply theories to support a political agenda.

...consider the economic impact the Washington State Department of Fish and Game has on the private sector including jobs...

You live in such an interesting world of fantasy and falsehood. Sometimes I have to give you credit for believing your own bullsh!t, kalm!

However,

1. You have not made the case that government spending increases GDP more than the same dollars used in private investment might have done.

2. You have not made the case that Obama's spending is creating jobs or that government spending, per se, creates jobs.

3. Some liberal politicians give Roosevelt's New Deal credit for bringing the U.S. out of depression, but in truth he was smart to immediately adopt the emergency measures proposed by Hoover's advisors (including Ogden Mills), which Hoover had privately begged him to support in a bi-partisan prior to the inauguration. Even liberal economists admit that Roosevelt's New Deal measures to raise prices and wages by government fiat raised the cost of hiring workers, slowed down the recovery, and contributed to extended unemployment. (By 1936,there were still 10 million unemployed!)

FDR deserves credit for having a positive mental attitude compared to Hoover, for being a charismatic and convincing cheerleader, and for trying new ideas to solve intractible problems, but he was also dishonest and had no clue about economics. He was very, very lucky to take office at the right time while sitting on the greatest gold reserves in the history of the world, shrewd (some would say disingenuous) for following Hoover's advice while claiming personal credit, and fortunate that his own policies didn't interfere with the economy any more than they did.

4. Washington State may or may not have an efficient and effective department of fish and wildlife. With or without the government, Washington State has more water per square mile than other Western States, and with or without the government, Washington State would enjoy a robust outdoor recreational economy.

You have told a nice story about Washington but you have not established a causal link or even a correlation. Until you can do so, don't break you arm patting yourself on the back.

[YoUDeeMan]

Not a condemnation of Obama at all. The were siphoning money off long before Obama.


And government spending CAN produce lasting jobs, if done correctly.
Infrastructure, transportation, recreation spending can and has produced lasting private sector jobs.

Yeah I call bull **** on that article as well. It's a good example of how economics is anything but an exact science including the notions that government spending doesn't grow GDP or that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Those are simply theories to support a political agenda.

To further one of dbacks examples consider the economic impact the Washington State Department of Fish and Game has on the private sector including jobs:

Geographically, Washington is the smallest western state yet it contains diverse populations of salmon, trout and warmwater fish from the coastal marine environments to the freshwaters of the interior. Although many fish populations are healthy, the state does have several salmonids listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). These recent listings have attracted a lot of attention as the habitat for the ESA listed salmonid populations affect 70% of the state's area, which happens to contain about 90% of its people. Yet, while striving to restore listed salmon populations, Washington's science-based fishery management program enables the state to rank 1st among Pacific Northwest states and 8th nationally on spending by sport fishers. 1

In 2001, 938,000 sport fishers spent $853 million dollars (or $1.7 billion per biennium) buying tackle, gas, motels, food and boats in small rural communities throughout the state. This spending provides much needed cash flow to local economies and to many small businesses. Why is that important? Washington is a small business state and with 185,000 small businesses it ranks high among all states in the number of small local businesses. It's a fact that fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing activities all support thousands of small businesses many located in rural areas of the state.
All together recreational fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing enjoyed by over 50% of our citizens contributes about $4.4 billion per biennium in spending to the economy of this state.1 Adding in estimates of just the ex-vessel value of commercial fishing brings the total to about $4.7 billion in biennial value. Whether the comparison is to the department's total biennial budget of about $295 million or to the department's general fund operating dollars of about $92 million, the return on investment ranges from 16:1 to 50:1, respectively. Said another way, for every $1 spent on science-based fish and wildlife management programs, between $16 and $50 returns to the state in fish and wildlife related spending. That is a huge statement about the value of this renewable resource to the state of Washington and to its citizens.


1. 2001 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Survey on the Economic Benefits of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Viewing
2. O'Bannon, B.K. (ed) 2000. Fisheries of the United States. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Silver Springs, Maryland

http://wdfw.wa.gov/pubaffrs/benefits_stewardship.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In general, should government shrink as conditions improve? Sure. Do we want government involved in production? No.

But government spending can help the private sector, and during times of crisis government is often the lender, insurer, and employer of last resort.

Wow, the government created fishing and hunting...and sailing...and anything related to enjoying the outdoors!

Who knew that without government spending, the entire income generated by Washington's receational fishing and wildlife businesses would drop to zero?

[CitadelGrad]

Yeah I call bull shit on that article as well. It's a good example of how economics is anything but an exact science including the notions that government spending doesn't grow GDP or that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Those are simply theories to support a political agenda.

It's an inexact science when it is critical of your political views but gospel when it supports your political views. There is no question that government spending during the 1930s was a contributing factor to the length and depth of the depression, along with Federal Reserve and trade policies. Even government officials by the late 1930s acknowledged that government spending had no effect on economic growth. What economists began to understand in the 1940s was that the spending did indeed have an effect, but not the one that was desired.

[kalm]

Yeah I call bull **** on that article as well. It's a good example of how economics is anything but an exact science including the notions that government spending doesn't grow GDP or that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Those are simply theories to support a political agenda.

It's an inexact science when it is critical of your political views but gospel when it supports your political views. There is no question that government spending during the 1930s was a contributing factor to the length and depth of the depression, along with Federal Reserve and trade policies. Even government officials by the late 1930s acknowledged that government spending had no effect on economic growth. What economists began to understand in the 1940s was that the spending did indeed have an effect, but not the one that was desired.

Sorry, but that's all highly debatable.

Not to mention the economic impact of various New Deal programs like the Bureau of Reclamation and the CCc on the private sector going forward. Like I mentioned in another thread, there are potato farmers and manufacturing facilities throughout the Northwest that to this very day are benefiting from cheap irrigation, transportation, and electricity as a direct result of 1930's government spending.

And that's just one little corner of the country.

[kalm]

However,

2. You have not made the case that Obama's spending is creating jobs or that government spending, per se, creates jobs.

I have some serious questions about Obama's economic policies.

3. Some liberal politicians give Roosevelt's New Deal credit for bringing the U.S. out of depression, but in truth he was smart to immediately adopt the emergency measures proposed by Hoover's advisors (including Ogden Mills), which Hoover had privately begged him to support in a bi-partisan prior to the inauguration. Even liberal economists admit that Roosevelt's New Deal measures to raise prices and wages by government fiat raised the cost of hiring workers, slowed down the recovery, and contributed to extended unemployment. (By 1936,there were still 10 million unemployed!)

Roosevelt ran as a balanced budget guy, found out how deep the shit was and quickly pivoted adopting some of Hoover's progressive policies which according to your comments in the above paragraph was smart.

The Depression shallowed a bit until Roosevelt started listening to the Republicans and tried balancing the budget through spending cuts. We immediately went into the mini Depression of 1937 with unemployment rising to 25%. Roosevelt pivoted once again and by the time we started ramping up for the war unemployment had fallen a full 10 percentage points.


4. Washington State may or may not have an efficient and effective department of fish and wildlife. With or without the government, Washington State has more water per square mile than other Western States, and with or without the government, Washington State would enjoy a robust outdoor recreational economy.

If you're a fisherman like me it's pretty damn efficient but I'm not sure it has that much more water per square mile than Oregon or Cali. Not that it matters. I used the fisheries service as an example of how government spending creates private sector growth.

Set aside the salt water and anadromous fish runs of the coast for a second and consider our low land lakes spring opener. Over 300,000 people go fishing on that day, purchasing tackle, beer, lunch, beer, boats, beer, camp sites, beer - you get the picture. The most popular lakes are on the east side of the state which, with all but a few exceptions, were unoccupied by game fish before the state started stocking them. Then for-profit resorts started sprouting up, providing camp sites, tackle shops, boat rentals, fishing docks, jobs, etc. Many of these lake resorts are full occupancy throughout the season. (At this point you should start to see the economic impact.)

Of course you can make the argument that this billion dollar industry would have sprouted up on it's own without the help of Fish and Game, but I'm guessing that most of the users who buy licenses are pretty happy with the arrangement, as are the sporting goods stores, grocery stores, convenience stores, resorts, motels, restaurants, marinas, boat dealers, etc.

And of course none of this even touches on the fact that these water ways are part of the public domain or the rights that Aboriginal Americans have to the resources.

You have told a nice story about Washington but you have not established a causal link or even a correlation. Until you can do so, don't break you arm patting yourself on the back.

You and Cluck should both be patting me on the back for enlightening you.

[native]

... You and Cluck should both be patting me on the back for enlightening you.

Smoke and mirros do not constitute either light or enlightenment, but by all means, please feel free to hold your breath while Cluck and I rush to thank you...

[travelinman67]

Podesta/Obama plan to expand ocean preserve to have devastating impact on U.S.commercial fisheries...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/10 ... ansion-to/

[kalm]

I miss ol Native

[travelinman67]

I miss ol Native

Your trolling helped run him off.

[kalm]

I miss ol Native

Your trolling helped run him off.

It's what happens when conks meet alternative views.

[Chizzang]

native was mildly insane...
His threads often completely backfired badly and he would get very angry

This thread for example...
Where He's trying to show that Federal Spending kills jobs (which is very likely true)
Yet the largest federal expenditure is our military - and native himself is on a military pension - it only takes a 2 minute conversation waltzing down that path...



He was the conservative gift that kept on giving...

[travelinman67]

native was mildly insane...
His threads often completely backfired badly and he would get very angry

This thread for example...
Where He's trying to show that Federal Spending kills jobs (which is very likely true)
Yet the largest federal expenditure is our military - and native himself is on a military pension - it only takes a 2 minute conversation waltzing down that path...



He was the conservative gift that kept on giving...

Native was, "Insane"

I'm, "Loony"

According to Hippie...

What was that theory about alternate views?