Page 47 of 63 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 628

Thread: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

  1. #461
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by gopman View Post
    Sure, but in order to create those jobs, it has to get that money from somewhere else, and that means destroying jobs.
    Correction: potentially destroy jobs. Arguing from the position of opportunity cost assumes that the alternative would be done. That's a big assumption and as borne out in the past year or so, not necessarily true. People sat on money, literally hiding it under their beds. That money would not have been used for other opportunities. Furthermore, government spending in terms of multipliers and money velocity should create more jobs indirectly. Many jobs in basic materials production are related to government spending on defense. Massive orders for heavy equipment prompts producers to buy more steel. Guess who sees their employee rolls increase? Steel producers even when they aren't directly related.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #462
    Advisor gopman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    09-04-16 @ 09:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    556

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Correction: potentially destroy jobs. Arguing from the position of opportunity cost assumes that the alternative would be done. That's a big assumption and as borne out in the past year or so, not necessarily true. People sat on money, literally hiding it under their beds. That money would not have been used for other opportunities. Furthermore, government spending in terms of multipliers and money velocity should create more jobs indirectly. Many jobs in basic materials production are related to government spending on defense. Massive orders for heavy equipment prompts producers to buy more steel. Guess who sees their employee rolls increase? Steel producers even when they aren't directly related.
    Actually the impact of savings is well known and I considered that. Even at the height of the recession the savings rate in the US was 10%. So even excluding that 10% from the calculation, if it costs $250k to create a stimulus job and $100k to create one privately, tax cuts are massively more effective.

    And anyway you're saying it like saving is a bad thing. If 10% of the taxes returned to US consumers and businesses were either used to pay down debt or deposited in a bank, that would have been a major benefit to the financial system, which was driving the recession deeper and thereby destroying more jobs as you may recall. And of course we can't forget that savings (basically) = investment. And investment creates jobs. So no matter what the private sector did, it probably would have been better than the government.

    Now that's not to say I'm 100% against some deficit spending. But this stimulus was just a disaster. Obama should be sent to jail for being so bad at his job.
    If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.
    - Milton Friedman

  3. #463
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by gopman View Post
    Actually the impact of savings is well known and I considered that. Even at the height of the recession the savings rate in the US was 10%. So even excluding that 10% from the calculation, if it costs $250k to create a stimulus job and $100k to create one privately, tax cuts are massively more effective.
    Sorta. The savings rate on new income sure, but what about all of the existing wealth that was being tucked away? If I store 10% of my paychecks into savings, that's not the same as me taking my portfolio of $250,000 and sticking it entirely into a savings account or under my bed.

    And anyway you're saying it like saving is a bad thing. If 10% of the taxes returned to US consumers and businesses were either used to pay down debt or deposited in a bank, that would have been a major benefit to the financial system, which was driving the recession deeper and thereby destroying more jobs as you may recall. And of course we can't forget that savings (basically) = investment. And investment creates jobs. So no matter what the private sector did, it probably would have been better than the government.
    I'm not saying savings is a bad thing, only that opportunity costs are largely theoretical. Granted, if everyone went to savings accounts that would have drastically boosted reserves and helped the banks, but many people went towards oil and gold. Neither of which actually produce more jobs other then the financial advisers and accountants needed to run those.

    Now that's not to say I'm 100% against some deficit spending. But this stimulus was just a disaster. Obama should be sent to jail for being so bad at his job.
    It's not really a stimulus. Looking at what's in it and the time frame, it's little more then an initial front loaded long term spending plan.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #464
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    I don't know. Are you saying it's not possible to figure out? Private businesses do it every day.
    Let's say that a company was going to fire someone, but now because of the stimulus he now doesn't have to be fired. How can you measure that?

    No problem. If people want to dig canals, fine. Building roads isn't that far up from digging canals. But better-paying jobs also have an even greater multiplier effect per job, for obvious reasons.
    Seriously? So you think that digging a canal WITH SHOVELS is a good way to spend money? Really?

    Why does it matter where the money comes from, in the short-term? This is about the short-term, unfortunately.

    I am not saying this is the best way to run an economy. But the mistakes have been made (I'll leave it to you to figure out by whom) and now we're in a jam. A stimulus is our best option right now.
    Because if money comes from taxes then making money isn't about making a profit (satisfying consumers), it's about persuading politicians. That's a completely inefficient economic model.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  5. #465
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Let's say that a company was going to fire someone, but now because of the stimulus he now doesn't have to be fired. How can you measure that?
    Well, I think you just did. One job saved.

    Seriously? So you think that digging a canal WITH SHOVELS is a good way to spend money? Really?
    No, I'm saying it's good enough if there are no alternatives. You are the one who suggested it, so why are you asking me?

    Because if money comes from taxes then making money isn't about making a profit (satisfying consumers), it's about persuading politicians. That's a completely inefficient economic model.
    Consumers aren't satisfied when the government does it's job? Really? You aren't happy when you have a road to drive to work on and police to keep you safe?

    But of course you're talking about an entirely different issue anyway, because this isn't about the government creating wealth like a business. Nobody said the stimulus would do that anyway. The stimulus is for employing people so they can create wealth, and then spend money so that others can create wealth, and so on until the private sector is back to using people's labor to create wealth at full speed. So the whole objection that the government can't create wealth is irrelevant anyway. It's an empty slogan.

  6. #466
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Well, I think you just did. One job saved.
    So you're going to go up to every person and ask them if the stimulus saved their job? Not very dependable. Admit it, there's no way to measure "jobs saved."

    No, I'm saying it's good enough if there are no alternatives. You are the one who suggested it, so why are you asking me?
    Because you said that the only measure of a good stimulus is based on the multiplier effect and number of jobs created. I'm telling you that you also have to look at the productivity that you're getting directly from that money.

    Consumers aren't satisfied when the government does it's job? Really? You aren't happy when you have a road to drive to work on and police to keep you safe?
    Sure I'm satisfied, but that's not the only thing that you have to look at. Don't forget about efficiency. Building a road that would otherwise cost $1,000,000 for $10,000,000 would be a tremendous waste of resources. Would we still be satisfied with the road? Probably, but then it would also deny us of other things that would satisfy us and prevent us from our highest amount of satisfaction.

    But of course you're talking about an entirely different issue anyway, because this isn't about the government creating wealth like a business. Nobody said the stimulus would do that anyway. The stimulus is for employing people so they can create wealth, and then spend money so that others can create wealth, and so on until the private sector is back to using people's labor to create wealth at full speed. So the whole objection that the government can't create wealth is irrelevant anyway. It's an empty slogan.
    So then according to your theory, the government has to get "unused" money. What money exactly is being unused? You would say saved money, but catwaba already showed that money is not being "loaned" because the government has all of it.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  7. #467
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    So you're going to go up to every person and ask them if the stimulus saved their job? Not very dependable. Admit it, there's no way to measure "jobs saved."
    No, didn't say that. Nor did you. Read what YOU said again.

    Because you said that the only measure of a good stimulus is based on the multiplier effect and number of jobs created. I'm telling you that you also have to look at the productivity that you're getting directly from that money.
    Why?

    Sure I'm satisfied, but that's not the only thing that you have to look at.
    No, it's not, when you're answering the question. Which I did.

    Don't forget about efficiency. Building a road that would otherwise cost $1,000,000 for $10,000,000 would be a tremendous waste of resources. Would we still be satisfied with the road? Probably, but then it would also deny us of other things that would satisfy us and prevent us from our highest amount of satisfaction.
    Efficiency is good, but that's a different issue.

    So then according to your theory, the government has to get "unused" money. What money exactly is being unused? You would say saved money, but catwaba already showed that money is not being "loaned" because the government has all of it.
    No he hasn't.

  8. #468
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No, didn't say that. Nor did you. Read what YOU said again.
    I said that it's impossible to measure jobs saved. You disagreed.

    Why?
    Because you could get so much more wealth using mostly machines to dig the canal and using the manpower for other things. If you waste potential output then it's like you're just throwing money out the window. Have you ever heard of the Parable of the Broken Window? Look it up.

    No, it's not, when you're answering the question. Which I did.
    What?

    Efficiency is good, but that's a different issue.
    It's not a different issue. Government can never be as efficient as we would be with spending money because they don't know what we want as well as we do.

    No he hasn't.
    Sorry, I meant carlkay.

    Quote Originally Posted by carlkay58 View Post
    Another note - the point was made that the ratio for banks funds to reserve rate is currently 17:1. That means banks are holding onto 17 times the required funds by law. Do you know where those funds are held that are not out on loan? Federal Reserve Notes - i.e. loaned to the government, where they earn interest. So the money is currently on loan to the government rather than the private sector. Without this money on loan to the government, the government would not be able to raise the funds to spend on the stimulus. So the money is flowing from the private sector to the government sector because the banks are being actively encouraged by the rate on the Fed Notes over the risk of making loans.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  9. #469
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    I said that it's impossible to measure jobs saved. You disagreed.
    You yourself described how one knows a job is saved. Someone is about to get laid off, then the government comes with a stimulus contract and they aren't. One job saved.

    Sorry, the rest is too far off-topic for me.

  10. #470
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Sorry, I meant carlkay.
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlkay58
    Another note - the point was made that the ratio for banks funds to reserve rate is currently 17:1. That means banks are holding onto 17 times the required funds by law. Do you know where those funds are held that are not out on loan? Federal Reserve Notes - i.e. loaned to the government, where they earn interest. So the money is currently on loan to the government rather than the private sector. Without this money on loan to the government, the government would not be able to raise the funds to spend on the stimulus. So the money is flowing from the private sector to the government sector because the banks are being actively encouraged by the rate on the Fed Notes over the risk of making loans.
    He is dead wrong in regards to government borrowing via the Fed on various aspects of m1/m2 in depository institutions. When a bank buys a bond.... it holds it as an asset. When a bank sells a bond... it holds it as a reserve. Carl was a bit confused. Sorry you fell for such a tale.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 47 of 63 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •