Peaking…
Tweet
Nobody really knows what the future holds, but I have a feeling that the GOP/conservatives may have peaked a bit too soon. The 2010 elections are 13 months away, and by this time next year “death panels” and nutty town hall meetings are likely to be in the dustbin of history with the rest of the non-stories conservative media traffics in (of course by then Fox News will likely have found brand new “czars” who of course went through senate confirmation).
There’s an interesting layout here in the WSJ that goes contrary to the current narrative. Net year is likely to hinge politically on the employment/economic outlook. I would guess that we’ll start seriously seeing our way out in the next six months, and that will help the Dems and the President.
If anything my gut tells me the Dems will lose a few seats next year, but nothing to endanger control of both chambers.
You should also know that I am usually wrong about these things.
73 Responses to “Peaking…”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I think it will take a few years for job growth to come back and don’t think it mattered who’d became our President for that to happen.
But President Obama did help ease some of the crisis with his stimulus plan.
Oliver, my chubby black friend – you are more right on than you may realize! Even most of the stimulas package that was agreed to months ago doesn’t kick in until 2010. Most of its jobs will be generated in the first two quarters of 2010.
An average American has a recall of two news cycles – three for the intellectuals. By summer 2010 Health Care will be on the road to implementation, the war in Iraq will be winding down – over half the troops there now will have been brought home – Afghanistan will be drawn down a bit, Pakistan’s offensives this year and next will have finished off many of the Taliban/Foreign Bad guys in their Wild West and the economy will be comming around – even if ONLY because the powerhouse of Asia will be drawing the world upward.
America will never be “the alpha and the omega” again BUT she can at least be a reasonable 2nd fiddle to China – much like the former Greek empire became a pleasant shadow to Rome’s empire.
Yep, they are way overplaying their hand. Unless something really unexpected occurs in the next months I bet we’ll see normal mid-term losses for the D’s, if that, and the R’s will be standing around with the shit-eating Mission Accomplished grins thinking “I thought they’d greet us as liberators! I know what we need to do – be more conservative!”
Of course even normal mid-term losses will make it possible for the R’s to gum up everything Obama tries to do, so there’s no call for complacency.
Also, I could be wrong – nobody can predict the future.
The GOP will pick up some seats in the House, but the Dem majority will still be overwhelming. The Senate will probably stay about the same.
The GOP doubled-down on fail, betting that the American economy would never recover. That was a really dumb bet to make, allowing for the short-term orc cotillions that were the teabag parties and lining the pockets of Glenn Beck. Actual, demonstrable gains in Congress? Not so much.
I’m pretty confident that 2012 is a lock for Obama’s second term, if only because the GOP doesn’t have any valid candidates that can run in all 50 states beyond Romney, and Romney’s Mormonism is unacceptable to the fundie bigots.
The GOP has nothing to offer and no issues to run on. I won’t be surprised if they lose seats next year.
Leftist economist and liberal hero most often cited by OW.com moonbats, Nouriel Roubini:
Unemployment Will Rise Through 2010
I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said “My daughter’s wedding created more jobs than the stimulus package”.
And that was on the back of a SUV in liberal Westchester NY.
Oh, and no small print about “I hate Pres Obama, because he is black”
Little things mean a lot
I don’t know about the economy, but if wingnuttery has peaked could that mean there may be time for seemingly “sane”, “moderate” republicans to appear and take more than the expected number of seats?
Little things mean a lot
I think you mean:
“Little things that confirm my prejudices mean a lot, big things that don’t mean nothing”.
if wingnuttery has peaked could that mean there may be time for seemingly “sane”, “moderate” republicans to appear
Might be a problem of demand outstripping supply there.
But President Obama did help ease some of the crisis with his stimulus plan.
And your proof is …
And your proof is …
We were hoping you would provide yet another link to support this argument (thinking it would do the opposite, of course)…
Roubini’s been pretty negative for some time, he may or may not be right. Like I said in the post – either the economy improves or it doesn’t.
I hope you’re right, Oliver, but personally I don’t think we’ve come anywhere near the peak of crazy. The peak has to come at a big, splashy, polarizing Moment when the country as a whole goes “OK, that’s officially too much, you guys are just nuts,” and the crazies stop finding platforms from which to speak and audiences willing to listen to them. We haven’t had that Moment yet. I keep waiting for the right wing to lose its shit in a truly dramatic way that simply can’t be ignored. It’s probably going to take a violent act, though I hope I’m wrong about that.
An interesting dynamic seems to be developing as the more mainstream conservative commentators are starting to distance themselves from the Limbaughs and Becks. They were making the point last Sunday that if conservative radio couldn’t even prevent McCain from winning the South Carolina primary, let alone the nomination, what power do they really have? Brooks hasn’t been shy about calling them ‘nuts’.
They were making the point last Sunday that if conservative radio couldn’t even prevent McCain from winning the South Carolina primary, let alone the nomination, what power do they really have?
That’s the latest Republican Party talking point. The racist Southern Strategy will no longer work, and they know it. The talking point would carry more weight if both Presidents Bush didn’t regularly give Limbaugh tongue baths. McCain’s “electability” got him SC and other victories, but the Limbaugh Wing still insisted on Palin being on the ticket. How’d that work out?
Careful, Oliver, I think invoking a Friedman Unit is not the way to go.
@Felix Helix: I think the country’s long since had their “you are just nuts” moment. What is missing is that the media has not.
I’m just happy if Roubini says we’re not facing a double dip recession next year. I’d expect unemployment to top 10 percent early next year and slowly decline over the next 2-4 years. We’ll have just enough improvement for people to perceive the worst as being over and better days coming.
but the Limbaugh Wing still insisted on Palin being on the ticket. How’d that work out?
It netted McCain his only lead in the polls, which would have continued had not McCain kept suspending his campaign and refusing to allow his staff to criticize Obama (lest he be branded a racist.)
So, forget the fact we have 10% unemployment for the next year or so and hopefully it declines just enough that the public doesn’t blame Democrats enough that they don’t get decimated. It’s all about the party.
I don’t fault you in the slightest, I’m just happy that a few of you aren’t shy about admitting it.
I think you mean
Wrong, Wilbur! What I meant was that that driver wasn’t hollering at a Town Hall Meeting or carrying a sign at a demonstration, nor was his car festooned with yellow ribbons, or other pithy patriotic (for you liberals, that means “ultraright wing”) sayings.
It was just one bumper sticker on one car. But someone printed up that bumper sticker, and he bought it, or maybe made it up himself. It makes an intelligent, cogent, criticism of the President.
Yes, little things do mean a lot.
It netted McCain his only lead in the polls, which would have continued had
notMcCainkept suspending his campaign and refusing to allow his staff to criticize Obama (lest he be branded a racist.)managed to keep his batshit crazy, shit-all stupid, rogue running mate from any sort of public interviews or debates. And even then, yeesh.Better.
Frank DiSalle: I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said “My daughter’s wedding created more jobs than the stimulus package”.
It was on a bumper sticker. So it must be true.
Indeed: We were hoping you [SaveFarris] would provide yet another link to support this argument (thinking it would do the opposite, of course)…
LOL!
musta been one hell of a wedding!
Felix Helix: The peak has to come at a big, splashy, polarizing Moment when the country as a whole goes “OK, that’s officially too much, you guys are just nuts,”
Paging Joe Welch!
Yeah, Sean, it must be true that there was a bumper sticker. And it nust be true that we are heading for double digit unemployment because … Wait for it! The government cannot create jobs!
Never has .
Never will.
Except for several times in the history of the US…
Frank DiSalle: Wait for it! The government cannot create jobs!
I could create an incredibly long list of government programs the directly created jobs (WPA, CCC), government initiatives of various types that directly resulted in private sector jobs being created (NASA), government expansions that resulted in, yes, more jobs (creation of DHS).
You want to argue more jobs are created by private industry, or better jobs, or long lasting jobs, give it a shot. But flatly stating that the gov’t cannot create jobs is so obviously and easily shown to be untrue that it just destroys your credibility.
I guess the 15% or so of people that work for various governments don’t really have jobs.
Bringing an Agency into existence, and then hiring people to work there is not “creating jobs”. That’s the same thing as building a ship in the desert, and then putting men to work on the ship, and then calling them “Sailors”. They are not sailors because you built a ship that will never sail, and put men on it.
The Works Progress Administration and the CCC did work that no one needed or wanted.
Granted, planting trees in rows so perfect that when you drove by, it looked only one tree, is certainly pretty. But leaving that forest alone for twenty years would have resulted in the same amount of trees, just not planted in perfect rows.
The WPA gave us Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, and the work of Alan Lomax, who discovered Leadbelly, and recorded some of America’s treasured tunes, neither of things fulfilled a market need until after they were completed at taxpayer expense.
And I’d love to see how the creation of NASA led to the DHS. Except for Tang and more uses for velcro, NASA didn’t fulfill a market need, either.
If the Agency goes away, the job goes away. If a job fulfills a market need – like burgers, say, when a Mc Donald’s closes, a Wendy’s opens.
When was the last time you heard of a chain of moon shot facilities being opened “Space – Mart”, maybe? Or “Moonshots ‘R’ US”?
I know it’s quibbling, but the fact is make work built on public debt is not creating jobs – it’s like paying your son to take out the garbage.
but the fact is make work built on public debt is not creating jobs
Gary Ruppert!
it’s like paying your son to take out the garbage.
Pay your son to take out the garbage and two good things happen: a) your money, instead of going to increase the already inflated profits of aftershave and condom companies, goes to keep up bubblegum and candy companies that would otherwise never get your custom, b) your son learns how to handle money which means he’ll be more likely to be able to pay your nursing home bills when your chief pastime is drooling out of both sides of your mouth.
Frank, since you actually lived through the Great Depression it’s disinegenuous to say the government can’t create jobs.
That said, Bush had eight years to shit on the American economy. Obama has had nine months to fix it, and so far he’s doing a great job.
DOW approaching 10,000.
Dennis? Dennis?
Frank DiSalle: Bringing an Agency into existence, and then hiring people to work there is not “creating jobs”.
No, no. no. Y’see, Frank, what you wanted to do there was acknowledge “Ok, I overstated it.” and then go on to make the (supposedly) legitimate point that you were actually intending to make like gov’t jobs aren’t long lasting or don’t really accomplish things that people need.
What you don’t want to do is continue to make such obviously false absolute like statements like “gov’t cannot create jobs” or start off by claiming basic words don’t mean what the really do mean like “creating jobs” doesn’t mean paying people to do work.
The Works Progress Administration and the CCC did work that no one needed or wanted.
Not that I conceed your claim but, even if true, so what? Is the work provided by a lot of private sector jobs really “needed” or “wanted”? There a big market demand for paparazzi, bathroom attendants, bag boys or pundits? Yet someone pays for them (so the person holding he job certainly wants to job to exist) and someone does benefit from the work they do.
If nothing else, the fact the WPA and CCC provided folks with money, to spend on food, clothing, for rent, etc. filled a genuine need and want. I suppose that could have been done more directly. Just give the “workers” the money without making them do any work (which, BTW, consisted of far, far more than your dismissive example of planting trees in straight rows) but I’m sure folks would have objections to that level of welfare.
And I’d love to see how the creation of NASA led to the DHS.
Uh, didn’t say it did, Frank. But the work done by NASA, particularly in the ’60s, (which, again, consisted of a lot more than your dismissive (and flat out wrong) examples of Tang and Velcro) provided the basis for creating a LOT of private sector jobs which continued to exist long after the “Space Race” ended.
When was the last time you heard of a chain of moon shot facilities being opened “Space – Mart”, maybe? Or “Moonshots ‘R’ US”?
It has been a while. But I have heard of water purification systems, better baby food, improved structural design for automobiles, more efficient (cheaper!) manufacturing methods, improved weather forecasting, improved breast cancer detection, better air tanks for firemen. All of which followed from or built on NASA work and involve what I guess you would consider “real” jobs in the private sector that still exist.
Yes, and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
I will concede that the government can spend money; I will concede that they can give money to people for performing tasks.
That leads me to conclude that the next time the Democrats want to spend 700 billion dollars on a stimulus package, they should just send $44,000 to each and every man, woman and child in America each month for two years.
You want to see a booming economy? Try that!
“I will concede that they can give money to people for performing tasks.”
Those of us in reality-land call this “a job.” You should try having one yourself some time.
Granted, planting trees in rows so perfect that when you drove by, it looked only one tree, is certainly pretty. But leaving that forest alone for twenty years would have resulted in the same amount of trees, just not planted in perfect rows.
The WPA gave us Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, and the work of Alan Lomax, who discovered Leadbelly, and recorded some of America’s treasured tunes, neither of things fulfilled a market need until after they were completed at taxpayer expense.
Those things make people feel good, which makes them happier and more productive. This is Econ 101 level stuff right here. Maybe you should try taking an economics course, since they didn’t have colleges back in your day.
That leads me to conclude that the next time the Democrats want to spend 700 billion dollars on a stimulus package, they should just send $44,000 to each and every man, woman and child in America each month for two years.
$44000 * 24 months * 300,000,000 Americans = 317 trillion, not 700 billion, brainiac.
700 billion = l lump sum payment of $2400 for each American. You could do that, but many people would pay debts with the money, which has zero stimulative effect (unlike buying things, whether individuals or the government is doing the buying).
Still, tax cuts can be stimulative if directed at the right people (i.e., people with the most propensity to spend rather than save), which is why they were such a central part of the Obama stimulus package.
The CCC also served as a de facto training ground for the American officer corps during WWII.
Yup, gosh darn socialism ruins America every time, like when we defeated Hitler.
700 billion = l lump sum payment of $2400 for each American. You could do that, but many people would pay debts with the money, which has zero stimulative effect
Paying debts being an unproductive way to spend your money, I suppose, not to mention the facts that a) The the money would come to every man, woman and child, meaning that a family of three would get $7,200, which might do more than may their debts; and b) Not everyone is even $2,400 in debt; and c) Returning every penny of 700 billion dollars to credit card companies (even if such an astonishing thing were to occur), wouldn’t be such a bad thing, either, now would it?
And, once again, without evidence, support or documentation, someone claims that “the CCC also served as a de facto training ground for the American officer corps during WWII.” [see the Paragraph entitled Civilian Conservation Corps (public image, daily reality) <a href="http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/C5P1.htm"here
I suppose the list of officers with such experience was so long, that you chose not to repeat it here, or even link to its location.
They further claim that socialism won War II.
Harry Turtledove called – he wants to borrow your ideas for his next book
Yes, Zython, you are right again. People make and sell stuff to make other people feel good. I am sure that in Anime school they teach you that, but in college (which I attended from 1990 to 1994, while you were in the crib — and graduated Magna cum laude – that’s “with great praise” for you public school students), we learned that products are made and sold to profit the producer, while fulfilling a felt need of the consumer.
Look up “praxis”.
Link corrected : here
“They further claim that socialism won War II.”
That wasn’t my claim. I’m just saying that something like the CCC had the intended benefit of providing some jobs to people who needed them and the unintended benefit of interesting people like my grandfather in a military career as an officer in WWII.
But if you define socialism as broadly (and incorrectly) as “whenever the government shells out money for something” then indeed, socialism won WWII for America. Bullets and tanks have to be paid for, not to mention things like the GI Bill which gave generations of Americans access to college that they didn’t have before. And these people get better jobs, and make more money, and pay more taxes back to the Fed.
Funny how reality has a funny way of constantly eluding you Frank. But congrats on magna cum laude. I was summa cum laude myself.
No, Jaim, you went to summer school, not summa school.
And , of course, since your grandfather told you that he thought the CCC prepared him to be an officer, that the CCC must have done that many, many times. Well, at least you provided us with one example — one more than I expected.
As for reality eluding me , that implies that it was at one time within my grasp. Too bad I can’t say the same for you.
end italics
No, Jaim, you went to summer school, not summa school.
And , of course, since your grandfather told you that he thought the CCC prepared him to be an officer, that the CCC must have done that many, many times. Well, at least you provided us with one example — one more than I expected.
As for reality eluding me , that implies that it was at one time within my grasp. Too bad I can’t say the same for you.
Frank, here you go!
“Regular and reserve Officers of all branches of service were pulled into the CCC program. The CCC leadership role developed practical experiences which the reserve officer normally would not have received during peace-time. Many highly decorated military leaders of WWII were CCC Camp Commanders. Second Lieutenant William Train who was present at Camp Roosevelt on April 17, 1933 finished his military career as Lieutenant General Train. Records indicate that there were mixed feelings among some reserve officers about serving on active duty in a CCC Camp. After all, the CCC enrollees were not soldiers and the pomp and circumstance associated with the officer corps was not available in remote rural communities.”
Frank DiSalle: I will concede that the government can spend money; I will concede that they can give money to people for performing tasks.
The lengths you will go to avoid admitting you were wrong on something, even a relatively minor point, is truly astonishing, Frank.
You mean you will concede that the gov’t can create jobs. As noted before, why not just say so and THEN move on to who those jobs are lacking in some way? Why the need to never concede even the obvious inch?
Frank DiSalle: No, Jaim, you went to summer school, not summa school.
S’funny. Seems like only yesterday someone was complaining about folks who make personal slights.
I am glad you bolded that sentence , because it indicates , not that CCC informally prepared the US Officer Corps for World War II, which it did only tangentially in its role of instilling bots with discipline and structure, but that many military leaders had been CCC Camp Commanders, not workers.
But, whatever.
I concede that, yes, the government can create jobs, that is, they can make work and pay people for it.
However, and this is a big however:
Sean Martin seems like only today that Jaim already did, He was the only person here who openly stated that he didn’t like the “o personal attack policy,” and he actually took the time out to saym and I quote , “Frank, since you actually lived through the Great Depression it’s disinegenuous to say the government can’t create jobs.”
Then he said, “Those of us in reality-land call this “a job.”
Then he said this: “unny how reality has a funny way of constantly eluding you Frank”
But I guess those don’t qualify as personal attacks — not even the two, where I am personally addressed.
My record still stands – I have never instigated or initiated a personal attack against anyone. And, if on some rare occasion, I did, the it pales in comparison to the hundreds of attacks levelled at me.
OLiver called a halt to them , jaim hasn’t skipped a beat.
Frank DiSalle: But what is less obvious is that the resources to build that bridge are taken from the private sector and thus are no longer available for other uses. This is the “unseen.”
This is akin to “opportunity cost”. A useful idea to grasp concepts, but only to a very limited extent as a way to measure something. The person working on a gov’t funded project indeed isn’t working on any other projects. He’s not working on assembling appliances for GE. He’s not manning customer service phones for Dell. He’s not pumping gas. He’s not working as a bike messenger. He’s not working on a farm. He’s not doing a near-infinite number of other things.
Now, that he’s working on a gov’t project doesn’t mean he’s not available for all those other things. If they paid better, for example, he could go pursue any of those other jobs. So the objection to jobs from gov’t vs jobs from private sector really can’t be what your snippet of Bastiat suggests, that gov’t is somehow withholding those resources from the private sector.
Frank DiSalle: My record still stands – I have never instigated or initiated a personal attack against anyone. And, if on some rare occasion, I did, …
So you’ve never done it, unless you have. Got it.
How about: “I don’t recall having done it, but if I did, it couldn’t possibly approach the number of times I was called names , insulted, told I was drinking, told I was defecating from both ends of body (I can’t remember who that was – maybe you can refresh my memory), and of coursem the myriad times I was called “idiot”, “dumbass” and worse , by “open minded, accepting, tolerant” liberals.
There, is that better?
Government never created a job? I live a few miles away from the LLNL, and I bet I can find several dozen engineers, physicists, and technicians who would disagree with you. And, beyond that, there’s city employees that maintain infrastructure, cops that maintain order, district attorneys and defenders, county employees, and and and…
Obviously, the issue is what constitutes a ‘job’. These are jobs, and the government, local, state and federal, advertise them, hire for them, pay for them and provide tools for them. How is government not making jobs?
Fwank is vewwy vewwy upset today!
jaim: is your “w” key not functioning? Or is it just you?
abanterer: The “LLNL”, as you called it, is the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which it claims “is solving the most important problems in national security, homeland security, counterterrorism, energy and environment”. No one would argue that its function is not well within the Constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense [note the ".gov"]. It is hardly make work, as is planting trees in a forest.
So, are you admitting then that the government does create jobs? I would suggest this also extends to jobs created at the local level, such as police and fire, and the state, which would include large scale infrastructure.
Actually, no I am not …
What do you think “popular demand” means?
You can suggest all you want, but the demand for a Police Department or a Fire Department always precedes its creation. It’s not like some bureaucrat woke up one day, and thought, “I have a great idea to create jobs! Let’s get a bunch of guys together, and teach them how to put out fires. We’ll pay them money, and call them – let’s see – I know! Firemen!
Please , don’t be ridiculous!
The Water Company is not a project set up to create employment. Sanitation workers were not created by some ancient version of the New Deal.
No one said, “Wouldn’t it be great to build a bridge from Manhattan to Brooklyn , so we could emply a bunch of people ?”
When you’re totally wrapped up in the “Government can accomplish anything” mentality, it is hard for you to understand that things can, and do, occur separately from Government.
Even I am old enough to remember when there wasn’t much to report from Washington on any given day, and I was born after World War II. Now, we have three cable networks reporting news from Washington somehere between 6 and 10 hours a day, and a special channel for government broadcasting 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 12 – 15 hours of political discussion every Sunday. And there’s much more I haven’t included. Judging by television alone , you would think 1984 had already arrived.
It’s sort of hard to argue a point when the definition of ‘job’ keeps changing. First you said governments don’t make jobs. Then you say it doesn’t create ‘real jobs’, but ‘make-work’, which wasn’t needed or wanted by anyone. Then you said that the fine folk at LLNL, and I would add, other places are fulfilling roles in their mandate under the defense of the nation, but now you’re saying those aren’t jobs because the demand didn’t precede it’s creation? Or that there IS no demand for these people?
Look, I’m saying that the government creates jobs all the time. It fulfills a demand for a number of jobs that the private sector has either been unwilling to move into, or been unable to perform effectively. The government created the Internet and developed the process of atomic fission; these weren’t these done by fairies, but people on the government dime.
I’m not trying to chide you here, but you’re using a really weird definition for employment. I put it to you that the government does employ people in positions that are demanded by citizens who pay taxes for this to be done, and that these are jobs. Tell me how they aren’t.
You can suggest all you want, but the demand for a Police Department or a Fire Department always precedes its creation.
So…if the government creates jobs to satisfy a demand, that’s not creating jobs, but…
The Works Progress Administration and the CCC did work that no one needed or wanted.
If they do it to NOT satisfy a pre-existing demand, that’s not creating jobs either. You’ve gone out of your way to frame the debate such that you can’t lose. That’s juvenile at best.
My record still stands – I have never instigated or initiated a personal attack against anyone.
Uh…
we learned that products are made and sold to profit the producer, while fulfilling a felt need of the consumer.
I guess you then tuned out everything about exclusive goods, public good, and common goods.
and graduated Magna cum laude
Let me guess, DeVry, right?
Let me guess, DeVry, right?
My record still stands – I have never instigated or initiated a personal attack against anyone. [see above]
You never fail to entertain me , Zython
abanterer: You try to reply to four or five people twisting your words , saying you really meant something else, and pretending you said something else, and you’ll see how confusing it gets for me.
I repeat, civil service jobs are jobs, the CCC and WPA were make work … If you don’t know the difference , I can help you no further.
Zython “exclusive goods, public good, and common goods” all fulfill a “felt need of a consumer”. Throwing around a few terms from Economics 101 — do they teach that at DeVry? You seem to be familiar with them — does not make you an economist.
Zython “exclusive goods, public good, and common goods” all fulfill a “felt need of a consumer”.
Yes, but the latter two aren’t “made and sold to profit the producer”.
My record still stands – I have never instigated or initiated a personal attack against anyone.
And my link provides evidence to the contrary, IN THE SAME ARTICLE.
You seem to be familiar with them
You don’t watch alot of TV, do you? Nah, you probably get your entertainment by telegraph.
does not make you an economist.
Still hell of a lot better at it than you.
My first professional job was for the government.
Frank, how does the government not create jobs?
Well Frank, I was commenting on the statement you made that the government doesn’t create jobs. And apparently, you needed to qualify it a bit to ‘it creates jobs, but not all of them are essential’. And that’s something I can accept – I’m pretty sure there’s a million jobs out there that society would move along swimmingly if they didn’t exist, like telemarketing and Sham Wow. Still, it’s not as much an indictment of the government as the total marketplace, public and private.
jaim, if you had read this whole thread, you wouldn’t be asking such an idiotic question.
I am not referring to non-essential jobs — but you do raise an interesting point. When there is bad weather, the government say that at its agencies, only “essential personnel” have to make it in. So, everyone else is non-essential?
But I digress.
Let me try the simplest, clarifying example I can imagine:
Your sidewalks and driveway are covered with snow. You dread the idea of doing all that shovelling, and then cleaning off the car.
Just then , a young boy comes to the door, and says, “Hey, Mister! For $10 I’ll shovel your sidewalk and your driveway.”
You give boy $5 now, and $5 when done.
Later, he tells you he’s done, you look outside , it’s all clean, you give him the other $5 and two bucks extra .
That was a job that fulfilled a felt need .
Now, suppose the government starts paying kids to shovel the snow off people’s lawns. That is useful, to a point, not really necessary, and no one asked for it.
That is “make work”, and not ‘job creation’. Now, if you don’t understand the difference now, I give up.
Frank DiSalle: Even I am old enough to remember when there wasn’t much to report from Washington on any given day, and I was born after World War II. Now, we have three cable networks reporting news from Washington somehere between 6 and 10 hours a day, and a special channel for government broadcasting 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 12 – 15 hours of political discussion every Sunday.
Can you point to any significant number of people that demanded all that coverage? I’m positive if I were to poll every person I cross paths with in even the most brief respect there wouldn’t be a one of them who would honestly claim “Yeah, I always used to think there wasn’t enough political news coverage and we really needed close to constant round-the-clock coverage.”
You’ve just undercut your own arguments. It isn’t that Washington is doing more than it used to. It’s that it’s being reported more. And that reporting wasn’t created in response to a demand, so I guess those reporters don’t really have “jobs”.
Frank DiSalle: My record still stands – I have never instigated or initiated a personal attack against anyone.
Because anyone just disagreeing with you is a personal attack, so you can never be anything other than the unsullied victim?
Or
When someone else does make a personal comment, escalating it to repeated threats of physical violence doesn’t count because the other person’s verbal jab justified any retaliation no matter how excessive?
One of those your standard, Frank? Just trying to reconcile what you’re saying now with what has actually gone before.
Frank DiSalle: Now, suppose the government starts paying kids to shovel the snow off people’s lawns. That is useful, to a point, not really necessary, and no one asked for it.
Or suppose private industry started paying people to give political news coverage 6-12 hours a day and over double that on Sundays? That is useful, to a point, not really necessary, and no one asked for it.
So how is gov’t that different than private industry? Both create jobs. Some essential, some in response to demand, some not.
Sean, you are incorrect. The “felt need” comes from people who want to watch the news, but it also comes from advertisers, who have their own ways of determining who is watching, and what they might be interested in buying. The is why, for example, television stations will devote as much as 4 hours a day to a golf tournament. Hardly anyone watches , but advertisers know that most of that audience buys big ticket items. 24 hour news broadcasts are not designed to be watched by the same person all day and night, the stories for the first 15 minutes of each hour of the day, are the big news items of the day. By 50 minutes into the hour, they are showing you the Artichoke Festival in Castroville, CA, interspersed with LA freeway car chases, and Brittany Spears dancing in sweats.
So, yes, people have asked for it, and yes, it does fulfill a “felt need”
However, your other comment, doesn’t fulfill any felt need of mine to respond to it. Perhaps if the potential remuneration were higher?
Frank, you are incorrect. You have yet to actually make a single argument that distinguishes private sector jobs from public sector ones. You keep undercutting your own arguments. Every time you try to make a distinction you’ve shown a similarity.
However, your other comment, doesn’t fulfill any felt need of mine to respond to it.
And, yet, you did. A final example of your claiming one thing while actually demonstrating the opposite.
There is a simple reason why I have not distinguished between public sector jobs and private sector jobs: It is irrelevant to my point,
This is the last time I am going to explain this. There are people out there who operate health food stores. I don’t eat that stuff, and I don’t care who does. That does not mean it is unnecessary, or that there is no “felt need”,
OK?
Next, the government has thousands of employees doing all sorts of things from making copies to flying jet planes. Those are government jobs, (Civil Service, Military, Government contractors, what have you) These are jobs which someone feels are necessary, and for which someone sees a “felt need”.
OK?
Paying teenagers to plant trees in forest, is not necessary, nor does it fulfill anyone’s “felt need”, except perhaps some kid’s desire for a paycheck in exchange for little or no work; or a desire on a liberal’s part to feel good about himself.
OK ?
That’s the third time — three strikes and you’re out .
Telling someone you will not respond to their comment, is not normally considered a response . You are being churlish.
So first you declarativly proclaim the gov’t cannot create jobs. Then you back off on that (while never actually admitting you misspoke, of course) and try to redefine what “jobs” means.
Then you take your new definition that jobs are only those things which fill a “felt need” and further mutate the definition to exclude any needs you actually don’t agree with.
Thus, you’re able to again circularly proclaim that things that people do because others hired them to do them are not actually “jobs”.
Nice.