RON PAUL

Too bad the ideas that got us where we are today weren't given more time to succeed. Oh, how much more time did they need ? I keep forgetting.

Good.

I think Libertarians don't get elected by design;
if they actually did get elected and got their hands dirty, they couldn't nauseatingly preach about their ideological purity any more.

Uh ... is that supposed to be bad?

I'm pretty sure that job creation is a pretty good end unto itself. If those jobs happen to be useful (i.e., infrastructure & green-tech), so much the better.

Klingon Penis: I think Libertarians don't get elected by design;
if they actually did get elected and got their hands dirty, they couldn't nauseatingly preach about their ideological purity any more.

HA! Well said...

Klingon Penis: I think Libertarians don't get elected by design;
if they actually did get elected and got their hands dirty, they couldn't nauseatingly preach about their ideological purity any more.

I hope you are speaking of big-L Libertarians. Small-l libertarians have a very wide range of political opinions.

Isn't job creation the point? I fail to see the problem here.

Klingon Penis: I think Libertarians don't get elected by design;
if they actually did get elected and got their hands dirty, they couldn't nauseatingly preach about their ideological purity any more.

That, and they would be baffled by the real world and how very little Libertarianism actually works.

kmmontandon: Uh ... is that supposed to be bad?

I'm pretty sure that job creation is a pretty good end unto itself. If those jobs happen to be useful (i.e., infrastructure & green-tech), so much the better.

The point is that there are a ton of unforseen/unmentioned sideffects of creating these new jobs. What about the people who's jobs are lost because of polluting companies going out of business? Are the new businesses guaranteed to succeed? What happens after all these new services and infrastructure are constructed? Are green technologies even sustainable? Are they even appropriate in this economic climate?

But I dpn't want to question the Obamasiah, I'm drukn.

Yes, this is absurd! Far inferior to the Republican approach of killing off millions of jobs in order to transfer immense wealth to the top 5%. Sure, it destroys the economy and the lives of hundreds of millions of ordinary Americans, but at least it has a larger end in mind.

GAT_00: That, and they would be baffled by the real world and how very little Libertarianism actually works.

I find that most libertarian and conservative bromides start with this conclusion:



...and then work backwards until they come up with a hypothesis.

On a marginally more serious note, there are too many wild assumptions in this story to take it serioursly.

By the same logic, Obama should view war, crime, and hurricanes as opportunities to create jobs. While all three generate economic activity, we'd be better off if the resources spent on bombs, burglar alarms, and reconstruction work were available for other purposes, instead of being used to inflict, prevent, or recover from losses.


Not at all. The opportunity to create jobs that are aimed at fixing to a global (man-made?) problem, is entirely different from starting a war or mopping up after a hurricane. And the money spent on disaster relief is better spent elsewhere? What an absurd assertion, especially with absolutely no reasoning to back it up.

the fact that he lists "jobs that can't be outsourced" as a distinct goal is troubling. Paying people to dig holes and fill them in again also creates "jobs that can't be outsourced," but that doesn't mean it's a smart investment

This is just entirely spurious. This is just one criteria, and he is judging it as though it was his only criteria.

Speaking of digging holes, Obama also wants to spend $60 billion to "provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation." ... If creating jobs can justify transportation projects, why not fill the country with bridges to nowhere?

Again, entirely spurious. Huge volumes of American infrastructure is literally crumbling, and disparately needs to be fixed - but the author is judging this as though the only criteria was to spend money.

[Obama] says requiring that "25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025...has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs." Even if true, that projection tells us nothing about the advisability of such a mandate. If the government required that 25 percent of cars be replaced by.

This is bordering on simply juvenile. Again, the jobs are needed in this industry (as opposed to buggy whips) for a whole host of other reasons, not just this one reason.

This author is worse than a petulant 5 year old. I have squeezed out turds with more common sense than this article.

Klingon Penis: I think Libertarians don't get elected by design;
if they actually did get elected and got their hands dirty, they couldn't nauseatingly preach about their ideological purity any more.

And-1: Not at all. The opportunity to create jobs that are aimed at fixing to a global (man-made?) problem, is entirely different from starting a war or mopping up after a hurricane.

How? The point is that it's cost we're having to pay to avoid/mitigate/recover from losses, rather than productive activity in and of itself.

And-1: And the money spent on disaster relief is better spent elsewhere? What an absurd assertion, especially with absolutely no reasoning to back it up

Would we not be better off if we didn't have to spend that money on disaster relief? That's all he's saying. The fact the people get paid to rebuild houses after a hurricane doesn't mean hurricanes should be seen as an "opportunity to create jobs".

And-1: This is just entirely spurious. This is just one criteria, and he is judging it as though it was his only criteria

I don't understand what you're getting at here. That's just one of many points made in TFA.

And-1: Again, entirely spurious. Huge volumes of American infrastructure is literally crumbling, and disparately needs to be fixed - but the author is judging this as though the only criteria was to spend money

No, the author is criticizing the idea that "job creation" should be seen as part of the benefits to infrastructure spending, when it's properly understood as part of the cost. Particularly since simply spending money to create jobs clearly is part of the logic at work here.

And-1: This is bordering on simply juvenile. Again, the jobs are needed in this industry (as opposed to buggy whips) for a whole host of other reasons, not just this one reason

And the author explicitly stated he wasn't commenting on the other possible reasons. He was simply addressing the argument are a good thing because they "create jobs".

Mordant: Too bad the ideas that got us where we are today weren't given more time to succeed. Oh, how much more time did they need ? I keep forgetting.

This idea that Bush has been some kind of libertarian is one of the more baffling assertions to come out of this whole mess.

Churchill2004: How? The point is that it's cost we're having to pay to avoid/mitigate/recover from losses, rather than productive activity in and of itself.

And the "cost" can be beneficial. That's the point.

Churchill2004: I don't understand what you're getting at here. That's just one of many points made in TFA.

And it was a dumb point.

Churchill2004: No, the author is criticizing the idea that "job creation" should be seen as part of the benefits to infrastructure spending, when it's properly understood as part of the cost. Particularly since simply spending money to create jobs clearly is part of the logic at work here.

What's wrong with saying "we need to get people working again" and saying "we need to fix our infrastructure" and putting those ideas together? The author acts like its wrong to realize its a win-win situation.

DamnYankees: What's wrong with saying "we need to get people working again" and saying "we need to fix our infrastructure" and putting those ideas together? The author acts like its wrong to realize its a win-win situation.

Because ditch diggers aren't needed in our economy like they used to be. That idea may have had some merit back in the 1930's. We get done working on the infrastructure. Then what? We have a bunch of people who are no unemployed again with skills that nobody wants. Good job, we are now back to where we started.

Our economy needs electrical engineers, biomedical researches, and such. Not more people whose only skill is smoothing asphalt.

Crosshair: Because ditch diggers aren't needed in our economy like they used to be. That idea may have had some merit back in the 1930's. We get done working on the infrastructure. Then what? We have a bunch of people who are no unemployed again with skills that nobody wants. Good job, we are now back to where we started.

Our economy needs electrical engineers, biomedical researches, and such. Not more people whose only skill is smoothing asphalt.

And what we do about collapsing bridges and a lack of public transportation?

Churchill2004: the author explicitly stated he wasn't commenting on the other possible reasons. He was simply addressing the argument are a good thing because they "create jobs".

But he always says this alone is a bad reason for action, while never considering that it is not the only reason for Obama's policies. This is why the entire article is spurious. Shooting down what is one of many outcomes, as though it were the only reqason for action, is entirely pointless.

DamnYankees: And the "cost" can be beneficial. That's the point.

That's begging the question. The whole argument is that diverting resources and labor away from other purposes towards these things, even if they're necessary, is properly understood as a cost, not a benefit.

DamnYankees: And what we do about collapsing bridges and a lack of public transportation?

If it needs to be done, do it. But don't try to turn the cost of labor into "creating jobs" as a way to obscure the cost-benefit analysis.

And-1: But he always says this alone is a bad reason for action, while never considering that it is not the only reason for Obama's policies. This is why the entire article is spurious. Shooting down what is one of many outcomes, as though it were the only reqason for action, is entirely pointless

The article was only about addressing this specific argument. What's wrong with that?

FTFA: Fixing a bridge, widening a highway or building a light rail system may or may not make economic sense. But the fact that it involves paying people to operate jackhammers and pour concrete does not make it any more worthwhile

Crosshair: Because ditch diggers aren't needed in our economy like they used to be. That idea may have had some merit back in the 1930's. We get done working on the infrastructure. Then what? We have a bunch of people who are no unemployed again with skills that nobody wants. Good job, we are now back to where we started.

Our economy needs electrical engineers, biomedical researches, and such. Not more people whose only skill is smoothing asphalt.

You bought time, time to train those electrical engineers, biomedical researchers, and such. Time when those people aren't unemployed and hungry. Because history shows that poverty + hunger + time = civil unrest.

Think of it as a defense expenditure, proactive prevention of violent revolution.

DamnYankees: And what we do about collapsing bridges and a lack of public transportation?

Fix the bridges, ditch the idea of public transportation. It's not going to be the mass employment project that some people seem to think it would be.

Public transportation is not viable in most parts of the US and a waste of money. These people need to admit that this. Our efforts should focus on a long distance high-speed rail network and not these local political patronage projects.

The broken window fallacy, just for reference.

Churchill2004: The whole argument is that diverting resources and labor away from other purposes towards these things, even if they're necessary, is properly understood as a cost, not a benefit.

Why is it properly understood that way?

Churchill2004: If it needs to be done, do it. But don't try to turn the cost of labor into "creating jobs" as a way to obscure the cost-benefit analysis.

It's not obscuring it. It's part of it. In a time of economic prosperity, the utility gained from job-creation infrastructure is lower than it is during a recession. It's part of the benefit.

Crosshair: Fix the bridges, ditch the idea of public transportation. It's not going to be the mass employment project that some people seem to think it would be.

I'm glad your such an expert in transportation policy.

Crosshair: Public transportation is not viable in most parts of the US and a waste of money. These people need to admit that this. Our efforts should focus on a long distance high-speed rail network and not these local political patronage projects.

Long distance rail is public transportation. It's just the long distance version.

DamnYankees: Why is it properly understood that way?

Because the time, effort, money, resources, etc. that go into it did not just come from nowhere. They were diverted away from other possible uses.

DamnYankees: In a time of economic prosperity, the utility gained from job-creation infrastructure is lower than it is during a recession

And why is that? Why is it "creating jobs" when times are bad but not when times are good? So we should just not spend any money on maintaining roads during an upswing, so we'll have plenty of extra jobs to create when we need them? Using this line of thought, it's a good thing that "our infrastructure is crumbling" at the moment, since we need the jobs that we didn't need five years ago. It's just another variation of the broken window fallacy.

Churchill2004: What's wrong with that?

Because, as I said, it is spurious logic.

He is making an argument (Obama's policies are bad because they are focused on job creation) based on a false premise (job creation is the only reason for Obama's policies). He makes no actual argument for job creation actually being bad, merely asserts it as a corollary to his false premise. So whether or not job creation is bad, this article makes no valid argument one way or another.

Churchill2004: Because the time, effort, money, resources, etc. that go into it did not just come from nowhere. They were diverted away from other possible uses.

That doesn't answer the question. You phrased the issue in terms of cost and benefit. Why is it proper to view infrastructure policy as a cost and not a benefit? And how can you even separate costs and benefits? They are mutually inclusive.

Churchill2004: And why is that?

Because more people are suffering during a recession.

Churchill2004: Why is it "creating jobs" when times are bad but not when times are good?

It's both. But in good times jobs are being created by the private sector already so there's less of a need for government to do it.

Churchill2004: Using this line of thought, it's a good thing that "our infrastructure is crumbling" at the moment, since we need the jobs that we didn't need five years ago. It's just another variation of the broken window fallacy.

No offense, but that link is dumb. It's not a fallacy to look on the bright side. It's only a fallacy if you willingly choose to create harm in order to fix it. And no one is adovcating breaking windows on purpose just in order to fix them. The reality is that time cycles through good times and bad. Smart governments realize that during bad times there are possible positive roles the government can play and can plan its expenditures to match up with the cycles. That's really all anyone is saying.

DamnYankees: No offense, but that link is dumb. It's not a fallacy to look on the bright side. It's only a fallacy if you willingly choose to create harm in order to fix it. And no one is adovcating breaking windows on purpose just in order to fix them. The reality is that time cycles through good times and bad. Smart governments realize that during bad times there are possible positive roles the government can play and can plan its expenditures to match up with the cycles. That's really all anyone is saying.

Said it better than I could. Our infrastructure sucks. Correcting it is a priority. The fact that it creates jobs in the midst of an economic meltdown is an ancillary benefit. The broken window fallacy doesn't fit, as it's not make-work.

It's about jobs.

And-1: He is making an argument (Obama's policies are bad because they are focused on job creation) based on a false premise (job creation is the only reason for Obama's policies)

But he doesn't say that. He says the argument that these things are good because they'll create jobs is bad. Again, he explicitly states that he's targeting that specific argument. He never says these things are bad because Obama says they'll create jobs, nor does he ever say that job creation is the only reason these policies are being proposed (though it's obviously been a big reason, judging from Obama's own sales pitch for them), he just says that job creation is not in and of itself a good reason to support these policies.

And-1: He makes no actual argument for job creation actually being bad, merely asserts it as a corollary to his false premise

But the false premise you're attacking isn't the premise of the article.

DamnYankees: That doesn't answer the question. You phrased the issue in terms of cost and benefit. Why is it proper to view infrastructure policy as a cost and not a benefit?

I didn't say "infrastructure policy" should be automatically viewed as a cost. I said the fact that it involves paying people to implement that policy should.

DamnYankees: And how can you even separate costs and benefits? They are mutually inclusive

That's rather nonsensical. If I go out to the store and buy something, the money I spend is a cost and the item I get in return is the benefit. The item we're buying here is more/improved infrastructure (supposedly). The cost of it is what we pay to the people who actually go out and do it.

DamnYankees: Because more people are suffering during a recession

But the number of "jobs created" is the same either way.

DamnYankees: It's both. But in good times jobs are being created by the private sector already so there's less of a need for government to do it

So why doesn't the government just "create jobs" until we have 0% unemployment?

DamnYankees: No offense, but that link is dumb. It's not a fallacy to look on the bright side. It's only a fallacy if you willingly choose to create harm in order to fix it. And no one is adovcating breaking windows on purpose just in order to fix them.

The argument has nothing to do with whether or not the cost was deliberately created by someone. The exact same thinking applies if the window had been broken in a storm.

And it's not "looking on the bright side". It's denying that there's anything but a bright side.

DamnYankees: The reality is that time cycles through good times and bad. Smart governments realize that during bad times there are possible positive roles the government can play and can plan its expenditures to match up with the cycles. That's really all anyone is saying

So I trust you spent the past few years advocating cuts in government expenditures, since we were on the upswing.

Occam's Chainsaw: Said it better than I could. Our infrastructure sucks. Correcting it is a priority. The fact that it creates jobs in the midst of an economic meltdown is an ancillary benefit. The broken window fallacy doesn't fit, as it's not make-work

The argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the infrastructure spending is necessary. The shopkeeper really did need a new window, too.

DamnYankees: The reality is that time cycles through good times and bad. Smart governments realize that during bad times there are possible positive roles the government can play and can plan its expenditures to match up with the cycles. That's really all anyone is saying.

Show me a government that has been able to do that? We have been deficit spending for the last 50 years. We are not going to make things better with even more deficit spending.

Churchill2004: That's rather nonsensical. If I go out to the store and buy something, the money I spend is a cost and the item I get in return is the benefit. The item we're buying here is more/improved infrastructure (supposedly). The cost of it is what we pay to the people who actually go out and do it.

But that's not the only benefit. Part of the benefit is people having jobs. That's the whole point.

And I never said costs and benefits were the same things. Just that its silly to speak of costs without speaking of benefits.

Churchill2004: But the number of "jobs created" is the same either way.

So?

Churchill2004: So why doesn't the government just "create jobs" until we have 0% unemployment?

Because 0% unemployment is really bad for the economy.

Churchill2004: The argument has nothing to do with whether or not the cost was deliberately created by someone. The exact same thinking applies if the window had been broken in a storm.

And it's not "looking on the bright side". It's denying that there's anything but a bright side.

If you think anyone is denying there is a downside to this recession, you live in a cave. We all know there is a downside to recessions and the national debt.

Churchill2004: So I trust you spent the past few years advocating cuts in government expenditures, since we were on the upswing.

I think we should have been spending (most of) the last 8 years building surpluses and paying down the debt. The spending of the Bush government has been immense and unproductive.

Churchill2004: The argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the infrastructure spending is necessary. The shopkeeper really did need a new window, too.

And that's why the link you gave is stupid. It's a dumb parable. If you are given a story where the window is broken, it is not a fallacy to look on the bright side and realize the glass maker has a benefit.

Crosshair: Show me a government that has been able to do that? We have been deficit spending for the last 50 years. We are not going to make things better with even more deficit spending.

China. Doing it right now.

Also, we had budget surpluses 10 years ago. Have you already forgotten the 90s?

Churchill2004: He says the argument that these things are good because they'll create jobs is bad.

Which argument (in bold above) no-one is trying to say. Certainly not Obama. That is just a strawman, a baseless assertion. And yet he uses it to imply, by extension, that Obama's policies are wrong. So the article is pointless.

I am not arguing that job creation is good or bad, per se. Nor that Obama is right or wrong, per se. Just that this is retarded article, and the author completely fails to make any valid point.

And-1: Which argument (in bold above) no-one is trying to say. Certainly not Obama.

Are you serious? Obama has been arguing exactly that- that among the good things we'll get from these expenditures is that it will create jobs.

Churchill2004: And-1: Which argument (in bold above) no-one is trying to say. Certainly not Obama.

Are you serious? Obama has been arguing exactly that- that among the good things we'll get from these expenditures is that it will create jobs.

You are proving his point. Look at these two statements:

1) This program is good because it create jobs.
2) A good aspect of this program is that is created jobs.

They are not the same. Obama and everyone else is arguing for the latter. You and this author are arguing against the former.

DamnYankees: 1) This program is good because it create jobs.
2) A good aspect of this program is that is created jobs.

They are not the same

How so? Statement 1 in no way excludes the possibility of other benefits.

Churchill2004: How so? Statement 1 in no way excludes the possibility of other benefits.

You have got to be kidding me.

Occam's Chainsaw: You bought time, time to train those electrical engineers, biomedical researchers, and such. Time when those people aren't unemployed and hungry. Because history shows that poverty + hunger + time = civil unrest.

Think of it as a defense expenditure, proactive prevention of violent revolution.

What the hell is wrong with you? Talk like that will get you kicked out of the union!

That was absolutely the more moronic articles I have ever read. Since there's already a ton of back and forth here I'll provide a summary of my thoughts:

1) Marginal benefit of job creation in recession vs. boom
2) Cost/benefit analysis in Econ. 101 vs. real world applications
3) Exponential use of the straw man argument.

"one of"

sarcastrophe: What the hell is wrong with you? Talk like that will get you kicked out of the union!

Dude, you've gotta start attending the panels at the conferences and not just cruising the convention center trying to get laid. To invoke the Cassandra clause, you have to give them the means to escape their inevitable fate. They ignore you, doom ensues, BAM. Bust out the "we told you so" t-shirts.

Crosshair: DamnYankees: What's wrong with saying "we need to get people working again" and saying "we need to fix our infrastructure" and putting those ideas together? The author acts like its wrong to realize its a win-win situation.

Because ditch diggers aren't needed in our economy like they used to be. That idea may have had some merit back in the 1930's. We get done working on the infrastructure. Then what? We have a bunch of people who are no unemployed again with skills that nobody wants. Good job, we are now back to where we started.

Our economy needs electrical engineers, biomedical researches, and such. Not more people whose only skill is smoothing asphalt.

This. Infrastructure projects are perfectly fine in the short term as a means of making others more productive. We all benefit from faster, safer transport, and better delivery of utilities.

However, these jobs cost the government money. It takes a very keen eye on the accounting side of things to find the right balance between useful job creation and a big, useless money pit.

Obama seems to view job creation not only as something the government does with taxpayers' money but as an end in itself

Well, that sucks. Sounds like he's liable to create a vacuous, nonsensical billions-a-year federal agency with a silly name like "Department of Homeland Security".

Crosshair: DamnYankees: What's wrong with saying "we need to get people working again" and saying "we need to fix our infrastructure" and putting those ideas together? The author acts like its wrong to realize its a win-win situation.

Because ditch diggers aren't needed in our economy like they used to be. That idea may have had some merit back in the 1930's. We get done working on the infrastructure. Then what? We have a bunch of people who are no unemployed again with skills that nobody wants. Good job, we are now back to where we started.

Our economy needs electrical engineers, biomedical researches, and such. Not more people whose only skill is smoothing asphalt.

That is pure farking stupid. We not longer need ditch-diggers. You...are an idiot.

Mordant: Too bad the ideas that got us where we are today weren't given more time to succeed. Oh, how much more time did they need ? I keep forgetting.

I believe the standard unit is Six Months.

True free markets have only ever been introduced against the will of the people.

Which raises the question to free market people...

Is the immense human cost required to enact mass privatization as seen in Chile, Russia, China and the disgusting state actions
required to keep these policies in place more important then freedom of people to have food, water, and some disposble income?

Chicago style economics have shown to generate massive short term profit for a select few, Keyenesian economics have given the world
Germany, France, and the booming 50s in America.

Oh, and the introduction of free trade has given the IMF the name infant mortality fund.
Chicago economics are as impossible and destructive to implement as communism.

Churchill2004: That's begging the question. The whole argument is that diverting resources and labor away from other purposes towards these things, even if they're necessary, is properly understood as a cost, not a benefit.

The whole point is that in a recession the government offers a secure place to invest when investors are so unwilling to accept a riskier asset that they would rather hoard it.

The question is government investment versus hoarding, not government investment versus private investment. If there were sufficient quantities of private investment these proposals wouldn't be on the table.

Crosshair: Because ditch diggers aren't needed in our economy like they used to be. That idea may have had some merit back in the 1930's. We get done working on the infrastructure. Then what?

The economy stabilizes, companies begin to invest again, the government spends less, and the economy begins to hit a boom, the government decreases spending and increases taxes and starts to run a surplus, paying down the debt, until the next recession hits and the cycle restarts.

Of course this will all likely happen long before the infrastructure is built.