Brooks dogs playing poker.
Is my Steak done yet bitch.
Is my Steak done yet bitch.
-
Comment -
classic deference
Comment -
lol I can quote economist with MUCH more deserved respect than him. Those who can't do, teach.
but this part proves his poor logic
"But, those who say that the government cannot create employment are adding another element to the definition. To them, a job is any routine activity for which we earn income paid by an entity required to earn a profit. There is no compelling reason for this addendum and it arbitrarily excludes people like James Galbraith, who is an economist just like me, but at the University of Texas, and Jeffrey Halstead, Chief of Police in Fort Worth, Texas. By the qualified definition, they don’t have “jobs” because their income is derived from tax revenue and not private-sector sales."
The fact is he is wrong and on the defensive for two reasons;
1. Without tax dollars he has no job so defending himself with his opinion proves nothing. That is why if you objectively read that article, it proves nothing except how biased he is. Here, take a look you must have missed it.
"Why would someone would embrace such a questionable characterization? Because their true goal isn’t to generate a scientific understanding of the manner in which the macroeconomy operates, but to make a moral statement. Specifically, their contention is that only those routine activities financed by profit are truly of value. Everything the government does is unnecessary because if people really wanted it, they would have bought it in the private sector: that which is useful is profitable. Furthermore, they say, were it not for my taxes, those in the public sector would not have a job. Firemen earn a salary only because some of mine was taken away (under threat of imprisonment)."
what, morals? I thought the topic was how government creates job. But now he is telling the reader what everyone on the opposite side of his position thinks ... Stick to economics John T Harvey, you're a terrible internet writer(wouldn't even insult real journalists by calling him one).
2. He is a teacher with tenure at a school apart of a dirty, for-profit, scam perpetuated on millions of kids. And guess what? He brainwashes them to be just like him.
I had a conversation with a delivery driver one time about driver-less cars and how you'll first see them doing his job in the future. He immediately got defensive, even though he will be retired by the time it happens, and that is exactly what you have here. Fear, not logic.
and just to keep ripping this article apart, following the paragraph that proves how biased he is, he follows up with this one. He ends his last paragraph with" Firemen earn a salary only because some of mine was taken away (under threat of imprisonment)," a fact but a very poorly constructed point because without taxes fire departments would still be paid by private business/consumers directly just like any normal service(data protection) so it is not the "firemen" that are useless. It is taxing people to pay them. He is just using a popular logical fallacy to make the other side's argument look bad without any real proof.
"It is not surprising that those who espouse this view are almost always in the private sector themselves. It says, “I deserve my income because I work hard creating something of value. Meanwhile, government employees are just handed a portion of my salary for doing something no one really wants. Therefore, not only am I morally superior, but my taxes should be cut!” It’s a very convenient philosophy, but it’s not economic analysis. (From time to time, you also hear this from some in the public sector, but they either conveniently ignore the contradiction or believe that where they work is one of the few exceptions.)
What this ignores is something I was arguing in my last post: not everything that is profitable is truly of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. If we defined a job as any routine activity for which we earn income paid by an entity whose activities are socially valuable, then we would most certainly be excluding things done by BOTH the private and public sectors. How much do private sector activities like pornography, reality TV, and cigarette smoking add to our well being? Meanwhile, if we depended solely on profit for motivation, we would not have national defense, child protective services, or education (or police protection or fire protection) for the poor."
here he goes again with the moral thing. TCU's English department should be embarrassed by this article. But, here is the coup de grâce to his poor logic.
"Meanwhile, if we depended solely on profit for motivation, we would not have national defense, child protective services, or education (or police protection or fire protection) for the poor."
1. National defense has NOTHING to do with the economics of why governments do not create jobs.
2. BS defense spending like Iraq War is the ultimate example of governments do not create jobs. Those contractors rebuilding Iraq were stealing tax dollars, nothing else. That is not job creation.
3. Child protective services? Oh like the people who took a kid away from their family because they let her play outside in her yard for 2 hours alone. Government knows best right?
4. My favorite... he uses education as an example... if you can't admit the hypocrisy in that you are truly pathetic.
I doubt you'll read all this but I showed the clear bias of that liberal economist. All you need to know though is this;
Governments DO NOT create jobs.
since we are on a page that is working properly, this deserves a repost.Last edited by brooks85; 11-04-15, 09:18 PM.Comment -
Governments do create jobs.
It's just not their role to do so.Comment -
dumbass!
and they run at a 2% overhead. so STFU about "inefficient".Welcome to Careers at Social Security! We are one of the largest independent agencies in government with over 60,000 employees. We work at more than 1,400 field offices and service centers throughout the country, as well as regional and headquarters locations.Comment -
bernie blowing up on the internet today.
Comment -
you can keep repeating that - if it makes you feel better - but it isn't reality.
who created SS? obv government. does SS employ 60k people? obv yes.
the fact that you're still stuck on this a year later proves what a penetrating half-wit you truly are.Comment -
oh you mean that ponzi shceme you're forced to pay into?
you really are stupid
as I said;
Governments DO NOT create jobs
you are not educated on any of these topics and you would clearly fail if you tried if you can't grasp this VERY SIMPLE fact; Governments DO NOT create jobs
Also, just in case you want to stop being a sheep someday. You just said that social security runs efficiently. You are truly clueless.Last edited by brooks85; 11-04-15, 08:27 PM.Comment -
forced by government - who created it - you penetrating moron.
take longer to post you penetrating drooler.Comment -
Military? Who is creating those jobs?Comment -
read the thread, already debunked. National defense has nothing to do with the economics of job creation. It is still tax dollars. The contractors who went to rebuild Iraq were not partaking in government job creation; they were ultimately stealing tax dollars based on a lie.Comment -
I don't have time to read 717 posts Brooks, but it's clear this thread has deviated from the original topic anyhow.
So basically, the default answer will be that no government jobs are considered part of "job creation" because their salaries are paid by tax dollars? Is that correct?
ie. regulators, their positions would never have been created if not for the government, but they are paid with tax dollarsComment -
that is correct.
But, don't fall into the poor logic of the economist above that scumbag posted. I didn't mean read the whole thread lol but that the past couple pages, that long post above mainly.
The argument governments do not create jobs is not to say people earning an income off tax dollars are performing useless occupations. That is what the left tries to turn it into. As I said in the post firemen are not useless it is taxing people to pay them that is useless. Same goes for teachers but there are many jobs that are completely useless in the government. Many bloated programs and to get this thread back on track... Bernie would do the same thing.Comment -
this twat doesn't even accept that consumers are job creators too.
by his math, they should be the ultimate job creator. if gov doesn't create jobs because their money comes from us, then the same rule applies to the "hero entrepreneur," because his money comes from us.Comment -
^before you do you should read that guy's article first and get your own opinion then you can weigh it against what I wrote.
see how you jump around from point to point after you have been proven wrong? And here you are landing on another point that we have already discussed twice now. And again, proved you wrong. Nor did I even say that lolLast edited by brooks85; 11-04-15, 09:10 PM.Comment -
try to keep up simpleton. by your math: if government doesn't create jobs, neither does the "hero entrepreneur".
i'm just using your stupid logic.Comment -
who do you appeal to if you're wronged in a business transaction? oh... right... a government court.
then government is the ultimate job creator, because they provide the framework for business/markets to exist.
w/o government business would be penetrating anarchy. if you get stiffed you'd have to hire someone like me to get your money or revenge. great world -- penetrating thugs settling business disputes.Comment -
by providing a good or service. kind of like government did when they kept you from speaking penetrating jap or german.Comment -
this penetrating oyster is delusional.Comment -
this drooler thinks it wasn't the government who saved him/the world during WW2? what a buffoon!Comment -
i'm sure it was just various neighborhood militia's who saved us. hopped in their free-market mobile and saved the world, huh?Comment -
i voted for obama in 08' (i've admitted that). my support for him ended shortly after - when i saw that he intended on changing nothing - and was just another establishment politician who lied about being a progressive reformer.
in b4 "bernie lying too". if only he had a 30 year record of fighting for the working-class to lend credibility. oh... wait... he does.Comment