To be a feminist is to be evolved and enlightened

Dirius said:

No, you should instead create jobs for the people. You can invest the 70 billion dollars a year spent on the program to create public work around the country, provide jobs for poor people and enable them to take care for themselves. Or you can use that money as a tax discount to small/medium/large business (depends on the regional economy) in exchange for them hiring and training poor people. There are many angles in which you can tackle this situation, that add much more value to the economy.

You can have a similar program for those who are absolutely in need (like elder poor citizens, orphan children, disabled people, etc) and are not in condition to take care of themselves.

Click to expand...

I'm actually quite liberal, and the government creating new jobs is rather dumb. Instead, as you later lean towards, creating incentives for businesses to meet a job quota is more ideal. Giving tax benefits to those who create an X amount of jobs per Y income/revenue, quickly (and proven) to drive up sustainable job growth. Sadly, most modern liberals are so far left they believe in free handouts, like this piece of **** Trudeau that no body likes anymore.

AppLeo said:

Creating public work? Really? Like another New Deal?

Moronic.

Click to expand...

Leo if you wanna engage in conversation with grown-ups, then you need to provide a counter argument to a statement. Simply saying you disagree without explaining your alternative view, is moronic.

When you invest in, lets say, public roads you can do so by involving 3rd party private business. You can choose however to make them state employees, although (and I presume this is the source of your complain) usually still makes a generation dependant on the goverment.

The problem with the new deal in the 30's is that it created jobs without real economical value, creating a large majority of people dependant on the goverment. You can create value by allowing private enterprise to be involved in it.

However, by providing jobs in any way you choose, you allow people to eventually branch out and want something more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eieVE-xFXuo

Food for thought, normies.

Dirius said:

Leo if you wanna engage in conversation with grown-ups

Click to expand...

Mature "grown-ups" don't respond like that either. So...

ShadowStriker said:

I'm actually quite liberal, and the government creating new jobs is rather dumb. Instead, as you later lean towards, creating incentives for businesses to meet a job quota is more ideal. Giving tax benefits to those who create an X amount of jobs per Y income/revenue, quickly (and proven) to drive up sustainable job growth. Sadly, most modern liberals are so far left they believe in free handouts, like this piece of **** Trudeau that no body likes anymore.

Click to expand...

Its a case of choosing, both choices are far better than goverment programs that just throw money at people.

I agree involving private business is better. Problem is that business, being private, can not agree to the terms and can simply reject it. Granted, most smart ones won't, but many will.

The thing is that is you remove goverment programs, without a backup to replace it, it will create a small rise in poverty in the short term (3 to 6 years) - which can create a rise in crime in some areas, which does affect working citizens too.

The question is whether you can slowly cut down goverment jobs, while replacing them with private ones in a slow yet ordained manner, which is what most goverments usually fail at doing.

Dirius said:

Leo if you wanna engage in conversation with grown-ups, then you need to provide a counter argument to a statement. Simply saying you disagree without explaining your alternative view, is moronic.

When you invest in, lets say, public roads you can do so by involving 3rd party private business. You can choose however to make them state employees, although (and I presume this is the source of your complain) usually still makes a generation dependant on the goverment.

The problem with the new deal in the 30's is that it created jobs without real economical value, creating a large majority of people dependant on the goverment. You can create value by allowing private enterprise to be involved in it.

However, by providing jobs in any way you choose, you allow people to eventually branch out and want something more.

Click to expand...

So basically you want to give some businesses a competitive economic advantage over others when the government funds a business to build some random road that no one asked for?

Hiring workers and paying them with the government to build something that was in no demand doesn't help anyone and gives a false sense of making the economy better.

If you just leave it up to the free market, whatever is in demand at that moment, there will be businesses created to hire workers to fulfill that demand.

ShadowStriker said:

I'm actually quite liberal, and the government creating new jobs is rather dumb. Instead, as you later lean towards, creating incentives for businesses to meet a job quota is more ideal. Giving tax benefits to those who create an X amount of jobs per Y income/revenue, quickly (and proven) to drive up sustainable job growth. Sadly, most modern liberals are so far left they believe in free handouts, like this piece of **** Trudeau that no body likes anymore.

Click to expand...

Tying tax-cuts to jobs created is an EXCELLENT idea.. But neither the Right nor the Left is in favor of that, for some reason. One thing usually left out of the equation concerning warfare programs for the poor, is that it's of direct and immediate benefit to the Economy as a whole--all that money goes directly to the producers of goods and services, which enables them to expand production and hire more people. The objection to Welfare isn't about anything but the morality of allowing others to live a reasonably comfortable life, with healthcare available if needed, if they're not wage-slaves, earning a living-wage. I see it both pragmatically and morally, as the best way to run the economy without depriving others of the necessities of life.

AppLeo said:

So basically you want to give some businesses a competitive economic advantage over others when the government funds a business to build some random road that no one asked for?

Hiring workers and paying them with the government to build something that was in no demand doesn't help anyone and gives a false sense of making the economy better.

If you just leave it up to the free market, whatever is in demand at that moment, there will be businesses created to hire workers to fulfill that demand.

Click to expand...

You certainly didn't read my post about creating value in the market. There are many things that are not done, not because they aren't asked for, but because the money is spent on something else.

Not everything is "useless roads". There are many things that are usually done with public funding, large projects that eventually create better conditions for the economy of your country.

A good example is the 90's program for creating a Superconducting Super Collider in the U.S., which was cancelled due to budget reasons in 93'. It would have been a ladnmark in scientific history, similar to the Large Hadron Collider in Europe.

Its creation created a lot of economical benefits for the communities near/around the area. Here is a brief description of the impact of cancellation:

The closing of the SSC had adverse consequences for the southern part of the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex, and resulted in a mild recession, most evident in those parts of Dallas which lay south of the Trinity River.[21] When the project was canceled, 22.5 km (14.0 mi) of tunnel and 17 shafts to the surface were already dug, and nearly two billion dollars had already been spent on the massive facility

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider#Reactions_to_the_cancellation

Here's a fair law, that would level the playing field for college students--no parental support allowed for college students, including living expenses or helping get or pay for student-loans. The good students would get scholarships, including living-expenses, from the colleges, and the others would be on their own. The others would have to work, and possibly go on food Stamps, and even be homeless, in order to attend college. Great way to bring down tuition costs!

david starling said:

Tying tax-cuts to jobs created is an EXCELLENT idea.. But neither the Right nor the Left is in favor of that, for some reason. One thing usually left out of the equation concerning warfare programs for the poor, is that it's of direct and immediate benefit to the Economy as a whole--all that money goes directly to the producers of goods and services, which enables them to expand production and hire more people. The objection to Welfare isn't about anything but the morality of allowing others to live a reasonably comfortable life, with healthcare available if needed, if they're not wage-slaves, earning a living-wage. I see it both pragmatically and morally, as the best way to run the economy without depriving others of the necessities of life.

Click to expand...

You usually only wish to have those programs for a couple of years to "protect" the life of people, while in the mean time you slowly remove them by creating more jobs instead.

Problem is most goverments usually face criticism when they begin doing this, and because goverments can only sustain themselves based on public opinion, they usually don't wanna be the ones that pull the switch on stuff such as this.

Most goverments are never efficient enough to deal with the situation, thus the reason why safetynet programs such as foodstamps usually harm the economy in the long run.

Dirius said:

You certainly didn't read my post about creating value in the market. There are many things that are not done, not because they aren't asked for, but because the money is spent on something else.

Click to expand...

On what other things? If the government takes in money and spends it on other things that don't help the economy, that clearly indicates that the government isn't a reliable source.

Dirius said:

Not everything is "useless roads". There are many things that are usually done with public funding, large projects that eventually create better conditions for the economy of your country.

Click to expand...

Oh really? And who decides this? A politician in Washington? If you want the best results of the economy, you have to do it with the free market.

Dirius said:

A good example is the 90's program for creating a Superconducting Super Collider in the U.S., which was cancelled due to budget reasons in 93'. It would have been a ladnmark in scientific history, similar to the Large Hadron Collider in Europe.

Its creation created a lot of economical benefits for the communities near/around the area. Here is a brief description of the impact of cancellation:

The closing of the SSC had adverse consequences for the southern part of the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex, and resulted in a mild recession, most evident in those parts of Dallas which lay south of the Trinity River.[21] When the project was canceled, 22.5 km (14.0 mi) of tunnel and 17 shafts to the surface were already dug, and nearly two billion dollars had already been spent on the massive facility

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider#Reactions_to_the_cancellation

Click to expand...

That explains why the government shouldn't fund anything. It wasted two billion dollars on a project and didn't even finish it.

If it was up to the free market where investors voluntarily wanted to create this Superconducting super collider, it wouldn't have been cancelled due to budgeting reasons.

Plus, if it was cancelled, it wouldn't be tax payers money wasted down the drain. It would be the investors fault. They would be responsible for the risk. When the government is responsible for these things, it doesn't matter if it fails because there is no self-interest in mind.

Dirius said:

You usually only wish to have those programs for a couple of years to "protect" the life of people, while in the mean time you slowly remove them by creating more jobs instead.

Problem is most goverments usually face criticism when they begin doing this, and because goverments can only sustain themselves based on public opinion, they usually don't wanna be the ones that pull the switch on stuff such as this.

Most goverments are never efficient enough to deal with the situation, thus the reason why safetynet programs such as foodstamps usually harm the economy in the long run.

Click to expand...

They actually HELP the Economy in the long-term, as well as the short-term. The Economy requires consumers, and Welfare creates millions of consumers who otherwise would have little or nothing to spend. Every Welfare dollar is plowed right back into the economy, creating jobs and ensuring steady production of goods and services. The objection is moralistic, and runs counter to pragmatic realism. In addition, these programs contribute to a healthy population, and that effects everyone, including those who aren't in need of government assistance.

AppLeo said:

On what other things? If the government takes in money and spends it on other things that don't help the economy, that clearly indicates that the government isn't a reliable source.

Oh really? And who decides this? A politician in Washington? If you want the best results of the economy, you have to do it with the free market.

Click to expand...

The space program in the 60's was decided by politicians in washington, and it lead to a huge number of scientifical discoveries from which private busineses benefited in the decades to come.

Most technological development in the U.S. started with goverment programs

AppLeo said:

That explains why the government shouldn't fund anything. It wasted two billion dollars on a project and didn't even finish it.

If it was up to the free market where investors voluntarily wanted to create this Superconducting super collider, it wouldn't have been cancelled due to budgeting reasons.

Plus, if it was cancelled, it wouldn't be tax payers money wasted down the drain. It would be the investors fault. They would be responsible for the risk. When the government is responsible for these things, it doesn't matter if it fails because there is no self-interest in mind.

Click to expand...

Not quite. You mistakenly give private corporations with all the credit in the world when it comes to promoting the market. This isn't quite so. There is a reason as to why capitalism wants the goverment as a "regulating" entity, which means not completly removed from everything.

Investors rarely invest in un-tested business ventures. They usually only invest when they know there is a certain probability it will net a profit in the future.

Most, if not all, scientific innovations in the world have occured by goverment funding, be it of universities or in private business, in technical or medical fields, but almost never from private investments alone.

What investors usually pour their money into, is in already proven formulas, such as investing in updated phones, because it is established that there is a market for it, and the more stuff you add to your product the better it distinguishes itself from the competition. But that is simply investing within a well known parameter, not innovating itself.

For example, private business does not usually invest in researching cheaper ways to create renewable energy, because fossil fuels are more competitive, and most of them choose to go for the assured profit. However, when you involve more goverment incentives, corporations begin to look into other sources.

david starling said:

They actually HELP the Economy in the long-term, as well as the short-term. The Economy requires consumers, and Welfare creates millions of consumers who otherwise would have little or nothing to spend. Every Welfare dollar is plowed right back into the economy, creating jobs and ensuring steady production of goods and services. The objection is moralistic, and runs counter to pragmatic realism. In addition, these programs contribute to a healthy population, and that effects everyone, including those who aren't in need of government assistance.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, because most of the money the average worker earns is also spent on higher taxes to afford those programs in the first place.

The ones that benefit are corporations, which leads to more job creation. And once you start having more jobs available, you need to decrease the amount of social programs in order to reduce taxes so the average worker can earn more money, grow, and expand.

If you keep these programs in the long run, you are only draining the average worker's pocket with excess taxation, in order to pay for those programs.

Dirius said:

The space program in the 60's was decided by politicians in washington, and it lead to a huge number of scientifical discoveries from which private busineses benefited in the decades to come.

Most technological development in the U.S. started with goverment programs

Click to expand...

Well that's pretty amazing actually.

Although, I don't think politicians should decide where our money goes. The people should have control. And despite those technological advances, I would argue that private businesses would have discovered those advances on their own.

Do you think politicians would have known to fund Steve Jobs? He created a lot of jobs and new technology better than any government. Same with Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg from facebook. The best and most valuable things in our economy are created by private businesses. And people should decide to fund those if they want to, not forced to by a politician.

If we were to take the idea of creating jobs with government to the extreme level, we could be Stalin and pass his, I think it was the 5 year plan or some nonsense like that... and well, that was a disaster.

Dirius said:

Not quite. You mistakenly give private corporations with all the credit in the world when it comes to promoting the market. This isn't quite so. There is a reason as to why capitalism wants the goverment as a "regulating" entity, which means not completly removed from everything.

Click to expand...

Okay, yeah.

Dirius said:

Investors rarely invest in un-tested business ventures. They usually only invest when they know there is a certain probability it will net a profit in the future.

Click to expand...

Isn't that a good thing? Our government should thinking the same way. We don't want the government taking risks with our money. That's very bad.

The private business is better at taking risks and should be the only thing that takes risks because, as I said before, if the private business fails, then it's on that business and no one else's money was ripped off.

Dirius said:

Most, if not all, scientific innovations in the world have occured by goverment funding, be it of universities or in private business, in technical or medical fields, but almost never from private investments alone.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that.

Dirius said:

What investors usually invest is in already proven formulas, such as investing in more updated phones, because it is established that there is a market given people need phones, and the more stuff you add to it the better it distinguishes itself from the competition. But that is simply investing within a well known parameter, not innovating itself.

Click to expand...

If people want better phones then they should get better phones. Why innovate something that people don't have an interest in?

Dirius said:

For example, private business does not usually invest in researching cheapter ways to create renewable energy, because fossil fuels are more competitive, and most of them choose to go for the assured profit. However, when you involve more goverment incentives, corporations begin to look into other sources.

Click to expand...

Look into other sources that don't well economically despite better environmentally...

Even with all this, I'm not convinced that government paying for whatever new technology they have in mind is good for the sake of creating jobs.

It we want to create jobs, I say we ban the minimum wage and completely lockdown immigration so people coming in from other countries don't take American jobs. Cracking down on our immigration policy and more security on boarders may increase jobs as well, ironically despite me saying government shouldn't create jobs. lol

AppLeo said:

Well that's pretty amazing actually.

Although, I don't think politicians should decide where our money goes. The people should have control. And despite those technological advances, I would argue that private businesses would have discovered those advances on their own.

Do you think politicians would have known to fund Steve Jobs? He created a lot of jobs and new technology better than any government. Same with Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg from facebook. The best and most valuable things in our economy are created by private businesses. And people should decide to fund those if they want to, not forced to by a politician.

Click to expand...

The 3 people you mention only worked within an established market that had a history of creating profits. Apple, Microsoft, Facebook belong to the concept of making better what it already works. They did not create many new things, they simply applied some established technology into comercial products.

For example, the touchscreen technology (which made Iphone popular)was not created by Apple. Its first use, was by the european goverment for the CERN project

Most discoveries occur in universities, and most of them recieve a large amount of goverment funding. Sure, there are private discoveries made by wealthy individuals who are driven by curiosity rather than profit, but they are certainly a minority, and denying the goverment's involvement is ludicrous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#History

AppLeo said:

If we were to take the idea of creating jobs with government to the extreme level, we could be Stalin and pass his, I think it was the 5 year plan or some nonsense like that... and well, that was a disaster.

Isn't that a good thing? Our government should thinking the same way. We don't want the government taking risks with our money. That's very bad.

The private business is better at taking risks and should be the only thing that takes risks because, as I said before, if the private business fails, then it's on that business and no one else's money was ripped off.

Click to expand...

Goverments take risk with your money all the time, in every period of time.

AppLeo said:

I don't believe that.

If people want better phones then they should get better phones. Why innovate something that people don't have an interest in?

Look into other sources that don't well economically despite better environmentally...

Even with all this, I'm not convinced that government paying for whatever new technology they have in mind is good for the sake of creating jobs.

It we want to create jobs, I say we ban the minimum wage and completely lockdown immigration so people coming in from other countries don't take American jobs. Cracking down on our immigration policy and more security on boarders may increase jobs as well, ironically despite me saying government shouldn't create jobs. lol

Click to expand...

People do not have interests in many things, despite the fact that they benefit from them without knowing. Furthermore, newe technoloqies arise all the time, which attract people and become profitable. Problem for corporations is that they don't usually go for something completly new because they don't know if a profit can be make. They usually invest in technology that can certainly replace a product within the market.

If you lockdown immigration you are preventing corporations from hiring who they choose, which is the more qualified employee (or the cheaper). So banning legal immigration is part of anti-capitalism. What you wanna do is provide corporations with better rewards if they hire americans instead, like lower taxes and so.

The subject of minimum wage can have nasty impacts considering the economy does not revolve around the internal economy of the U.S. only. There are other countries that sell their products at certain prices and it could have a deep impact. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that removing minimum wage is bad, but if the only parameter you use is that prices are relative to wages, that is a very small view.

If salaries get so low that they can't buy products available in the market, it does not mean that corporations will lower the prices, because they can simply shift into exporting most of their products and sell them for higher prices in other countries. This means that, within a few years the U.S. could stop being the "biggest market".

So be careful with that last thing, and analyse every outcome.

K well I guess I'm wrong again.

AppLeo said:

K well I guess I'm wrong again.

Click to expand...

You are not, but in my opinion you are looking at things without much depth.

Its one of the curses of being young, which makes it completly understandable.

Balancing goverment involvement is hard, and we usually only want a little of it. With big goverment we fall into totalitarianism, without it into anarchy. Question is where to place ourselves within the large middle.

PS: you pointed out that my idea of goverment investment in public work was a bad idea, which I do agree it is for areas of the economy in which we already have a private sector that is well established and developed; the exception to the rule is usually scientific areas, which now days are at the core of economic development.

Dirius said:

It doesn't matter, because most of the money the average worker earns is also spent on higher taxes to afford those programs in the first place.

The ones that benefit are corporations, which leads to more job creation. And once you start having more jobs available, you need to decrease the amount of social programs in order to reduce taxes so the average worker can earn more money, grow, and expand.

If you keep these programs in the long run, you are only draining the average worker's pocket with excess taxation, in order to pay for those programs.

Click to expand...

You've nailed it! It's the taxation system that's at fault. There's plenty of money, but the taxation favors the rich, and the richer they are, the more it favors them. Our politicians are paid off, one way or another, and no candidate can afford to advocate changes in the tax code that would work to the benefit of the Economy as a whole.

Dirius said:

You are not, but in my opinion you are looking at things without much depth.

Its one of the curses of being young, which makes it completly understandable.

Balancing goverment involvement is hard, and we usually only want a little of it. With big goverment we fall into totalitarianism, without it into anarchy. Question is where to place ourselves within the large middle.

PS: you pointed out that my idea of goverment investment in public work was a bad idea, which I do agree it is for areas of the economy in which we already have a private sector that is well established and developed; the exception to the rule is usually scientific areas, which now days are at the core of economic development.

Click to expand...

Alright. So I'm just young and need to read some more.

david starling said:

You've nailed it! It's the taxation system that's at fault. There's plenty of money, but the taxation favors the rich, and the richer they are, the more it favors them. Our politicians are paid off, one way or another, and no candidate can afford to advocate changes in the tax code that would work to the benefit of the Economy as a whole.

Click to expand...

Quite the contrary, by over-taxating the rich you prevent them from investing that money back in the market, which means the job creation rate is lower.

The middle-class workers are the ones that are usually harmed by increasing taxes on the rich, because they usually begin loosing their jobs. At the same time, income tax is not the only type of tax, many are general tax increases everyone pays at the same rate, such as sales tax.

What you want is to reduce taxes on everyone, but in order to do that you need less goverment spending.