• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

How President Obama can create jobs...

Fred Sherman

Well-known member
#1
He can't. Harry Reid can't. John Boehner can't.

Angela Merkel can't do it in Europe. Neither can Jyrki Katainen, Mark Rutte, François Fillon nor David Cameron.

In Asia, Yoshihiko Noda isn't able to either. Julia Gillard can't do it in Australia.

The bottom line is government interference doesn't create employment. You can't create hiring by legislation. You can't regulate prosperity. Government intervention is not the answer, especially when the global market is a crisis create by government debt and spending.

We had a concise but accurate statement in the military: lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

Governments can't lead us to prosperity. Not democrats, republicans, independents, libertarians or whatever the different parties are called elsewhere.

Governments don't follow - and I think thats upwards of 90% due tot he arrogance of the political ruling class.

Which allows one other option. Get the hell out of the way. Don't try to help. Just remove obstacles and interference and watch what people unencumbered by the shackles of a government "just trying to help" can achieve on their own.
 

jadmperry

Well-known member
#2
Keynesian economics would suggest otherwise. Of course, that is just one model, and some might reject it. But, it is one of the most accepted models out there.
 

Edrondol

Well-known member
#3
The problem with Keynesian economic theory - and all other models, for that matter - is that is insists that once governmental spending increases then those who gain from it will act in a way that benefits society. Small businesses will expand and hire, banks will give out loans, families will spend the money. But what we've found is that predictive modeling does not take into account things like perception. If a small business perceives that the economy is not turning around, they will batten down the hatches and pay down debt to weather the storm. If banks perceive that the economy is still in turmoil, they hoard the money and do not take the chance to lend money to anyone. If a family perceives that the job market is down they will not spend that money on durable goods but will instead hang onto it or use it to pay bills. In short, it's good for the short term but as long as the economy is perceived to be in trouble, it will not help in the long run.

The actual solution to the problem would be for Congress and the President to step up, actually be seen as cooperating and not fighting over ******** for political reasons. Stop the political grandstanding, tell the Tea Party to take a flying leap and work together to solve issues. This would be seen as the government working for us again and would lessen paranoia about the economy, which has the effect of people spending again, which makes the economy better, etc.

But it won't happen. Our "leaders" don't have the will to buck the system or their corporate owners.
 

Fred Sherman

Well-known member
#4
Keynesian economics would suggest otherwise. Of course, that is just one model, and some might reject it. But, it is one of the most accepted models out there.
True, its the same economic model that prompted Bush and Obama to engage in government stimulus spending. In other words, its the economic model that has been partially responsible for this failure. I'm not one to advocate throwing good money to bad.

I think recent history has shown that Keynesian theory is flawed and that our best approach to the current crisis is adopting real business cycle economics. Stimulus failed exactly because RBC theory is operative. Stimulus thwarted the correction that has to take place to purge toxic debt before the up cycle can occur. nevertheless, everyone knowns it has to occur, so the only reasonable response to the current economy isn't to spend, its to protect funds from the inevitable devaluation the correction will bring. That means remaining liquid and not investing in equipment and manpower.

Isn't that exactly what we see now? Companies have plenty of money on hand, yet they are unwilling to spend it.

The Keynesians have no answer to that other than to claim corporate greed, which is ridiculous. Money makes money. Idle money makes nothing. Its not in the interest of corporate greed, assuming you believe such a thing, to remain liquid.
 

iTuN3r

Well-known member
#5
I don't believe on his theories and speeches anymore . Year before this place was real good with jobs and all but now all i see is people getting laid every otherday . Most of people i know are already jobless and few are on their way to sell their houses and move to apartment .

Not sure how long we will be facing this all issues.
 

Brogan

XenForo moderator
Staff member
#6
but now all i see is people getting laid off every otherday
Fixed that for you ;)

To be fair, the problems were already insurmountable before Obama took office.
Same here in the UK for Cameron and the Conservatives.

Deficits like that don't happen overnight, they take years to build up.
 

jadmperry

Well-known member
#9
Isn't that exactly what we see now? Companies have plenty of money on hand, yet they are unwilling to spend it.
If you mean they aren't willing to spend on hiring, then I think this mistakes the reason businesses would hire. Without sufficient demand/consumption, companies realize it is a better bet to sit on money.

The Keynesians have no answer to that other than to claim corporate greed, which is ridiculous. Money makes money. Idle money makes nothing. Its not in the interest of corporate greed, assuming you believe such a thing, to remain liquid.
Well, I don't think I can speak definitively for their position. But, I think many folks would argue that the size of the stimulus programs and their targets were neither large enough or directed in the right places. As I recall some of the rhetoric, there was supposed to be some massive investment in infrastructure, high speed rail, bridges, schools, etc. Instead, I think the scope of the projects and the money invested were no where near as great as discussed and seemed to have focused on banks and large corporations. Now, please don't think I am just an advocate of throwing money at the problem. But, what I am saying is that I think government spending can create jobs. This should not be the long term solution. But, if that spending is targeted, delivers a good return on the investment, is short term and the goal is to "jump start" hiring (and gets money into the hands of consumers) then the idea should be that the demand created will push more pure private sector hiring as businesses ramp up hiring to meet demand. Once the economy picks up, the government intervention should be reeled in. That is the idea. Now, as with anything, the devil is in the details and how it has been done in the past certainly appears to not have been effective. My point, overall, is that just because it was not done correctly before does not mean that it cannot work. I am sensitive to the idea that you cannot use history as a sure-fire predictor of the future. But, both in the US during the Depression and Japan in the 80's, most economists/historians take the view that not enough government spending during these periods extended the pain and made it worse. I think this is right (but, of course, there are those who disagree).

To summarize, I think government can create jobs. Will they do it well, in a cost-effective way, in a way that returns the best investment of dollars? That is a different matter altogether (a good example would be, in my opinion, this money, more than $500 million, invested by the US government, in the now bankrupt Solyndra...just throwing money at a company, when the market still makes use of traditional fuel less costly in the short term than using "green" solutions, is of course going to be problematic. I read, recently, that unless gas was at $7 a gallon, the use of the technology sold by this company would not make financial sense for consumers, means that this investment was apparently foolish). But, just because the government has botched spending in the past does not equate to the idea that government spending is not a way to help the economy and jobs creation.

I would agree that the government has not done well with the spending to date. But I disagree that all government spending is wasteful or ineffective in impacting the economy.
 

Digital Jedi

Well-known member
#11
My general belief on such matters is, if you can muck it up, you can take measures to repair it. And you won't get anything done if your dependent on a team working like one, and no one does. As long as people continue to think they can fix things with a rigid philosophy, they won't. That's not even factoring in people working against you simply for their own advantage, or those who are just too paranoid to realize you aren't.
 

Digital Doctor

Well-known member
#12
I think the poor fiscal policies of the United States, the lack of reasonable oversight of financial institutions, and the corrupt gridlocked political atmosphere KILLED Millions of Jobs. All 3 of those are the government's responsibility. Better governing before the financial crisis could have prevented much of the problems. The mistakes in the Housing sector of the Economy were very preventable. The US government allowed banks to give out 40 year mortgages when people couldn't afford the payments over 25 years ? ORLY ? A high school kid could easily figure out the answer isn't getting a 40 year mortgage but buying a cheaper house. Mortgage interest is a tax-deductible expense ? Stupid. Even France is smarter than that ! Failed.Government.Policy. I guess even a World Super Power can make mistakes.

Obama probably can't create jobs. But he can try to clean up the mess his predecessors left.

I think American companies are creating jobs.
In China.
In 2011, it makes no sense to create jobs in America. Big business is making more money by creating the jobs in China. Good luck with that one Obama.
 

Fred Sherman

Well-known member
#17
Love it! Amen, brother! "Too big to fail" is not free market capitalism.


As he says:

This ad was not staged...I know I'm the guy in the ad...I am not an actor...this was a total shock to me the day this happened. I went to do "market research" and fill out some questionairres. I HAVE A VERY WELL PAYING JOB, A Beautiful wife, 2 kids and I happen to have PURCHASED THIS TRUCK WITH my OWN money...anyone who says anything different is a poor, sad soul whom we should all pray for.
 

Fred Sherman

Well-known member
#18
He's only been in power a week and a half! ;)
We have a pretty high bar in the US. A week and a half after Clinton was elected to his first term, he had to back off of campaign promises, telling the people that in that week and a half, we worked harder on that than anything is his life and just couldn't do it.
:ROFLMAO:
 
F

Floris

Guest
#19
This the same president that said within months he'd get the troops out of the war, "you can take that to the bank".
And the same president that said Gaddafi would be a matter of days, not weeks? ..

Yeah, job. lol. 2013 will show everybody what a real recession is.