4 edits
Of course government CAN create jobs. But the issue is to what extent it SHOULD. Government created jobs lack the profit motive and so are not going to be as efficient as privately created jobs. The economic incentive to be as efficient as possible simply is not there.
Now, there are some industries that the government should create, such as those where no individual has enough incentive to create the job (e.g., police officers, firefighters, etc.) or where the position creates positive externalities that are not measured in his or her compensation (e.g., teachers, funding scientific research, etc.)
But to say, when asked what creates jobs, that the government creates jobs shows an appalling lack of understanding of basic capitalism principles.
If enough people watched that debate, Connecticut is now in play.
Originally posted by sh76But to say, when asked what creates jobs, that the government creates jobs shows an appalling lack of understanding of basic capitalism principles.
Of course government CAN create jobs. But the issue is to what extent it SHOULD. Government created jobs lack the profit motive and so are not going to be as efficient as privately created jobs. The economic incentive to be as efficient as possible simply is not there.
Now, there are some industries that the government should create, such as those where no i ...[text shortened]... asic capitalism principles.
If enough people watched that debate, Connecticut is now in play.
I agree. And to say, when asked what creates jobs, that the government doesn't create jobs shows an even more appalling lack of understanding of basic capitalism principles.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'd say it's about a wash. Both statements are equally dumb.
[b]But to say, when asked what creates jobs, that the government creates jobs shows an appalling lack of understanding of basic capitalism principles.
I agree. And to say, when asked what creates jobs, that the government doesn't create jobs shows an even more appalling lack of understanding of basic capitalism principles.[/b]
Originally posted by sh76I don't understand your take; Blumenthal was neither asked the question you state nor gave the answer you claim.
Of course government CAN create jobs. But the issue is to what extent it SHOULD. Government created jobs lack the profit motive and so are not going to be as efficient as privately created jobs. The economic incentive to be as efficient as possible simply is not there.
Now, there are some industries that the government should create, such as those where no i ...[text shortened]... asic capitalism principles.
If enough people watched that debate, Connecticut is now in play.
McMahon: Tell me something, how do you create a job?
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: A job is created, and it can be in a variety of ways, by... a variety of people, but principally by people and businesses in response to demand for products and services.
I'd say his answer was certainly correct.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderDid you watch the video?
I don't understand your take; Blumenthal was neither asked the question you state nor gave the answer you claim.
McMahon: Tell me something, how do you create a job?
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: A job is created, and it can be in a variety of ways, by... a variety of people, but principally by people and businesses in response to demand for products and services.
I'd say his answer was certainly correct.
It looks a lot different on paper than it sounded live.
He was plainly lost and was hemming and hawing for 20 seconds stammering to get out that tautology.
Edit: Correct? Perhaps. But extremely shallow. Essentially, he used this half-answer to segue into his point about government maintaining jobs.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76No, I didn't watch the video, but you're grasping at straws. No matter how long he took to answer a plainly loaded question, his answer remains correct. And it remains true he did not answer it in the way you claimed. And it remains true that the question asked was not the one you said it was.
Did you watch the video?
It looks a lot different on paper than it sounded live.
He was plainly lost and was hemming and hawing for 20 seconds stammering to get out that tautology.
McMahon's answer to her own question remains inaccurate. And as KN pointed out, a bit ironic under the circumstances.
Edit in response to your Edit: This was a debate regarding who should be the next US Senator from Connecticut; surely what someone in that job can do to protect Connecticut jobs is the relevant point.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't at all understand your objection as to how I characterized the question.
No, I didn't watch the video, but you're grasping at straws. No matter how long he took to answer a plainly loaded question, his answer remains correct. And it remains true he did not answer it in the way you claimed. And it remains true that the question asked was not the one you said it was.
McMahon's answer to her own question remains inaccurate. And as KN pointed out, a bit ironic under the circumstances.
I said the questions was:
asked what creates jobs
The question was:
Tell me Something. How do you create a job?
The question was almost exactly what I said it was.
As for his answer, you took the first sentence in a 10 sentence answer (give or take). His focus was absolutely on government's role.
Originally posted by sh76Well, in a capitalist system the government has a very important role regulating the market. Without such regulation, there is no capitalism; capitalism implies a government and it implies regulation.
I don't at all understand your objection as to how I characterized the question.
I said the questions was:
[b]asked what creates jobs
The question was:
Tell me Something. How do you create a job?
The question was almost exactly what I said it was.
As for his answer, you took the first sentence in a 10 sentence answer (give or take). His focus was absolutely on government's role.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderRelevant to the office; not relevant to the question.
Edit in response to your Edit: This was a debate regarding who should be the next US Senator from Connecticut; surely what someone in that job can do to protect Connecticut jobs is the relevant point.
Actually, it reminded me of a West Wing Episode when Bartlett (Martin Sheen) is debating Governor Ritchie and the Governor gives some token anti-tax answer to some question and Bartless essentially says "That's a nice soundbite; but what are the next 10 words after the soundbite is over?"
Blumenthal appeared to have one answer (about government preserving jobs) that he was going to give if the issue of jobs came up, regardless of that actual question. The directness and clarity of the question took him off guard and he stammered for 20 seconds before rallying and getting back to his pre-planned all purpose answer to questions on this topic.
He fumbled the question. That's plain to anyone viewing it. I'm not saying that means he wouldn't make a good Senator; but it was an embarrassing moment.
Originally posted by sh76You don't understand that this statement of yours is a gross misrepresentation of the exchange:
I don't at all understand your objection as to how I characterized the question.
I said the questions was:
[b]asked what creates jobs
The question was:
Tell me Something. How do you create a job?
The question was almost exactly what I said it was.
As for his answer, you took the first sentence in a 10 sentence answer (give or take). His focus was absolutely on government's role.[/b]
sh76: But to say, when asked what creates jobs, that the government creates jobs shows an appalling lack of understanding of basic capitalism principles.
Really?
They are running for the US Senate, not the CEO of the WWE. Blumenthal's answer was relevant to the job they are applying for; he gave specific examples of actions he has taken and policies he favors that would protect and create jobs in Connecticut. McMahon's answer, to her own question, was inaccurate propaganda.
Originally posted by vistesdGovernment does NOT produce wealth. They only leach on to others wealth and with such funds create a few jobs.
Ah, we cross-posted. The question is: in what sense are private-sector jobs more "stimulating" than public-sector jobs, per se? That seems to be a long debate among partisans of different economic schools of thought. (I recall Henry Hazlitt, long ago, making an argument along your lines...)
Again, got to pack it in, now. Sorry if I hijacked your thread; I've just been working on this stuff recently, and the give and take is helpful.
As for your bit about large corporations, I find it interesting that the larger corporations become the more they tend to mirror a small government. The struggle for survival tends to fade as they become meddlesome and controlling just like those in Washington. In fact, 2/3 of the jobs created every year are from small business, not large corporations. Since government bailed out corporate America and threw the small businesses under the bus we now have high unemployment numbers. It should be of no surpirse. Corporate America is what grees the wheels of the powers that be in Washington, therefore, they are used by politicians backed by the tax payers in case they go belly up. Big government and large corporate America are more alike than not. I think government puts up with corporate America much the same reason that China turned to capitalism. Simply put, the private sector has shown itself to be the only means to create wealth as discovered by the former USSR, Cuba and Red China. However, favoring large corporations is a middle ground of sorts because it is a vehicle of centralization of the private sector so all that controll of it is easier to mantain. I think the closer an economy favors centralized control the less productive it teds to become whether it be through corporate America or even worse, complete state control.
2 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragon
[b]The video of this one question is 1 min 53 sec long. You should watch it.
I will post the transcript just the same.
Transcript
LINDA McMAHON: A follow-up, Mr. Blumenthal. You've talked about you want to incentivize small businesses. Tell me something, how do you create a job?
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: A job is created, is for empowering the individual, what once was known as the American Way."[/i][/b][/b]
McMAHON: Government, government government.
Government does not create jobs. It's very simple how you create jobs. An entrepreneur takes a risk. He or she believes that he creates goods or service that is sold for more than it costs to make it. If an entrepreneur believes he can do that, he creates a job.
and that entrepreneur benefits greatly from various government programs:
1. the government builds and maintains much of the infrastructure that allows our entrepreneur's workers and customers to produce and buy the product.
2. the government provides or at least funds much of the education and training that allow workers to develop the skills needed to allow our entrepreneur's business to produce its product.
3. the government provides a police force and a military who protect our entrepreneur's property, workers and customers.
4. the government funds a lot of research that can then be used by entrepreneurs to invent new products and services.
5. the government provides regulations to ensure that our entrepreneur's competitors aren't gaining an unfair advantage by recklessly putting health, safety, or the environment at risk. Our entrepreneur is an ethical person who doesn't want to have to do these things to stay in business.
6. the government provides regulations (at least to some extent) to ensure that our entrepreneur's competitors aren't gaining an unfair advantage by claiming their products do all sorts of magical things that they don't actually do. Our entrepreneur is an ethical person whose product actually does what he says it will do.
7. if our entrepreneur produces goods or services that are used by police, or the military, or the education system, etc -- then the government itself is providing the demand that our entrepreneur has creatively stepped in to meet.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBlumenthal: "And the main point about jobs in Connecticut is we can and we should create more of them by creative policies."
No, I didn't watch the video, but you're grasping at straws. No matter how long he took to answer a plainly loaded question, his answer remains correct. And it remains true he did not answer it in the way you claimed. And it remains true that the question asked was not the one you said it was.
McMahon's answer to her own question remai ...[text shortened]... ut; surely what someone in that job can do to protect Connecticut jobs is the relevant point.
Policies require money. So Blumenthal wants to create more jobs in Connecticut by increasing government spending out of Washington.
NOT the kind of person needed in Washington right now -- no thank you! No way. Keep 'em out of there. Spend, spend, spend -- another program! Yippee! Deficit? What deficit?!?
Edit: Policy example: "And I want programs that provide more capital for small businesses"