So how do you live up to the legacy of a famous father? In Robert
Samuelson's case, it's by rejecting the ideas that his father so
famously advanced and defending. This column is a perfect example. In a demand
side recession, the government can and should create jobs. And the Keynesian
multipliers will increase demand, leading to the creation of more private sector
jobs. Macro 101.Does it work? Well, compare economic growth in the US
following the meltdown with job creation in, say, Great Britain.We know
what works. The evidence is overpowering. We're seeing the triumph of
Keynes once again.
@boxerdog915Romney is an idiot?Which Romney said HE
would create 12,000,000 new...high paying jobs ($50,000 with benefits)...by
4/15/13 as reported by hannity on his radio show.Which Romney might
be over optimistic, but I will wait until 4/15/13 to call him something else.
Romney and Obama are both idiots for believing they can create jobs. More
government jobs means no private sector because taxes will be so high to pay for
government jobs, the private sector will eventually disappear. That's
common sense and as I read some of these comments, a lot of you have no common
I wonder what all the people employed by the private sector think when they are
told that they don't contribute to the economy, they detract from it.
Let's all bow down and worship the mighty GDP, the mysterious and often
unmeasurable measurement of our success as a nation.I guess I take a
very simplistic view of economics. If someone is employed, whether it be in the
public or private sector, and are productive employees providing some product or
service to other members of society, then they are contributing to our success
as a country, wherever their paycheck is actually coming from. Most often they
then invest that money back into the system by purchasing other products and
services. The money comes from us as a people, whether through taxes or
voluntarily purchasing that service, in the end the money is from the same
place. Frankly I wonder if anyone really understand economics, it
seems like a field plagued with contradictions and differing opinions.
re:Redshirt"For 2 years Obama had full control of Congress,"FALSE1/20/2009 Obama inaugurated Congress: 58 Democrats4/2009 Arlen Specter switches from Republican to Democrat. 59
Democrats5/18/09 Robert Byrd hospitalized until June 30, 2009: 58
Democrats7/7/09 Al Franken seated: 60 Democrats (counting Robert
Byrd, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he
was terminally ill)8/25/09 Ted Kennedy dies: 59 Democrats (During
the last 6 months of 2009, Byrd missed 128 of a possible 183 votes in the
Senate). 9/24/09 Paul Kirk fills Kennedy vacancy: 60 Democrats 2/4/10 R-Scott Brown takes Kennedy seat Also one needs to
take into consideration the days Congress was not in session due to holidays.
Congress was in session 55 days between 9/24/2009 (when Kirk filled
Kennedy's seat) and 2/4/2010 when Republican Scott Brown replaced Kirk).
Obama had a "filibuster-proof" majority approx. 72 days. Nowhere near 1 year, let alone 2 yrs.
@Redshirt - GDP (Y) = C + I + E + GC = private
consumption. I = gross investment. E = excess of import over export. G =
government spending. Basic macro; pretty clear you should do some
more research. I'm glad you're talking "GDP" talk though b/c,
perhaps unbeknownst to you, belief that GDP is even measurable inherently means
you're a Keynsian. I also enjoy the mental gymnastics you go
through to try and attribute any job growth to the Republican-controlled HoR.
What specifically did they do to create jobs? Be painfully specific. You do
realize that, either way, whether repubs or dems were responsible, it ultimately
points to government creating jobs, right?
To "atl134" and you have now proved his point. What is the GDP value of
a government paid firefighter? Yes they are important, but they do not add
directly to the GDP, they only take away from it.Republicans have
only been an issue for 1 1/2 years. For 2 years Obama had full control of
Congress, yet he still couldn't get things done. You can't blame
Republicans for the inability of the Democrats to agree.You also
forget that the recession ended in July 2009, so if the Republicans were such a
hindrance, why is it that from July 2009 through December 2010 things remained
bad? Also, if what the Republicans were doing was so bad, why is it that after
the Republicans took control of the House that the total non-farm jobs number
started to increase. If you look at it, any recovery in employment is due to
Republicans, not Democrats, or no Obama's policies.
UT ranks in the top 10 nationwide in per capita number of federal employees.
The UT Olympics was a success, in part, due to a massive influx of
federal dollars. How many jobs does my tithing create? The LDS
Church is also a major employer in the state of UT and when the
construction industry nationwide was decimated during the economic crisis, the
LDS church was engaged in a massive commercial building project in Salt Lake.
Federal dollars and church funds enable people to spend money,
increasing demand and stimulating the economy. DN should report
that. I don't hold any illusion that Utahns are ever going to
recognize the inflow of money from outside their state in the form of taxes and
@RedShirt"The point is, government does not create jobs that add to
the GDP of the nation. "I disagree. Firefighters protect
property from damage. Police protect people and businesses from crime. Teachers
provide education that leads to a smarter workforce. Construction projects
better facilitate travel and transport of goods. All of these things add to GDP
on some level."If Obama is doing so great, why are all the
economic indicators showing such high unemployment and anemic growth?"Republicans keep filibustering his jobs bills to death. What the heck do
you expect a guy to do when anything he attempts gets blocked by the party of
What really creates jobs is demand. A job, particularly in the private sector,
is not going to be created unless an extra employee is needed. If a company can
get by with fewer workers it will tend to do so. Hiring is a means of last
resort for businesses. The reason the recovery is so slow is because Americans
are so busy paying down personal debts and rebuilding savings that we're
not pumping enough money into the economy to fuel job growth. That's the #1
issue facing businesses right now with regards to why they aren't hiring...
it's because there's not enough demand to require it.
Obama's administration, as all before his, skew statistics to make things
look better than they are. Case in point, the current job situation. The current
administration is congratulating itself for the near one million jobs reported
in the September Household Survey. The huge majority of these are part-time jobs
desperate families are resorting to in a job market so poor that full-time work
cannot be found. The 7.8% unemployment figure doesn't count the
total 8.2 million who have, over the last 4 years, dropped off the unemployment
rolls and out of the job market. According to ShadowStatistics website, the
total rate for the employed and underemployed is a frightening 22.8%.As for claims about the renaissance of manufacturing jobs, they actually
declined by 16,000, making a total loss of 40,000 jobs in the last two
months.Don't take any candidate seriously without looking into
the facts, in this case clearly indicating that we are experiencing an increase
not in jobs but in income disparity, not to mention heralding a double-dip
recession that no administration will be able to prevent.
I don't think that the liberals understand this at all. The point is,
government does not create jobs that add to the GDP of the nation. All
government jobs do is take away resources from people and companies. Some is
necessary, but much is not.You ask how Romney will "create"
12 million jobs, he means that he will reign in government so that private
businesses are confident they can hire people again.To
"Hutterite" if the economy has turned around, why is it that the U6
unemployment rate is still over 10%, and the labor participation rate is at 1980
levels? Also, for a recession that ended in July 2009, why is it that GDP and
job growth are slower than population growth? If Obama is doing so great, why
are all the economic indicators showing such high unemployment and anemic
@Bebyebe"The biggest employer in the state is the federal
government."But most of them work for the Department of Defense,
who are not surprisingly exempt from any and all criticism.
If only the conservatives would try to tell the truth, or more to the point the
whole truth. Mr. Samuelson claims that because the jobs created by
the government are paid by money taken from people, that the jobs are not really
jobs. He seems to think that the person in a government job pockets the money
rather than spend it, therefore money is taken out of the economy and lost.
The fact is, the government worker probably spends more, helping the
economy more, than the private worker because government jobs often pay more and
have better benefits. And none of the government workers wages are siphoned
off as private profits. Profits that are sitting stagnant in a savings account,
maybe not even in the United States. As for stimulus, no matter
how much we give to business in expectation of their help, they do not. The
only real way to help the economy is to help people, workers, consumers.
If I understand Samuelson's opinion, he's saying that you have to have
demand for a product that people are willing to pay for to "create" a
job. Well, I happen to enjoy the following products: police protection,
libraries, clean water, interstate highways, garbage collection, sewers,
security at airports, national parks, and a good education. And guess what?
I'm willing to pay for these products. (In fact, I'm willing to pay
more than I now pay because I realize we are putting lots of these items on the
government credit card.) It so happens that these products are most efficiently
produced by government.So what on earth is Samuelson trying to say?
That money only comes from business ventures? Sorry. Try reading a ten-dollar
bill. It says "Federal Reserve Note" at the top. It's issued by the
United States of America, not by JP Morgan Chase, and it is signed by the
Treasurer of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury. Businesses
don't create money. They pass it around in exchange for products and labor.
So then why does Gov Romney keep talking about how he will create jobs once he
Sales tax rates are the same for every TAXABLE purchase in the locality in which
they are required. Is that clear enough? The question is not whether milk is
taxed, it is whether a "rich guy" pays more sales tax per dollar on his
purchases than the poor guy.Obama is clearly telling us that taxing
the "rich guy" will solve the revenue vs expenditure problem in America.
The CBO has clearly told us that taxing the "rich guy" will bring in a
maximum of $60 billion per year. Obama is running a deficit of $1,5 TRILLION
per year, The expenditures are 25 times greater than the expected increase in
revenue.Taxing the "rich guy" will not solve the problem.Increasing the tax base will solve the problem IF expenses are cut to a
reasonable level. There are only three major expenses in the
budget: Military, Social Security and Medicare. Those three items are more than
the Obama's yearly deficit.Revenues MUST be increased WITHOUT
destroying the incentive to create new business and new jobs. Taxing the "rich guy" will DESTROY jobs. Fewer jobs means less
revenue.Obama is too dense to understand that principle.
The biggest employer in the state is the federal government.
"Liberals - me thinks thou protesteth too much. The truth hurts."What "truth" would that be? Seriously, I want to know.Truth is completely foreign to the Romney campaign. How does Romney's
"severely conservative" statements square with anything he said in the
debates, during which he sounded like a moderate Democrat?When
Romney says he'll dramatically raise defense spending, _and_ cut taxes,
_and_ balance the budget without hurting the middle class, why do you let him
get away with making patently absurd statements like that? Where is there any
"truth" from Romney on this subject?Romney claimed on
October 4th that "half of the companies that received government support
under Obama's $90 billion green energy program had gone out of
business."In reality, it was 8% of those investments that
failed.Bain Capital had 22% of their business ventures fail.So, where is the "truth" in Romney's criticism of public
support for alternative energy jobs?The real truth is that Romney
constantly refuses to be truthful, and Republicans appearantly don't mind
that a bit. Belief is more important than truth to today's
conservatives, and that is a recipe for disaster.
So then, WHY does Mitt Romney keep campaing that as President HE can
create 12 Million new jobs?Who the liar?Mitt, or the
Republicans who vote for him?
Liberals - me thinks thou protesteth too much. The truth hurts.
The economy under president Obama has turned around and is starting to create
jobs. Let's vote for him.
Dear old Dad, who had two complete careers -- one as a teacher; another with the
Forest Service. Step-dad had one as a firefighter. They would be amazed to learn
they never had "real" jobs -- according to their own party leaders. Samuelson goes through the typical gymnastics using "caveats"
and his own definitions "of what 'people' mean" to contradict
himself. Of course every President has counted the millions of public- sector
jobs as "jobs" because they are. And most "jobs" bills since the
'40s have been efforts to create these non-job jobs during periods the
economy struggled. And if the current proposed "jobs bill"
had been passed a year ago, it would have removed an arrow from the Republicans
election-year quiver. Which is the only reason it hasn't passed the House
yet. You can bet it will when Mitt's elected. But I'm sure he and Paul
won't count the public-sector jobs it creates.
Boy, the Deseret News is really pouring on the rightwing talking points
today.Today's brand of conservatism (unrecognizable to the
conservatives of Eisenhower and Goldwater) seems intent on turning North America
into a giant version of Iran mixed with a dose of Somalia.
Chicken meet egg. If we didn't have police, teachers, courts,
a military, civic leadership, etc... then there would be little capability and
no incentive to work in the private sector because the rule of law would be
nearly obsolete. One could steal your home, your car, your cash, everything
you've earned just as easily as they could steal your company's
intellectual property and you'd have no recourse. Further, for
all of Romney's pandering to the right, he seems to disagree with common
conservative wisdom. In the third debate he said, as in many other cases, that
"I know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs... [a]nd I'll do it
with five simple steps." Sounds like, at the very least, he understands
that government can set the backdrop under which job creation increases. Also, under Obama, public sector employment has gone down - he is the
only president to have public sector hiring go down during a recession in the
last 30 years. Had he inflated his recovery efforts and kept public sector
hiring employment at the levels Reagan did during his recession, unemployment
now would be well under 7%.