Jophiel wrote:
Without getting into a debate over the value of a visitors center in Poinsett, Ark vs a highway in Miami...
That's the problem though. Far too many people think of it as spending money in one place versus another. But the real comparison which Moe and I are talking about is spending the money in either place versus not spending it in the first place. The money we spend costs us. It comes pretty directly out of either existing business profits or future profits. New jobs come from those profits Meaning we're taking as much money away from potential future employment as we're putting in. In most cases, due to inefficiency (as evidenced by the "But 2/3rds of the money is going to real stuff instead of boondoggles!) we're actually taking *more* away than we're putting back in. Net effect over time is negative.
Quote:
...if the goal of the bill was to spread some money into the pockets of contractors, factories and workers then I'm not sure it really matters if you're repairing a bridge in St. Louis or buying a bunch of hybrids in Atlanta.
Yes. If that's your goal. We're arguing that we shouldn't be pursuing that goal in the first place, and that by zipping past the "should we be doing this?" phase and right into the "where should we spend the money?" you're missing the entire point.
Quote:
One might arguably have better long term value but either will spread money into the economy.
No! Both [b]take money out of the economy[b]. If we're really really really really lucky, and everyone involved is incredibly honest and the money goes into truly productive endeavors, we'll get exactly as much out of doing this as we took to pay for it in the first place. The best we can do is break even, and that's a nearly statistical impossibility.
Quote:
Anyway, as I recall and am too lazy to look into before shooting off my mouth, about half of the bill was in the form of assistance (Medicaid, tax cuts, food stamps, etc) and state stabilization (money given to keep police, teachers & other state service workers employed).
Yes. None of which even meet the "stimulus" standard upon which the people were convinced to support the bill(s) in the first place. You see how that's deceptive? The so-called stimulus bill had little to do with stimulus and a whole lot to do with funding pet projects, buying political influence, and paying back political debts.
I guess it just comes down to one of those differences between liberal and conservative thought. When people are out of work, the liberal thinks: How can we help people who don't have jobs? Conservatives think: How can we help get these people jobs? One of those spurs on economic growth, the other does not. And no amount of pretending that the stimulus money is about jobs creation makes it actually so. The best way to create jobs is to encourage private industry to hire more people. You do that by making it less expensive to operate their businesses, not more expensive. You do it by giving them the best assurances that their investments and endeavors will be worth more down the line than they'll have to spend, not borrowing so much money that inflation is likely to wipe out anything they do today. Nearly everything the Obama administration has done so far has been anti-business. And we're surprised that unemployment stays high? Why? Would you invest in a new business venture in todays economy? Would you expand an existing business if you had one?
People have this false view of employment as though it's a static thing. The reality is that people lose jobs all the time. Jobs disappear all the time. Some jobs just cease to be cost effective. We can all rail about outsourcing and offshoreing but it doesn't change those economic facts. In order to sustain current job rates, we have to create new jobs all the time. This means that new business ventures have to start. The only way to prevent job loss, much less encourage job growth is to idealize the environment underwhich jobs are created. And that's *not* by having the government hire people. It has to be in the private sector. But that's exactly what we're killing right now.