Comments on: Creating Jobs is a Cost not a Benefit

By: anon

anon — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:37:46 +0000

An excellent economic argument.
However, what the writer & Tim fail to understand is what they are criticising is not a bug but a feature. To the socialistic, statist mind the whole point of public works projects is to divert resources to where they will do the least good. The ‘ideal’ bridge would lead to a place where no-one wanted to go thus providing the opportunity for another grandiose scheme to encourage bridge usage. (Just follow the arguments for arts funding to see how this works.)
The rationale behind projects that ‘create jobs’ is that there should be a net decrease in jobs due to their introduction, thus increasing the pool of unemployment & justifying another round of ‘job creating’ projects.
The whole point of the exercise is to provide rewarding public sector careers for politicians & bureaucrats.

By: Anon1

Anon1 — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:26:52 +0000

Isn’t this more simply expressed as the Broken Windows fallacy, with added thought that the government is employing people to go round breaking windows.

By: Serf

Serf — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:07:09 +0000

That which is seen and that which is not seen, as a certain Frenchman would have it.

By: Biopolitical

Biopolitical — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:18:04 +0000

Jobs are a cost just like pollution. Cutting jobs and cutting pollution are things to strive for. Fortunately, there exists a good incentive for cutting jobs – we have to pay workers. Unfortunately, there is less incentive to cut pollution – we don’t always pay those who bear it.

By: PC6300

PC6300 — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:00:43 +0000

http://jim.com/econ/chap24p1.html
“The Assault on Saving”

“The classical economists, refuting the fallacies of their own day, showed that the saving policy that was in the best interests of the individual was also in the best interests of the nation. They showed that the rational saver, in ma king provision for his future, was not hurting, but helping, the whole community. But today the ancient virtue of thrift, as well as its defense by the classical economists, is once more under attack, for allegedly new reasons, while the opposite doctrine of spending is in fashion.”

By: Kay Tie

Kay Tie — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:16:12 +0000

“pretty soon the bastards’ll be eating meat, possibly even eeevil Amerikkkan Big Macs.”

Hmmmn, Soylent Green. If only we’d been making Soylent Green a few years back there would have been no NINJA mortgages, so no subprime, so no recession.

By: BlacquesJacquesShellacques

BlacquesJacquesShellacques — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:26:03 +0000

Oh, and I forgot, meat, if they have money, pretty soon the bastards’ll be eating meat, possibly even eeevil Amerikkkan Big Macs.

By: BlacquesJacquesShellacques

BlacquesJacquesShellacques — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:23:37 +0000

“For every dollar that is spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $10 million the taxpayers will lose $10 million. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most.”

Pshaw! Nonsense!

Everyone knows the money would otherwise be put under a mattress, or given to bankers who would merely put it in a vault.

Or even worse, spent on the wrong things, immoral things, like beer, pizza, smokes, ju jubes, chips and..and..I can hardly write it..chemically fertilized vegetables.

No, no the “the things they needed most.” is the worst part of the quote, the plebs need to have standards of decency enforced on them.