Eturnalshift wrote:
Historically, as Real GDP/GDP increases, unemployment decreases. Cumulatively, yes, there has been an increase in GDP since the dawning of time... coincidentally, there have also been more people entering the workforce, more population, greater trade with other countries, etc. Many of these factors (including things like printing money and inflation) all raise GDP. As we've said before - things change. The simple relationship between GDP and Employment is real and observable (as I've shown you.)
You didn't address my response. Short term yes, long term no. The fact that "things change" is self-evident, but it doesn't address the point that relying on GDP growth isn't a viable long-term solution to poverty and social problems.
Eturnalshift wrote:
Also, just because a company has greater efficiency doesn't mean the company is going to release whatever staff just to maintain balance; they could just as easily increase output and find ways to increase demand (through marketing or something), so efficiency doesn't always mean lower employment...
No, because those are independent variables.
If expenses go down, profit margins go up. That is universal; everything past that is speculation and situational, and if there were more markets to be had, to explore or not explore would be an independent, and unrelated, business decision. If there was money on the ground, it'd be picked up whether or not efficiency increased.
Businesses put profit first. That's the nature of business. Increased efficiency and corollary layoffs is money in the bank; why would they second-guess that?
And finally the proof is in the pudding. Here we are with all this net increase and employment is down so far...why? Because the corollary you are drawing is a false one
in the long term for the reasons explained.
So why should we go with a GDP-based jobs strategy if it is destined to fail in the long term?
Eturnalshift wrote:
Um, something about increasing GDP... I guess I'd start by trying to push policy that is better for businesses. Businesses create jobs. Businesses create worth. Businesses add to the over-all GDP. Businesses also lower unemployment since they'll need people to staff... and even if we can drop unemployment from 9.X% to 5% then that's 4% more people pushing money back into the economy (and into taxes) rather than leeching off our limited funds. I guess the pro-business policy would be a combination of lower corporate taxes, lesser regulation and better, more fair trade agreements.
Elaborate on "regulation" and "fair trade agreements" please.
Eturnalshift wrote:
Countries with limited government... I remember Jubber asking for examples of those countries and I'd second that request. If you've already provided, please re-paste so I don't have to read the last two pages again.
Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe. Pretty much any countries in those regions.
Eturnalshift wrote:
Lastly, Weena was the one that said something about bigger governments being tyrannies... I forget the exact quote and I don't wanna find it. I was trying to just trying to interpret what he said... the best I could do to entertain you was to offer up the idea of the TSA - I'm sure you can thing of more. Really, the purpose of a government is to govern people... with that comes limitations, regulation, laws and ultimately fewer freedoms. We may not be as oppressive as other nations (yet) but I that doesn't mean we won't get there if people like me just don't care if the DHS wants to break a couple rules. If you want an answer for your third question try to get it from him - I was just interpreting what I thought he was trying to say.
If you can't cite either historical examples or reasoning to substantiate your opinons, why should you believe what you do?
Eturnalshift wrote:
Quote:
So what in the budget do you think should be cut? Be specific.
I'd tell each head of each agency to cut their budgets by whatever percent (kinda like Weena said), but then I'd let each agency decide which way would be the best to slash spending. 30% across the board get's us almost to our balanced budget, and if the heads of the agencies can't figure it out... they lose their jobs. That's how it works in the Air Force (or any other branch) budgeting, that's how it works at the state level... that's how it'll work at county, city and town levels. I don't get why the Federal Government can't be treated the same way as the rest of the governments in the country.
You may or may not be aware Reagan tried this 35 years ago in California. It didn't work. And what it really is, is a copout: "I don't know or understand what government does, so I'm going to close my eyes and slash."
I mean, you didn't like it when (or so you claim) the National Guard didn't honor its agreement with you due to an arbitrary budget cut. What makes you think you have a right to impose that same perceived injustice on others?
