The US Economy

I'd say the communications satellite industry would serve as an example, c.i. ... everything from television to automatic tellers depend on them. And then there's The Internet itself, which sprang from DARPANET. It would be impossible to make the case those examples of government-initiated systems have no commercial impact.

0 Replies

timber, I understand all that, but it takes private citizens or existing commercial companies to develop it into something that is marketable to the public. I also understand that the space program produced many commercial products. Most of our colleges and universities are government run programs that results in the education that eventially produces the products and services that are commercially viable. My question was, which president created jobs that produced commercial products or services?

0 Replies

The answer remains the same, whether or not you grasp it c.i. ... a president really"creates" no jobs other than those of his personal biographer and his post-presidential accountant, if you want to look at it that way. The commercial benefit of government programs championed by sitting presidents is undeniable ... period. But not for the programs, and the presidential support of them, the consequent markets would not exist. The egg is not the chicken, but without eggs, there are no chickens.

0 Replies

And without the tax payers, it would be almost impossible for the government to do what it does. If you have the answer to the chicken/egg problem, I'll admit defeat. LOL

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

My question was, which president created jobs that produced commercial products or services?

No, thats not what your question was - though it may be your question now.

You probably changed it around cause it didnt yield the answer you were looking for the previous times ;-)

Look, perhaps I just dont see what point you are making.

First I thought you were making a point about unemployment. Apparently not, cause the role public employment programmes played in creating jobs is clear enough, and we brought up the New Deal to show it.

Then we thought you were making a point about government programmes not "producing goods and services that have commercial value". But Timber provided a few good examples of that, too. The Internet: government programmes produced it, businessmen took it up and marketed it.

Now you're saying that's irrelevant, too, what you really want to ask is, which governments jobs "produced commercial products and services"? Err ... well, government jobs shouldnt really produce commercial products - it would be kinda a contradiction in terms. So whats the point you're left making here, though?

Government programs have created jobs. They have created goods and services that ended up boosting commerce. But no, they dont usually actually sell those goods and services themselves - they're government programs, after all. So what?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Government spending alone does not help any economy (ever hear of communism working?)

Again, I'm not following you. Communism is about government ownership, not about government spending. Keynes was no communist.

And yes, government spending - if its spent on the right things, in the right context - can help an economy. FDR's New Deal spending helped the economy: it put money into a starved consumer economy, which (back when the products it was used to buy didnt come from Taiwan yet) helped American businessmen, too. Government spending on communications satellite technology - or even on military technology - has greatly boosted the economy. Et cetera.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

And without the tax payers, it would be almost impossible for the government to do what it does.

Quite. We-the-taxpayers choose to pay taxes (by not voting in a Libertarian as president, say Wink

, because we want the government to be able to make such "eggs". And if the government makes good "eggs", or efficient ones, we praise the President for that.

I guess I'm still not getting your point about that. (Hafta go to bed now, tho, and all this talk of eggs is making me feel queasy).

0 Replies

nimh, I'll take responsibility for not making my original question clear; so my assumption that people would understand my question lays at my feet, broken eggs and all. The unemployment issue came up because somebody mentioned that government created jobs. My answer to that covered by my previous posts was "no" and "yes." Actually, Al Gore invented the internet. (LOL). Okay, so you win that one too! But you gotta admit that without IBM, HP and Apple computer, the internet would have gone nowhere. I think there were several others that started in the computer game, but ended up broke. And FDR's New Deal; what exactly did he do to stimulate our economy besides adding money into a starving economy? What are the "right things in the right context?"

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

And FDR's New Deal; what exactly did he do to stimulate our economy besides adding money into a starving economy? What are the "right things in the right context?"

The Tenessee Valley Authority
The Rural Electrification Administration
The Civilian Conservation Corps
The Works Progress Administration
The National Recovery Act

Need I go on :wink:

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

nimh, I'm interested in what kind of jobs? Most government jobs are public service jobs that creates nothing of commercial value.

There is no such thing as a paying job of no commercial value. If I had my way the Us would spend billions toward "full employment" even if we make up nonsensical jobs.

Quote:

My question was, which president created jobs that produced commercial products or services?

Same answer. Full employment is the greatest thing that can be done to support commerce. Even if the jobs created are nonsensical.

Make up jobs, have random boob and nut inspectors wandering the streets, no matter how you cut it if you have a decent interest rate and strive for full employment you will support commerce.

See, it doesn't matter if the job you give a guy is stupid, if he has money he will spend it and other "non stupid" jobs will be generated.

This is not to say that Bush has or will create any jobs. I don't fault Bush for the downturn and won't credit him for the approaching upturn (it's coming). But the bottom line is that it's possible.

Heck, if you are willing to do the drastic things Bush has done with the budget I claim it's even easy.

0 Replies

In a capitalistic society full employment leads to eventual "out of control" wage demands which leads to out of control inflation which eventually leads to economic collapse.

In Cuba, everyone has a job-----which pays about 2$ perday-----it's my understanding that most employees work about 4 hrs a day and then develop a headach and go home. People stand in line for hours for items that don't exist but don't seem to mind because there's nothing better to do.

0 Replies

A typically bitter Soviet-Era worker's refrain was "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."
Maybe Hamburger or Walter can expand on this (or debunk it), but I recall back shortly after German Reunification, a West German industrialist commented that the East German workers were skilled and quite capable ... at processes not used in The West for the past 30 years.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

In a capitalistic society full employment leads to eventual "out of control" wage demands which leads to out of control inflation which eventually leads to economic collapse.

Any examples? :wink:

Quote:

In Cuba, everyone has a job-----which pays about 2$ perday-----it's my understanding that most employees work about 4 hrs a day and then develop a headach and go home. People stand in line for hours for items that don't exist but don't seem to mind because there's nothing better to do.

Full employment doesn't have to be socialism. I am no fan of socialism, but I do think that the demonization of that ideology translates into rejection of many things that can merely be construed as socialism, whether unhelpful or not.

0 Replies

Quote:

Companies Adding Jobs as Growth Picks Up: U.S. Economy Preview
Nov. 2 (Bloomberg)

-- The U.S. economy may have added jobs for a second month in October after growing in the third quarter at the fastest pace since Ronald Reagan was president, suggesting companies have gained confidence the expansion is well-rooted.

``The job market is getting better,'' Jeffrey Joerres, chief executive of Manpower Inc., said in a televised interview with Bloomberg News. ``At the end of the day, as the demand continues to move up,'' companies ``need people.'' Manpower is the world's second-largest temporary staffing company.

Some 65,000 jobs were probably created last month, almost matching the 57,000 added in September, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey ahead of Friday's report from the Labor Department. The economy needs about three times as many jobs monthly to help bring down the unemployment rate, which likely held at 6.1 percent ...

... Citigroup economists forecast a 100,000 increase in October
employment.

Treasury Secretary John Snow told the London-based Times last month that he expects the economy to begin adding 200,000 new jobs a month. ``I would stake my reputation on employment growth happening before Christmas,'' Snow told the newspaper ...

... Manufacturing is beginning to gain traction, a report tomorrow from the Institute for Supply Management is forecast to show. A reading of 55.8 is expected for the industry group's factory index for October after 53.7 in September, according to the median forecast ...

... On Thursday, the Labor Department is forecast to report initial jobless claims of 380,000 in the week that ended Saturday compared with 386,000 the prior week.

Friday, the Commerce Department may report a 0.2 percent rise in wholesale inventories for September after a 0.2 percent decrease a month earlier.

Also Friday, the Federal Reserve is forecast to report consumer credit in September rose by $5.3 billion, less than the $8.2 billion increase in August.

Now, of course, these are just "projections". On the other hand, Bloomberg is not known for irrational exuberance, nor for missing by far on their projections.

0 Replies

CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP..... Hey, timber, that is good news. Two months in a row and growing at that! We're gonna be downright wealthy! We gained about $10 grand last month - on paper. But as you say, Bloomberg is a pretty reputable firm. I hope it's not all christmas hype. Wink

0 Replies

Craven, Cheap money produces inflation. Not good for our country's economy when we are part of a global economy.

0 Replies

Lots of things cause inflation. Spuring the economy causes inflation. Low interest rates both cause inflation and a viable economy in downtime.

Spending money causes inflation....

Unemployment causes atrophy.

0 Replies

Here's some news on our economy about the past quarter, and what our future may hold. http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/03/news/economy/business_spending/index.htm

0 Replies

In a Related Article comes news that the one of the projections in the Bloomberg article I cited earlier has been surpassed:

Quote:

U.S. manufacturing activity surges
Closely watched measure of manufacturing activity stronger than expected in October.
November 3, 2003: 11:17 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. manufacturing accelerated in October, the nation's purchasing managers said Monday, in a report that surpassed most forecasts on Wall Street.

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) said its index of manufacturing activity jumped to 57 from 53.7 in September. It was the fourth straight month the ISM index was above 50, a number that indicates expansion in the sector.

Economists, on average, expected the ISM index to rise to 55.8, according to Briefing.com.

From its appearance, its walk and its quack, this is sure lookin' like a real duck.

0 Replies

Timber - Keep the good news coming. I'm loving the timeliness of this thread and where it is now despite its meager beginnings.

0 Replies

Just watch, Scrat; as reports come in over the next few weeks reflecting lesser performance than Q3's unprecendented gains, some folks will clutch at those straws in a frantic effort to keep their negativistic agenda afloat. Q1 '04 will have far more meaning, and Q2 '04 numbers could blow The Opposition right out of the water as regards the economy issue.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know