| theprof00 said: Thank you all so much fot explaining to me how my point of filling and digging holes is nonproductive. Oh wait that was not my point, but still all of you should deserve commendation for retorting points that werent brought up, should i have decided to use those points in my misguided assessment. Back to me original point which was in response to ssrrylic which squirrel responded to, i said that those jobs which build roads communications safety appearance land value infrastructure as well as government funded programs like energy department program which provided support to companies like ford, are jobs equally as productive and beneficial to a company as the person doing inventory. That then started a lot of confusion which ill admit is my fault fir saying digging holes and filling them is productive to the company. Oh wait again. No i have to remind myself that i wasnt saying that. Its so easy for me to get confused. |
No, your argument was that the government employs people and these people buy products but this is only a benefit to the economy if these people produce value to taxpayers that is equal (or greater than) the value of the goods and services they would have otherwise bought. In the case of building certain kinds of infastructure, or providing essential services, this may be the case; but it is not generally true.
When it comes to departments or agencies providing "support" to companies, more often than not the benefit of this "support" is that it counteracts the harm that other departments or agencies are doing to these companies.
| theprof00 said: I later, on a separate point said that welfare does help companies in selling products. 70% of people pay less than 1% in order to added tens of thousands of new financial revenue streams. That couple bucks i spent helping someone to spend hundreds improves their neighborhood income and welfare helps develop areas surrounding cities (known fact that welfare havens become yuppie residential areas after the area has developed sufficiently) and helps me live peacefully knowing that someone isnt going to mug me because they cant afford milk. This point i will agree there is contention with. Your desires and benefots do not necessarily equate to mine. So while im for welfare i can inderstand if youre against it. |
Suppose you had an additional $5000 per year, what would you spend that money on?
If you're like most people you would probably buy some additional goods, pay for some services, pay down some debt and/or invest this money; in other words you wouldn't just start filling a pool with money so that you could one day swim in it like Scrooge McDuck. This money would then be put in the economy and create jobs producing those goods or providing those services, or the money would be used to invest in companies that would create other jobs.
The money that is currently being spent on welfare would result in a similar number of jobs if it was not taken from the economy in the first place. So the "investment" in these communities would be made regardless, except it would be as a result of people working and providing something in return for the money they recieve.
On the topic of welfare communities ...
Most of the studies I have seen about subsdized housing indicate that it lowers the value of home and increases crime in the area; and I have never seen an indication of it becomming a trendy community until after the housing projects are knocked down.
| theprof00 said: On yet a separate issue, i said that green energy is helpful because its a long term goal and plan. Long term we need an oil solution. Sure one day the market on its own is going to regulate it all on its own, but at what cost will it be? I see benefit in getting ahead of the curve of the industry so that we might become more of a leader in it for instruction and manufacturing etc regarding green tech. That may cost us more now, but it appears to me that its only a little bit from everyone whereas in the future it would be disproportionately the rich able to afford the tech and the middle class and poor paying more per week, as is commonly the way to extract their money. The rich buy the farm for 100,000 and the poor buy the produce for 100 every week of their lives. |
"Green" energy firms can be split into two distinct groups ...
Companies like GE that will invest in green energy regardless of government action, and use government subsidies to pay their executivies massive bonuses; and companies like Solyndra who sell magic beans to the government and use government subsidies to pay their executivies large bonuses until the companies go out of business. In no way does government intervention lead to an increase in green energy research.
