Forum Thread

Regarding a Wall Street Journal article actually advocating creation of jobs by Fed.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 Posts
  • Independent
    Massachusetts
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    In a recent Wall Street Journal (not a leftist leaflet) there was an article suggesting
    that in order for jobs to be created, the government is going to have to step in and
    initiate the ways and means, probably provide the initial financial means, for private sector
    parties to set-up shop to put people to work.
    That’s been my premise, proclaimed via email to my old Conservative friend many
    times. His perspective has generally been that so many people are out of work because
    they’re exploiting the “dole” through which the Dems deluge the masses with “goodies”
    to bribe their votes.
    I sent him the WSJ article last week. At least now his reply reveals that he can accept
    the idea of government involvement, as long as it’s on the state level and by
    Republicans. Before, any government incursion into the free market would have been
    seen as Socialist overthrow of the country . . . . . or “libtard” suppression of enterprise
    (especially with regard to EPA, OSHA, etc.).
    So maybe he’s “getting where we’re at” and realizing it’s not going to be a replay
    of the l8th and 19th century market of manifest destiny, slavery, industrial revolution,
    energy/technology revolution, credit-card cornucopia for retail consumption, cottage-
    to-castle with 3-car garage . . . .
    He still stresses that a 1% decrease in Fed. and State services spending over 5
    Years would be the panacea of the predicament in which govt. providing jobs would only be a palliative.


    My reply to my old friend

    Do you actually still think that by decreasing debt you're going to significantly increase jobs? That
    was a paradigm of the past. Wasn't Bush's blowing the billions to "stimulate the economy" and put
    America back to work blatant enough evidence (and conviction) that capital influx is going to evaporate
    into capitalization of echelon, rather than "contractual" investment in jobs , . .for humans . . . here . . .
    Where'd Bush's bucks go? ##!!?!// incompetent Obama????? So easy to blame the inheritor or dearth, isn’t it?

    Again I mention there's a new paradigm:
    reduced economy/market for manufacture
    offshored and south-of-border'd cheap labor force
    an “insurgency of robotics”
    and the "evolution of 3-d printing" mfg.
    (a "factorial of robot-threat?")


    Now, the ultra-wealthy have not and will not, it seems, fund job-creation ventures of any kind other than within the realms outside our borders, beyond our bordering seas so much.
    And it seems obvious that the private sector, exercising its priorities (and global-economy necessity perhaps), is no longer the paradigm in which capital will build factories and mills and hire our the masses to pour through the gates to punch-in and produce products. Domestic investment at least continues to be providing philanthropically (the arts, research, funds, grants, etc.).

    As the WSJ piece specifies -- since nothing else is working (providing work), the government should !!
    Or do you have something substantive to offer other than throwing more pearls (of debt reduction pittance deriving from already-depleted survival-level social programs) . . . . throwing more pearls to the winds of economic evaporation?