To Create 250,000 Jobs in WI, Walker will have to...

[jas66Kent]

Originally Posted by SamCook

I think this is an awful idea!

If you try to stimulate the economy by hiring 1 more police officer all you do is saddle that municipality with a future stream of costs of 100k per year.

That doesn't stimulate the economy that just saddles it with future costs that it can't pay.

The whole problem with govt spending, the exception being direct construction projects, is that the govt can never adequately determine where to spend money. When they do spend they do so inefficiently.

Example = solyndra

So the whole purpose of a tax cut is to take money the govt would spend inefficiently and give to private individuals.

Private individuals will spend money more efficiently and create jobs that are sustainable because a real market exists for them! Not like fake solar companies.

This is the entire problem with govt and the progressive agenda. They think they can take from the rich and create a more efficient economy! Sure govt can do some things like stimulus packages or lowering interest rates.

But we are at a point where spending is out of control. People are being conditioned to expect govt spending on everything including free healthcare. When we know nothing is free. The free program creates an inefficient system and we all lose.

What is it with you Conservative types and Solyndra?

It's honestly like you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to actually go beyond what you hear on Fox News and from Limbaugh.

Don't you know what Solyndra actually was? It was a small DOE R&D loan (Yes, $500m is small) to a company in an emerging industry (solar panels) That's it. Nothing else to it.

It failed because both China and Germany subsidize their own solar panel industries and the US simply cannot compete with that. This is a problem that the US has repeatedly brought up with the WTO.

So the problem had nothing to do with Obama or Solyndra. The problem was actually coming from the anti-competitive practices of two different countries.

So please, educate yourself before saying something equally foolish.

[jas66Kent]

Originally Posted by FormLetter

First you said 600b was far too small. Now it's in your range. That is confusing.


But why not 1.1T? Or 4T every year?

The size of the stimulus depends on the current state of the Economy.

Back in 2008, we were undergoing a serious contraction in aggregate demand, therefore the stimulus needed to be big in order to stimulate AD properly.

Nowadays, the Economy is not contracting, we are just showing low growth. because of this, the size of the stimulus does not have to be as large as what was actually necessary when the Economy was showing negative growth.

[FormLetter]

How do you determine whether or not stimulus is justified? A bunch of metrics would be needed.

[jas66Kent]

Originally Posted by FormLetter

How do you determine whether or not stimulus is justified? A bunch of metrics would be needed.

That would take up pages and pages of calculations. It's a complicated process. And speaking from a mathematical standpoint, it's still only an educated guess.

A stimulus is justified when you're showing low growth(Like now), stubbornly high unemployment (like now), large public sector unemployment (Like now), poor hiring in the private sector (like now), and flat consumption (Like now).

But most importantly, when nominal IR's are near 0% as they are now, the only real weapon in your arsenal to stimulate demand is fiscal. So now we have two options:

1. Cutting taxes
2. Increasing govt. spending

#1 only comes with a multiplier of 1.3, while #2 comes with a multiplier of 1.7 which makes it more effective at stimulating employment and AD growth.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

1. Cutting taxes
2. Increasing govt. spending

#1 only comes with a multiplier of 1.3, while #2 comes with a multiplier of 1.7 which makes it more effective at stimulating employment and AD growth.

The other great thing about #2 is that politicians get to control the process 100% and make sure that all the dollars get spent on what they and their buddies would like to spend it on, like bridges to nowhere and other awesome projects. Whereas with #1 the stupid common rabble will just blow the money on whatever things they personally believe they want the most.

[jas66Kent]

Originally Posted by Bicycle Repair Man

The other great thing about #2 is that politicians get to control the process 100% and make sure that all the dollars get spent on what they and their buddies would like to spend it on, like bridges to nowhere and other awesome projects. Whereas with #1 the stupid common rabble will just blow the money on whatever things they personally believe they want the most.

Nice. You must be quite the cynic IRL.

But I don't really disagree with you. Implementation can be a real bear.

[DanielSong39]

The US Government has already injected $15+ trillion worth of stimulus into the economy. Shouldn't we be doing great?

As for Walker he won't create 250,000 jobs but all he can do is improve the fundamentals and let things play out. That's what he seems to be doing.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Why don't politiians create jobs all the time, since it's so easy?

[E. Blackadder]

Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan

Why don't politiians create jobs all the time, since it's so easy?

First, one needs to have Illinois and Michigan as neighbors.

[NotUrAvgXBar]

Originally Posted by FormLetter

How do you determine whether or not stimulus is justified? A bunch of metrics would be needed.

Well if the economy is bad, a stimulus is justified in order to improve it. If the economy is good, then a stimulus is justified in order to prevent it from going bad. It's not that complicated.