Does the following sound good to you?
President-elect Barack Obama signaled on Saturday that he would pursue a far more ambitious plan of spending and tax cuts than anything he outlined on the campaign trail, setting the tone for a recovery effort that could absorb and define much of his term.You might want to read this on HRDC (Human Resources Development Canada):In the Democrats' weekly radio address, Mr. Obama said he would direct his economic team to craft a two-year stimulus plan with the goal of saving or creating 2.5 million jobs.
A basic understanding of economics, however, is necessary to grasp that there is no free lunch. For every job "created" by government, an unidentifiable job will, tit-for-tat, be destroyed in the private sector.Perhaps Obama should emulate Bill Clinton.
The images of earnest men and women put to work allegedly by HRDC flood the propagandist Canadian national broadcaster, the CBC. The multitudes thrown out of work because private economic activity have been crowded out by taxing or borrowing to finance job programs remain invisible. So, too, does the destruction of jobs and reduction in investments, purchasing and overall wealth that ensues when money is taxed away from Canadians and funneled to the HRDC's patronage playground. Investors suffer the same fate and are much less likely to take employment-generating risks with their capital. Government borrowing simply serves to reduce capital available to the private sector. A further diminution of assets occurs when government expands the money supply and causes inflation in order to finance job creation schemes. [...]The reason government job programs destroy jobs also lies in the fact that much of the money extracted from taxpayers does not go to the wages of job recipients, but to the elaborate bureaucracy of consultants and planners who administer the programs . . .
Crossposted on Judeopundit
Cheers, SD.
I do not believe that the claim by the [critics of the] HRDC is correct. One effect of government
job creation is the multiplier effect of a drop in unemployment through increased demand; another is the medium-and-long term economic efficiencies that come from many government public works projects, such as roads, transit and other infrastructure. (I am referring to reasonable efficiencies, not Robert Byrd's lacing his state with interstates connecting towns with no stoplights.)
The right time to spend money on public works is when unemployment is high (it is) and wages are low (they are): both because it's cheaper on the budget to buy cheap than to buy dear, and there's no sense from a macro-economic standpoint to spend money to increase overheated demand for labor. When wages later rise, taxes rise, mitigating the time cost of money to the government. Now, not 5 years from now in a likely boom, is the time to do the public works build-outs that we need.
Posted by: Bruce at November 24, 2008 10:19 PM