| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
#24
-
oscartg **User deleted account** (01/31/2012) [-] Government creates nothing, including jobs.
Economically government is an seniorawesomesauceistrative expense, nothing more. The less government tries to "fix" the economy the better off we are.
Government hasn't "created" any jobs, you fucking asshole. THE PEOPLE have created jobs. *Despite* your interference. If you'd left us the fuck alone we'd have created millions more.
Fuck you, Barry.
Economically government is an seniorawesomesauceistrative expense, nothing more. The less government tries to "fix" the economy the better off we are.
Government hasn't "created" any jobs, you fucking asshole. THE PEOPLE have created jobs. *Despite* your interference. If you'd left us the fuck alone we'd have created millions more.
Fuck you, Barry.
#30 to #24
-
nicolaik (01/31/2012) [-]
Actually, the government can indirectly make jobs.They do this by influencing the amount of money in circulation.
To increase jobs they increase the amount of money in circulation. They can do this by decreasing interest rates or by buying bonds. With a decreased interest rate people will more likely take a loan and pay on the loan, giving the bank more money. With this extra money a bank can lend out money to an entrepreneur who in turn will create jobs. When the U.S. Government buys bonds, they are increasing the amount of money in circulation by directly giving money to people who bought a bond earlier ( from the government's point of view they sold a bond). The people would get back the money they paid for the bond and any interest the bond collected.
If you are still reading the Government can also do the opposite of these 2 things to destroy jobs and decrease inflation ( an increase of prices ).
In addition if the government didn't interfere with the economy we would have worse recessions and worse inflation, oh and if there is both at the same time they try their best to unfuck it by edding the recession first.
To increase jobs they increase the amount of money in circulation. They can do this by decreasing interest rates or by buying bonds. With a decreased interest rate people will more likely take a loan and pay on the loan, giving the bank more money. With this extra money a bank can lend out money to an entrepreneur who in turn will create jobs. When the U.S. Government buys bonds, they are increasing the amount of money in circulation by directly giving money to people who bought a bond earlier ( from the government's point of view they sold a bond). The people would get back the money they paid for the bond and any interest the bond collected.
If you are still reading the Government can also do the opposite of these 2 things to destroy jobs and decrease inflation ( an increase of prices ).
In addition if the government didn't interfere with the economy we would have worse recessions and worse inflation, oh and if there is both at the same time they try their best to unfuck it by edding the recession first.
#32 to #30
-
oscartg **User deleted account** (01/31/2012) [-] > To increase jobs they increase the amount of money in circulation. They can do this by decreasing interest rates or by buying bonds.
But those only create temporary changes in job statistics. They move jobs around, but they don't create a long-term increase in total jobs available, because manipulating money, interest rates, bonds, etc. doesn't actually increase the amount of wealth in existence. It just moves existing wealth around.
Increasing the net amount of wealth available is the only way to increase the net number of jobs available. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
The only manipulation government can perform that will result in net jobs created is to lower the cost of government to the taxpayer. This will leave more money in the hands of those who will create jobs and those who will fill those jobs, offering incentive to both parties to work toward the end that is best for them.
And please note, this isn't job "creation" by government, direct or indirect. This is government getting out of the people's way so that *we* can create jobs, work more and better jobs, and create wealth for ourselves.
But those only create temporary changes in job statistics. They move jobs around, but they don't create a long-term increase in total jobs available, because manipulating money, interest rates, bonds, etc. doesn't actually increase the amount of wealth in existence. It just moves existing wealth around.
Increasing the net amount of wealth available is the only way to increase the net number of jobs available. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
The only manipulation government can perform that will result in net jobs created is to lower the cost of government to the taxpayer. This will leave more money in the hands of those who will create jobs and those who will fill those jobs, offering incentive to both parties to work toward the end that is best for them.
And please note, this isn't job "creation" by government, direct or indirect. This is government getting out of the people's way so that *we* can create jobs, work more and better jobs, and create wealth for ourselves.
#31 to #30
-
N. Korean citizen (01/31/2012) [-] One of the Fed's main goals in controlling the money supply is to keep inflation in check so that the economy can grow stronger faster. There's a problem with this, though. Printing money does not /create/ value; businesses and entrepreneurs do by meeting the demands of people. In other words, in the vast majority of economic environments, printing money will only serve to devalue the currency.
For this reason, printing money should only be done under very *very* specific cases. This is not my opinion, these are economic principles. You can learn more about it if you ever take a course in Macroeconomics.
For this reason, printing money should only be done under very *very* specific cases. This is not my opinion, these are economic principles. You can learn more about it if you ever take a course in Macroeconomics.
#27 to #25
-
oscartg **User deleted account** (01/31/2012) [-] You need to stop sucking Karl Marx's dick.
Communism preaches, basically, that there's one big static pile of "wealth" in the world, and if "The People" don't grab up all the little pieces then "The Rich" will keep it all for themselves.
This is, needless to say, bullshit that even kindergarteners can see through if properly guided.
People *create* wealth, and the more freedom we have to do so then the more wealth we create. For ourselves. Whether or not someone else happens to make money also, and how much the other guy makes, is irrelevant to all but the most insipid coffee-house economic evangelist.
Under Capitalism the tide rises, and all boats rise with it.
Under Communism a few big boats, owned by the privileged decision-makers, destroy us all in their wake. Then the big boats sink as well, because no new wealth is being created to prop them up.
Gzuz you're stupid.
Communism preaches, basically, that there's one big static pile of "wealth" in the world, and if "The People" don't grab up all the little pieces then "The Rich" will keep it all for themselves.
This is, needless to say, bullshit that even kindergarteners can see through if properly guided.
People *create* wealth, and the more freedom we have to do so then the more wealth we create. For ourselves. Whether or not someone else happens to make money also, and how much the other guy makes, is irrelevant to all but the most insipid coffee-house economic evangelist.
Under Capitalism the tide rises, and all boats rise with it.
Under Communism a few big boats, owned by the privileged decision-makers, destroy us all in their wake. Then the big boats sink as well, because no new wealth is being created to prop them up.
Gzuz you're stupid.
