I have been taken aback by several fallacious proposals put forth on this supposedly Conservative Forum which in no way represent the Conservative understanding of Economics.  After responding in great breadth to dispel the fallacies, and giving example after example how this liberal mindset is flawed I've become concerned over liberal creep into the Conservative community.  In response I would like to pose a few questions.

Can government create jobs?  Why or why not?

Can jobs be created AT ALL by anyone?  Why or why not?

What is the most prolific and efficient source of hiring in an economy?

If you believe jobs can be created, HOW?  What is the nature of employment?

I would love to hear what many who consider themselves conservatives think in regards to the subject.  Liberals too are welcome to put in their 2 cents, though I am convinced their take will justify the trade in kind.

Quote from: LibDave on October 20, 2013, 05:53:16 AM
I have been taken aback by several fallacious proposals put forth on this supposedly Conservative Forum which in no way represent the Conservative understanding of Economics.  After responding in great breadth to dispel the fallacies, and giving example after example how this liberal mindset is flawed I've become concerned over liberal creep into the Conservative community.  In response I would like to pose a few questions.

Can government create jobs?  Why or why not?

Can jobs be created AT ALL by anyone?  Why or why not?

What is the most prolific and efficient source of hiring in an economy?

If you believe jobs can be created, HOW?  What is the nature of employment?

I would love to hear what many who consider themselves conservatives think in regards to the subject.  Liberals too are welcome to put in their 2 cents, though I am convinced their take will justify the trade in kind.

♦
I find your inference extremely insulting, to the point I will not entertain your form of questioning. (intellectually insulting)
This is a Conservative forum, true, however, it is also an open forum, a point that seems to elude you (anyone can post).
I see you debating with a socialist, and ignorantly assume he represents this forum.

And by the way, your questions are nothing more than right or wrong questions even an informed 7 year old could answer.
Conservatism is not a political ideal, it is a way of life, a value set, core values in how one lives their life, life's questions generally have black and white answers, or as in politics, left and Right solutions.
But to somehow infer this forums moniker is a misnomer is nothing short of an uninformed fool.

I was under the impression this was a Conservative Political forum.  I'm not sure how I managed to be so confused.

I'm also unaware I've engaged in discussion with a socialist, self-professed or otherwise.  Of whom do you speak?

I don't believe they are intellectually insulting and I'm puzzled as to why you in particular feel insulted.  The questions themselves (and the answers) were designed to promote a discussion which I feel gets to the heart of much of the misconceptions I see on a regular basis from Conservative and Liberal alike.  None of whom are seven years old and all of which seem to miss the point.

If you know the answers (not convinced) feel free to answer or not.  I'm sure there will be more than a single pair of responses of Yes or No.  If inappropriate then censor as you wish.

Quote from: LibDave on October 20, 2013, 07:31:42 AM
I was under the impression this was a Conservative Political forum.  I'm not sure how I managed to be so confused.

It is a Conservative forum, but it is also an open forum for any political persuasion to post.
Your confusion comes from singling out lib posts and equating them to the majority of the forum.

QuoteI'm also unaware I've engaged in discussion with a socialist, self-professed or otherwise.  Of whom do you speak?

Supposn. It's blatantly obvious that what he proposes is a socialist application to a nonexistent problem.

QuoteI don't believe they are intellectually insulting and I'm puzzled as to why you in particular feel insulted.  The questions themselves (and the answers) were designed to promote a discussion which I feel gets to the heart of much of the misconceptions I see on a regular basis from Conservative and Liberal alike.  None of whom are seven years old and all of which seem to miss the point.

If you know the answers (not convinced) feel free to answer or not.  I'm sure there will be more than a single pair of responses of Yes or No.  If inappropriate then censor as you wish.

As I said, Conservative is not a political ideal, rather it's a way of life, knowing the basics of Right and wrong, (the fruits of ones labor).
Every question you proposed can easily be answered if one applies these core values.
Yes, I find your entire premise insulting, your conjecture based on a handful of liberals posting in the forum.
As I said, if one has any value system, the answers are obvious.

Try listening more in the main poli forum, rather than just posting lengthy diatribes of your own opinions, there are some extremely informed, intelligent people on this forum, you just entered during a lull time.

Quote from: LibDave on October 20, 2013, 07:31:42 AM
I was under the impression this was a Conservative Political forum.  I'm not sure how I managed to be so confused.

I'm also unaware I've engaged in discussion with a socialist, self-professed or otherwise.  Of whom do you speak?

I don't believe they are intellectually insulting and I'm puzzled as to why you in particular feel insulted.  The questions themselves (and the answers) were designed to promote a discussion which I feel gets to the heart of much of the misconceptions I see on a regular basis from Conservative and Liberal alike.  None of whom are seven years old and all of which seem to miss the point.

If you know the answers (not convinced) feel free to answer or not.  I'm sure there will be more than a single pair of responses of Yes or No.  If inappropriate then censor as you wish.

So you're just generally confused about everything.

For that, you'll need very individualized help that you can't possibly get from this or any other Internet forum.

Quote from: kopema on October 20, 2013, 09:15:32 AM
So you're just generally confused about everything.

For that, you'll need very individualized help that you can't possibly get from this or any other Internet forum.

I think the problem many have, is they assume this is an exclusive forum strictly for Conservatives, but that would not only be boring (preaching to the choir) but it does nothing to educate the masses.
Libs and others read this forum on a regular basis in hopes of some lib will make a good case for socialism, which in truth is impossible.

I believe we are making a huge difference by allowing anyone to make a case for their belief system, and incrementally dissecting it and showing that the Capitalist/free mkt system is the only solution for the country, one without govt interference, one the Founders believed to be the best and was proven so for many decades until the creep of socialism made a strangle hold on the country.

Then there is the fact that all party's read what we have to say on a daily basis, the fact that we can get out the real angst of the base has them scared shit less.

I honestly had no idea supposn was "socialist".  I thought he believed himself conservative and had merely concocted a plan to circumvent what he as a conservative saw as a problem.  You would be amazed at how many who see themselves as conservative don't really fully understand it.

If I am being totally honest I don't read who a post comes from.  I read the content and don't have the time, desire, or ability to memorize everyone's political persuasion.

I also thought the questions I posed were open for debate without restriction to a single "valid" answer (conservative or otherwise).  I would be surprised if you could come up with ONE obvious correct answer.

Quote from: Solar on October 20, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
I believe we are making a huge difference by allowing anyone to make a case for their belief system, and incrementally dissecting it and showing that the Capitalist/free mkt system is the only solution for the country, one without govt interference, one the Founders believed to be the best and was proven so for many decades until the creep of socialism made a strangle hold on the country.

I thought I was assisting with just that.  I won't post anymore and I'll leave you guys to it.  You obviously have the Conservative opinion all under control.

BTW I don't believe Conservatives live a singular "way of life".  I would be surprised if you lived your lives anywhere near what could be considered consistent.  I myself consider myself Libertarian because not only am I conservative economically, I believe in social liberties whereas most conservatives do not.

Quote from: LibDave on October 20, 2013, 05:53:16 AM
I have been taken aback by several fallacious proposals put forth on this supposedly Conservative Forum which in no way represent the Conservative understanding of Economics.  After responding in great breadth to dispel the fallacies, and giving example after example how this liberal mindset is flawed I've become concerned over liberal creep into the Conservative community.  In response I would like to pose a few questions.

This will be interesting.

Quote
Can government create jobs?  Why or why not?

No.  Jobs are created by someone with a demand for labor, supplied by someone who has a demand for money who is willing to trade.  Government steals from the earnings of those who take risk to satisfy the market with products and services.  In short, you don't create anything when you steal from someone else.

Quote
Can jobs be created AT ALL by anyone?  Why or why not?

Yes.  When a person wants to bring a product or service to the market, they need labor to make this happen.  When they have the money and demand for labor, a job is created.

Quote
What is the most prolific and efficient source of hiring in an economy?

The private sector.  They provide the private sector jobs, and when the government steals from the private sector, they hire government workers for the purposes of incubating unions (and in a very small percentage, actually provide services to the public).  So, the private sector.

Quote
If you believe jobs can be created, HOW?  What is the nature of employment?

Supply and demand.  When one human has something in abundance, and wants something another human has an abundance of, trade happens.

Quote
I would love to hear what many who consider themselves conservatives think in regards to the subject.  Liberals too are welcome to put in their 2 cents, though I am convinced their take will justify the trade in kind.

I am a conservative, so hopefully you'll engage with me.

Dear LibDave;

You have absolutely no understanding of economics.

None whatsoever.

I've clearly proven this to you more than once. Btw, I find it "more than coincidental" that you continue to insist on using "husband and wife" analogies while proving that you don't know what you're talking about. Fact is that I've seen this same "husband and wife analogy" tactic from "different" screen names both in here, and in other political forums.

Quote from: Solar on October 20, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
I think the problem many have, is they assume this is an exclusive forum strictly for Conservatives, but that would not only be boring (preaching to the choir) but it does nothing to educate the masses.

You use the word "they" an awful lot. 

Once again we see the exact same bizarre posting pattern:  some nimrod "poses a few questions" in the form of an empty-headed political Rorschach test.  No constructive content, of course, he just desperately wants to know what everyone (except for himself) is thinking.

At least they don't include the Spam links anymore.  But it totally weirds me out how these seemingly random brain farts keep being repeated.  Maybe it's just like the old saying says:  "Liberal see; liberal do."  But I certainly hope not.  The thought of that kind of mindless herd-like behavior going on spontaneously is a LOT more creepy than the idea of just one pathetic weirdo randomly cycling user names.

Quote from: kopema on October 20, 2013, 02:59:41 PM
You use the word "they" an awful lot. 

And your point would be?

QuoteOnce again we see the exact same bizarre posting pattern:  some nimrod "poses a few questions" in the form of an empty-headed political Rorschach test.  No constructive content, of course, he just desperately wants to know what everyone (except for himself) is thinking.

Ego, many believe they somehow have a better understanding of what being a conservative is all about, yet fail to understand it's a way of life, rather than a political belief.
Granted it has become that, but only because the left has politicized everything in an attempt to divide an conquer.

QuoteAt least they don't include the Spam links anymore.  But it totally weirds me out how these seemingly random brain farts keep being repeated.  Maybe it's just like the old saying says:  "Liberal see; liberal do."  But I certainly hope not.  The thought of that kind of mindless herd-like behavior going on spontaneously is a LOT more creepy than the idea of just one pathetic weirdo randomly cycling user names.

Yeah, there seems to be a certain mindset out there that believes Libertarianism is the true form of Conservative, when in truth many are closer to anarchism.
Not all, but many of the hardcore fall along these lines, which really isn't a bad thing, at least they won't be voting liberal.

I like these answers.  They are valid and I find little fault in your responses.  My only question would be, if I am a risk taker with a demand for labor, and I employ someone in this regards, their labor is no longer applied elsewhere.  Assuming full employment reached, doesn't this result in no net gain of employment?  Government too has demand for labor like any corporation or individual.

What if I employ someone in labor which results in less valuable product from their previous endeavor?  I can still make a profit yet something has changed.  Certainly then I haven't created a job, or have I?

While all you said is true, I believe Adam Smith broke it down to its core.  Jobs cannot be created, they exist and are limitless.  When I work on my lawn am I ever finished?  I could always do more.  Labor is limited by the number and skill of those employable and the amount available tends to stay relatively fixed.

So if employment is limitless and Labor is relatively fixed in terms of the available workable hours the only variable would seem to be an increase in the skills of the work force or more efficient use of that labor.  It would seem the question must be altered from one of employment to one of production.

As Smith pointed out --- it is production which matters as the true source of the wealth of nations.  In as much it is ironic the most effective means for increasing the wealth of nations is through the reduction of "jobs" through the more efficient use of labor.  Anyone who assists in producing more with less labor is responsible for creating wealth by freeing up labor to perform another of the limitless employment opportunities available.

The most detrimental cause of the inefficient use of labor is brought about by a reduction of incentives (demand).  Which you very succinctly pointed out.  All factors which limit or reduce incentive to produce at maximum efficiency should be eliminated.  These include taxation, and entitlement to name just two.  Employment does indeed seem to be driven by "demand for the goods produced by another's labor", whether one be the employer or employee (or consumer for that matter).  This definition makes no distinction between employer, employee, or consumer.

Consumers are the least identified employer.  Though many don't realize it, the most prolific employer in the country is the average consumer.  Every time you go to the store and purchase the goods of another's labor you are an employer.  In fact you are the most efficient employer known.  You get to see the fruits of the labor you employ AFTER such labor has been dedicated.  As such your omnipotence in matters of employment is assured as only you can attest to the value of what is produced.

My point in asking was to show we don't have an employment problem.  We have a motivation problem.  And as you pointed out taxation reduces incentive to hire for profit and entitlement reduces incentive to work as it becomes unnecessary.  I very much like your responses.  They were pretty much spot on IMHO though others may disagree.

As for the vitriol and personal attacks I think it does you disservice as it does many in the "conservative" cause.  It resembles the same mindless vitriol one receives from Liberals.  I find nothing anarchist about Libertarianism.  If so the Founders themselves were anarchists whose product was government.  An oxymoron dispelling your assertion.  The Founders (and those who truly follow their lead) are Libertarians not anarchists.

Quote from: LibDave on October 20, 2013, 03:40:19 PM
I like these answers.  They are valid and I find little fault in your responses.  My only question would be, if I am a risk taker with a demand for labor, and I employ someone in this regards, their labor is no longer applied elsewhere.  Assuming full employment reached, doesn't this result in no net gain of employment?  Government too has demand for labor like any corporation or individual.

Govt is a net drain on the economy, it producers absolutely nothing, it is a leech on a free mkt. economy.
To make the claim that you are somehow simply shuffling the deck is rather odd, don't you think?

QuoteWhat if I employ someone in labor which results in less valuable product from their previous endeavor?  I can still make a profit yet something has changed.  Certainly then I haven't created a job, or have I?

Did you not just create an opening for another employee to take his previous job?

QuoteWhile all you said is true, I believe Adam Smith broke it down to its core.  Jobs cannot be created, they exist and are limitless.  When I work on my lawn am I ever finished?  I could always do more.  Labor is limited by the number and skill of those employable and the amount available tends to stay relatively fixed.

So if employment is limitless and Labor is relatively fixed in terms of the available workable hours the only variable would seem to be an increase in the skills of the work force or more efficient use of that labor.  It would seem the question must be altered from one of employment to one of production.

If the position is not productive, then it should not exist, the reason it exists in the first place, is due to need.

QuoteAs Smith pointed out --- it is production which matters as the true source of the wealth of nations.  In as much it is ironic the most effective means for increasing the wealth of nations is through the reduction of "jobs" through the more efficient use of labor.  Anyone who assists in producing more with less labor is responsible for creating wealth by freeing up labor to perform another of the limitless employment opportunities available.

Robotics reduces the need for labor in assembly line production, but someone has to build the robots, do they not?

QuoteThe most detrimental cause of the inefficient use of labor is brought about by a reduction of incentives (demand).  Which you very succinctly pointed out.  All factors which limit or reduce incentive to produce at maximum efficiency should be eliminated.  These include taxation, and entitlement to name just two.  Employment does indeed seem to be driven by "demand for the goods produced by another's labor", whether one be the employer or employee (or consumer for that matter).  This definition makes no distinction between employer, employee, or consumer.

Consumers are the least identified employer.  Though many don't realize it, the most prolific employer in the country is the average consumer.  Every time you go to the store and purchase the goods of another's labor you are an employer.  In fact you are the most efficient employer known.  You get to see the fruits of the labor you employ AFTER such labor has been dedicated.  As such your omnipotence in matters of employment is assured as only you can attest to the value of what is produced.

My point in asking was to show we don't have an employment problem.  We have a motivation problem.  And as you pointed out taxation reduces incentive to hire for profit and entitlement reduces incentive to work as it becomes unnecessary.  I very much like your responses.  They were pretty much spot on IMHO though others may disagree.

True, it's why socialism will never succeed.

Quote from: Solar on October 20, 2013, 03:39:12 PM
Yeah, there seems to be a certain mindset out there that believes Libertarianism is the true form of Conservative, when in truth many are closer to anarchism.

When Godbama keeps saying that anyone who doesn't want socialized medicine must also vehemently oppose "roads and bridges," what ELSE could morons possibly think the Tea Party consists of?