Unemployed Comments on the WSJFollow

But since the solar power is replacing current power sources, maybe coal, the backups are already there, and the end result is more jobs* and less time burning coal. Seems like a winning scenario to me. Maybe as we develop more of these solutions they'll overlap better and we'll be able to further reduce the coal burning.

*There might be some job loss due to reducing the scale of the coal plants, however the building (and servicing) of solar farms while temporary in the sense that this is one project can easily become an industry in it's own right.

Edited, Jul 7th 2010 10:39am by Xsarus

What the hell is this even supposed to mean? I understand it's a reference to whats-his-face, but how is that relevant in any way?

It's easy to see things as a winning scenario when they fit a narrative that suits you. Personally I'm more of a fan of going with solutions likely to work. If we ease the restrictions on more coal, LNG or nuclear plants we guarantee our energy needs are met, we expand existing industries and don't waste money doing something that is proven to be ineffective, cost prohibitive and generally poorly conceived. Win/Win.*

Again, as long as they suit your particularly narrow view of a positive, who cares about the impact to anyone else.

*Anthropogenic global warming is a myth. Arguments to the contrary have been unmasked for what they are: a power grab and a control mechanism.

Unmasked by whom, under what funding, and for what agenda?

Only in as much as you accept the pain of others as a necessary consequence.

I want to move wherever you live. 40k on unemployment?? Here in Maryland the maximum benefit, if you collected it for a full year, would be $21,320. Also, those benefits are taxable just like regular income.



What we're really talking about are people who used to make $50k and are now getting $20k on unemployment, who've watched the values of their homes go from $250k to $150k, being told by you that they should take a job at Starbucks making $7 or $8/hour or ~$15k/year.

But nice way to make up some numbers.

But on which they still owe mortgage payments based on the $250K value, don't forget.

Unemployment: totally a free ride.

I'm cynical about both sides. I fully believe in the idea of climate change, which puts me at odds with a great many people who I share a political ideology with. I am also totally opposed to the idea of wholesale societal change on the basis of dodgy science that relies on models that can't accurately predict the past, let alone the future climate of the planet.

If we stipulate to the agenda on both sides of the debate and look at the likelihood of catastrophic events as a result of following one or the other proscribed tracks, I will stake the future of my children and theirs on the one that doesn't bankrupt the planet and place its inhabitants under the thumb of the Green Police.

I see what you did there! So clever!

You can't make me apologize for loving how clever you were, Moe.

Tee-hee!

Yeah, I saw that earlier, around the time Moe was claiming that ACC had been unmasked as being fraudulent. That's partly why I went fishing for a source for that claim.

That's the problem though. Far too many people think of it as spending money in one place versus another. But the real comparison which Moe and I are talking about is spending the money in either place versus not spending it in the first place. The money we spend costs us. It comes pretty directly out of either existing business profits or future profits. New jobs come from those profits Meaning we're taking as much money away from potential future employment as we're putting in. In most cases, due to inefficiency (as evidenced by the "But 2/3rds of the money is going to real stuff instead of boondoggles!) we're actually taking *more* away than we're putting back in. Net effect over time is negative.




Yes. If that's your goal. We're arguing that we shouldn't be pursuing that goal in the first place, and that by zipping past the "should we be doing this?" phase and right into the "where should we spend the money?" you're missing the entire point.



No! Both [b]take money out of the economy[b]. If we're really really really really lucky, and everyone involved is incredibly honest and the money goes into truly productive endeavors, we'll get exactly as much out of doing this as we took to pay for it in the first place. The best we can do is break even, and that's a nearly statistical impossibility.



Yes. None of which even meet the "stimulus" standard upon which the people were convinced to support the bill(s) in the first place. You see how that's deceptive? The so-called stimulus bill had little to do with stimulus and a whole lot to do with funding pet projects, buying political influence, and paying back political debts.


I guess it just comes down to one of those differences between liberal and conservative thought. When people are out of work, the liberal thinks: How can we help people who don't have jobs? Conservatives think: How can we help get these people jobs? One of those spurs on economic growth, the other does not. And no amount of pretending that the stimulus money is about jobs creation makes it actually so. The best way to create jobs is to encourage private industry to hire more people. You do that by making it less expensive to operate their businesses, not more expensive. You do it by giving them the best assurances that their investments and endeavors will be worth more down the line than they'll have to spend, not borrowing so much money that inflation is likely to wipe out anything they do today. Nearly everything the Obama administration has done so far has been anti-business. And we're surprised that unemployment stays high? Why? Would you invest in a new business venture in todays economy? Would you expand an existing business if you had one?


People have this false view of employment as though it's a static thing. The reality is that people lose jobs all the time. Jobs disappear all the time. Some jobs just cease to be cost effective. We can all rail about outsourcing and offshoreing but it doesn't change those economic facts. In order to sustain current job rates, we have to create new jobs all the time. This means that new business ventures have to start. The only way to prevent job loss, much less encourage job growth is to idealize the environment underwhich jobs are created. And that's *not* by having the government hire people. It has to be in the private sector. But that's exactly what we're killing right now.