Another something to pass on to progressives and liberals

[progressiveforpaul]

"But if we cut military jobs, there will be huge unemployment." So reads one of the comments on another board. I think this is a very good point. Libertarians will have to prove you wrong. I am good with them being inspired to prove that the private sector can do alone more than what the government and the private sector does now. I think that we would get some bounce in the private sector simply by bringing national debt down and by getting our forces out of oil rich countries. I think the problem hits when armament factories shut down. This is where progressives step in and offer a peaceful green jobs plan. I think we win the argument in this situation but we don't get to have that argument if the neo-cons and corporatists put their permanent war economy in place. In fact they already have it in place; they just need to expand the wars we are in now. Here is where Obama is vulnerable to neo-cons. He thinks that the previous stimulus was enough or all that he can get now. The latter is probably true. The problem is he will not get a great deal of jobs growth by cutting domestic discretionary spending while maintaining current defense spending. The political environment is all about cutting spending. Progressives have to make sure that the cuts are from the MIC,not Medicare, Medicaid and social security. Ron Paul seems to be willing to make that deal as long as we get a net cut in overall spending. When all is said and done, Obama gets us at best 7% unemployment rate at the end of his second term. People will not stand for this, and the unending war Keynesians will fill the void (while using their predictable free market rhetoric). Progressives need to bite the bullet (so to speak) and make this deal with a lesser devil in 2012 in order to get what we really want in 2016. We progressives, like it or not, have only one way to be relevant and that is to get a Ron Paul nominated and elected. I wish it could be different. Had the president been less compromising and insisted on including a universally available public option, immediately going all out in building the green economy and completely getting out of the current wars, we would not even have to consider this alternative tact. Now that he has failed our agenda we must pick ourselves up and make a new plan. Unfortunately the plan has to take a longer view or else, short and long term, we all lose to the permanent police state war economy.

[KramerDSP]

PFP, my parents had similar concerns about unemployment resulting from the troops being brought home from around the world. I don't have much to add here, but I appreciate your time and efforts. I checked out your blog again, and also wanted to thank you for linking to the "An Appeal To The Left: Change You Can Believe In" video. Thanks for all you do.

[Working Poor]

What if we brought them home and still paid them and let them work on the bad bridges and things like that and they spent their money in our economy rather than a foreign economy.

[Stary Hickory]

after WW2 we demobilized and we had a post war boom. This is an invalid argument.

[acptulsa]

What if we brought them home and still paid them and let them work on the bad bridges and things like that and they spent their money in our economy rather than a foreign economy.

No, don't think we need a New Deal specifically.

OP, two things. One, please remember there's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't have all the state level socialism you want. The several small, competing socialist states of Europe have fared far, far better than massive, centralized Soviet socialism. Or, to put it another way, we're not the enemy. We're just the people determined to restrain you just enough that you stick to what is proven to work. I'll be damned if I know how to emphasize that enough.

Secondly, Wilson left the economy in the toilet, and Harding fired a hell of a lot of government employees in the middle of a massive recession. The result was a few months of bitter medicine, followed by The Roaring Twenties. Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to not repeat the really, really good parts.

[Kylie]

after WW2 we demobilized and we had a post war boom. This is an invalid argument.

Can you prove this? Other than the baby boom?

I seem to remember the 50's being the "golden" age for this country, but don't really know why.

Maybe it's because my Grandparents are the best people God ever made.

[Stary Hickory]

Can you prove this? Other than the baby boom?

I seem to remember the 50's being the "golden" age for this country, but don't really know why.

Maybe it's because my Grandparents are the best people God ever made.

Well it certainly was the end of the Depression that preceded it. There is no disputing the fact the economy recovered and thrived after the war. The massive influx of military members back to civilian life did not negatively impact the economy at all. They merely transitioned into the market and started creating real wealth again.

[progressiveforpaul]

after WW2 we demobilized and we had a post war boom. This is an invalid argument.

yes thanks in part to the GI bill.

[progressiveforpaul]

What if we brought them home and still paid them and let them work on the bad bridges and things like that and they spent their money in our economy rather than a foreign economy.

Amen!!!!

[TexanRudeBoy]

What if we brought them home and still paid them and let them work on the bad bridges and things like that and they spent their money in our economy rather than a foreign economy.

Why not pay them to dig holes and fill them?

Ugh.........

http://www.fee.org/library/books/eco...in-one-lesson/

[ChaosControl]

What if we brought them home and still paid them and let them work on the bad bridges and things like that and they spent their money in our economy rather than a foreign economy.

I like this. We need to repair our infrastructure anyway, keeps them employed, and it still saves a lot of money since we're not spending so much on bombs and such.

[acptulsa]

I like this. We need to repair our infrastructure anyway, keeps them employed, and it still saves a lot of money since we're not spending so much on bombs and such.

Sure, but can we please do it on the state level so we can clear all that smelly graft out of Washington, instead of merely redirecting it?

[cameronb]

I think acptulsa is right on the money - I have liberal/progressive friends who I HAVE been making headway with and the competing systems is key -- many progressives use smaller european states as examples of socialism working, so instead of countering that I just run with it. Massachusetts can be more socialist and NH more libertarian.... Nevada will be more libertarian than CA perhaps, etc. I think progressives can be talked into decentralization (and I have had success doing so) if we focus on the philosophy of liberty alongside a sense of "community", and how for instance an empire of communism failed, but very small instances of communism (kibbutzim) absolutely thrive.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not espousing socialism/communism here, but allowing for competing systems where those who want it can have it without infringing on those who don't -- that IS achievable.

[acptulsa]

Thanks, Cameron. Don't get favored with one of your posts often, but you do make up for a lack of quantity with some real, thoughtful quality.

Yeah, I'm using 'proven' advisedly, like 'less unsuccessful' than the Soviet model. But I'm a libertarian, so what can I say? Except that I believe it's achievable, too. I think we're much better off making these corporations buy fifty state legislatures, which is bound to be more difficult and expensive. This business of Washington controls it all and is all for sale, so your rich corporation gets to take over with 'one stop shopping' is such an obvious fail. If nothing else, you think these liberals would believe in spreading the graft around. How can we paint state legislators as 'underprivileged'?

[ChaosControl]

Sure, but can we please do it on the state level so we can clear all that smelly graft out of Washington, instead of merely redirecting it?

I don't see why not. Could transfer the position to a state job in the state they work.

[ClayTrainor]

Military jobs, like all public sector jobs, can only be sustained at the expense of productive jobs in the private sector. Cutting them will not raise unemployment levels on aggregate.

[Ricky201]

yes thanks in part to the GI bill.

If anything the GI bill created more unemployment than anything, as well as other unintended consequences. Especially with the unemployment benefits in which the money could be used for tax payers to actually buy good and services...therefore creating employment. Even though it can't be argued that certain people don't benefit from such a bill and go on to do great things with the education benefits (my boyfriend being one of them). However, I don't buy the idea that the GI bill created/creates employment for the general population or for the troops. Read this excerpt from the following link:

http://wallstreetpit.com/23659-did-f...eat-depression

Even less remembered is what happened in 1945, at the end of WWII. The WSJ revitalized the history of the end of the New Deal in a recent op-ed, Did FDR End the Great Depression?, FDR was convinced the only way to employ the 12 million returning soldiers was another New Deal program, but he died before he could impose his plan. The new President, Truman, proposed it (and note, this is when Truman is said to have pushed for national healthcare), but as the article explains, it was soundly rebuffed:

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying “no.” No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. … [T]op marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945. …

By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses.

--------

I would reccommend you to read the rest of the article. It's a great read!

If government spending and taxes are decreased to levels that would have otherwise been used to support troop salaries and other war-time expenditures than there would be enough jobs to support the return of the troops (of course that doesn't mean that troops would directly get the jobs, but the market will be ready to absorb the population that returns from war as well as those that were home during wartime). However, if spending and taxes are not cut than yes you will have more unemployment for the entire population and not just the troops.

[Ricky201]

What if we brought them home and still paid them and let them work on the bad bridges and things like that and they spent their money in our economy rather than a foreign economy.

Because in the scenario your describing (at least what I think you're describing) taxpayers would still foot the bill for their employment. Therefore, not creating wealth but destroying it. What you describe is a bit more desirable, especially since they will be working on bridges that probably need a lot of attention, but it still is an economic fallacy.

It's like when Ron Paul states that he doesn't mind ear marking things because the executive branch will get the money if congress doesn't do anything with it. Sure I understand where the man's coming from, but he knows and I know that it's not a desirable outcome for him to create public works jobs for his district so that the executive branch doesn't use it to fund whatever in god's green earth it decides to fund.

[acptulsa]

Because in the scenario your describing (at least what I think you're describing) taxpayers would still foot the bill for their employment. Therefore, not creating wealth but destroying it. What you describe is a bit more desirable, especially since they will be working on bridges that probably need a lot of attention, but it still is an economic fallacy.

Well, maybe. But you'll have hell convincing me that fixed roads and safe bridges are less of an economic boon than thousands dead and millions pissed in the Middle East.

[Ricky201]

Well, maybe. But you'll have hell convincing me that fixed roads and safe bridges are less of an economic boon than thousands dead and millions pissed in the Middle East.

I'm not saying there not, but saying that economic planning is the best we can do in replace of foreign interventionism is a mistake at best. I would never say "Well since the ONLY option that politicians have is public work jobs in my district we might as well stay in the Middle East and destroy lives and diplomatic relations more than we already have!"

I don't think anyone on this board that would say such a thing. But I think not including the free market as a choice to create employment for troops is not wise.

[acptulsa]

I don't think anyone on this board that would say such a thing. But I don't think not including the free market as a choice to create employment for troops is wise.

Definitely not. But as a way to ease them back into a job market that is easing its way into recovery, having them serve out their 'tours' this way isn't the worst idea. Especially national guardsmen who, on some level, are working for the state at least as much as the fedgov anyway. And, of course, most roadwork is done by contractors. Not that this is purely private enterprise, but it does come a little closer.

Mainly we need to put the fedgov on the Harding Diet. Cut it to the bone and watch enterprise use its new freedom to grasp its new opportunities!

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I love it. Cut the military and we lose jobs.....as opposed to completely obliterating what is left of the dollar by having to print it to 'save jobs'. This is $#@!ing as asinine as saying 'we have to destroy civil liberties to save them'. The $#@!ing SS Titanic we are on is sinking and y'all are talking about opening all the flood doors instead of turning on the bilge pumps to save the ship. I'm sorry if Lockheed contractors are going to be laid off when the US cannot procure more F-35s. I'm sorry some in the military will be demobilized. However, its a complete and total misallocation of resources, something supposed green-loving Progressives care about.

[TNforPaul45]

The exact same argument was made by the Keynesians after the end of WWII. They said that there would be massive unemployment. Instead, 1946 was one of the biggest GDP boom years in American history.

This above is the same argument as the one that "Ipads are bad because they are ending the jobs of regular book printers and publishers."

It's interesting how "Progressives" (move forward) want no jobs or economic levels to ever change and remain stagnant. In reality, they are more "conservative" in the state of an aspect than the GOP is!

[ClayTrainor]

The exact same argument was made by the Keynesians after the end of WWII. They said that there would be massive unemployment. Instead, 1946 was one of the biggest GDP boom years in American history.

This above is the same argument as the one that "Ipads are bad because they are ending the jobs of regular book printers and publishers."

lol, yup. This idea that governments have the ability "create" or "protect" jobs is a huge fallacy. They can only "create" or "protect" a job at the expense of the productive sectors of the economy.

If only we could convince more people to read this little gem...