Comments on: Meaningless Government Metrics: Jobs Created and GDP

By: kurt schuller

kurt schuller — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:52:07 +0000

My name is Kurt Schuller and I am running for state treasurer. I am a Tea party inspired republican who want to eliminate the elected position of Treasurer and Secretary of State. These offices are unneeded and have become a vehicle to reward political patrons with cushy jobs. Rep Scott Suder
and others have twice tried to introduce constitutional amendments to eliminate them but to date efforts have been unsuccessful. I want to win the job so that I can work from the inside to lobby for elimination.

I am opposed by Scott Feldt in the republican primary. Seems like a really good guy but he is for the status quo. He has spent most of his career in and around established government, both elected (Rock County supervisor) and as a hired government administrator.

I have worked most of my life in the restaurant business and owned and operated Wolfendales restaurant in Sussex Wisconsin for ten years. I have never held political office. I have no money to get my word out and am hoping that those in the conservative blogosphere who agree with me will help raise awareness of my campaign.

check me out at http://www.schullerfortreasurer.com If you agree with me that its time to shrink our bloated government then spread the word

By: Brandon

Brandon — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:05:41 +0000

Hello Warrior Economist,

Thank you for your thoughts.

First, I am not arguing against the entire idea of measuring jobs being saved or created, if you had actually read my post I am arguing for splitting the metric into government jobs created and private jobs created. I think the huge number of none value-add bureaucratic jobs the government is creating skews the metric as it currently stands and misleads the public.

Second, I apologize for the broken link on the second section of my post, it did link to captain capitalism’s post on the subject which I did quote in order to lay out the base idea of the argument. Here again, I ask that we separate the metric to accurately communicate with the public.

I appreciate your comments but I hope you will reconsider my post a little more slowly this time, I think we probably agree on most things but, you seemed to have missed some of my message in your haste.

Thank you for your readership,
Brandon

By: warrior economist

warrior economist — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:28:06 +0000

This post is absurd. You’re basically attacking an ‘other things equal’ assertion, which is what jobs saved is all about.

Here is Milton Friedman, by way of Brad DeLong, in “The Great Contraction,” arguing that supporting the banking system with extra open-market operations in 1931 after the shock of the British abandoning the gold standard would have saved a lot of jobs:

Suppose the [Federal Reserve] System… had accompanied the measure by purchase of government securities [for cash]… as called for by the “classic” remedy for an internal drain…. [L]et $1 billion be the amount…. What would have been the consequence?… Reserve purchases of $1 billion… would have meant an increase of $1,330 million in high-powered money… would have permitted a multiple expansion of deposits…. Even if… the deposit ratios would have fallen as much as they did–and for the deposit-currency ratio, the fall in so short a time was the largest on record–the result would have been to cut in half the decline in the stock of money…. Only a moderate improvement in the deposit-currency ratio–a decline from 8.95 to 7.10 instead of 6.47–would… have enabled the stock of money to be stable…

If the concept of jobs saved doesn’t exist or is a stupid metric, why would Milton Friedman have made this argument?

It makes perfect sense to question how many more people are working than would have been the case without a given policy. During and after the 2001 recession, did not the Bush Administration claim that without their tax cuts, the recession would have been much worse? While I don’t think their assertion at the time or even today was or is true, I certainly would not reject an other things equal argument on its face value, as you and other non-sensical ideologues have done of late.

Furthermore, your GDP portion from Captain Capitalist is regurgitated straight from Mankiw’s blog on 22 DEC 09(http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-not-to-stimulate-economy.html). Next time, stay in the shallow end of the pool or let Dan Suhr post on something original.

By: richard martin

richard martin — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:33:37 +0000

In general an excellent article that explains increased happiness from an economist’s perspective. I would note that people are better off today then they were in 1900, partly because of increased government involvement in the regulation of business (along with advances in medicine, education, and technology). Most of the regulations between 1850 and 1950 we consider standard practice and good for the economy (think, child labor, more fair wages, standard work week, better environments,…etc) . In fact, many economist would argue that due to increased regulation on market power, tax loop holes, and negative externalities GDP increased by more than it would have. That does not necessarily mean that more regulation will increase utility more. I say that more accurate language and specifics on what part of government you want removed would be more enlightening. Just as much as those that support increased government involvement, should explain where, why, and how they will pay for it. I support increasing government funding for education for anyone that wants to go. Why? Because only fools think our future rests anywhere but in higher education. We will not cure diseases, explore space, or achieve world peace through fear mongering and war. How do I propose to pay for it? How about we stop subsidizing agro business, and large banks and distribute those funds to prospective students. How about we actually make corporations pay taxes on all their assets, instead of allowing them to hoard money in off shore bank accounts.

So I ask you, what in particular do you want to see cut in government? And bare n mind any negative externalities that may arise due to such cuts.