Monday, October 04, 2010


I'm a believer that governments should operate just like businesses. Mainly recognizing that they need to compete against other governments.

The plain fact is that businesses and residents alike play the cost/benefit principle in locating their businesses and personal lives.

While I naturally believe that a pro-growth business environment draws people to an area, I have to admit that is actually a by product of something bigger.

This person grasps the point.............

I am so f***ing tired of hearing - from both sides of the spectrum - that something needs to be done about "jobs."

F*** "JOBS"

Jobs are a byproduct of healthy industry. They are not a goal in and of themselves and they most definitely are not something the government itself should be trying to encourage or create.

Jobs are what happen when someone has too much work to do by himself, so he gets someone to help. If you want to work, GO F***ING WORK. Start a f***ing business. Find something that you can do and do it and sell the product of your labor to others.

What? You don't want work for yourself? You want to work for someone else? Fine, but it's not businessowners' responsibility to employ people and its not the federal governments responsibility to somehow force them to. If you want a f***ing job, then AGITATE THE F***ING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO EXPAND BUSINESS AND "JOBS" WILL COME. Make it easier for the people who actually do business and jobs will come as a byproduct. Jesus Christ, and you're also asking for higher taxes on the very people you need to create your precious JOBS? ARE YOU F***ING KIDDING ME?

WHAT THE F*** HAS HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY? Why does everyone want to be treated like a child? And the g****m federal government ENCOURAGES this s***.

I am so f***ing tired of this straight out of Marx s*** that somehow the people are just entitled to share in someone else's fortune and capital in the name of "jobs." GO MAKE YOUR OWN F***ING JOB.

Businesses aren't in the business of making "jobs," they're in the business of CREATING VALUE FOR THEIR OWNERS. When you say that a business should be making more JOBS, you are saying that the capital of those business owners should not actually belong to them and belongs to the "workers". Thanks a f***ing lot, Stalin.

"Fund Jobs Not Wars"

Has it every occurred to these people that only one of those is actually the responsibility of the federal government to fund, and its not "JOBS".

F*** f*** f*** f*** f***.

Case in point. Right now, the Gekko's hire a lawn treatment company to treat our lawn and a company to mow the lawn at my business. If my business slows down to the point that I have time on my hands to do it myself. I will. Those jobs will then disappear. The fact that I can make more money doing my specialty allows me to "hire" people to clean my office, mow my lawn, paint, etc.

When things contract for businesses, it's the people on the lower end of the food chain (or as a friend of mine calls it "the bottom of the scrotum pole") who will always bear the brunt of the slowdown. Something the dumb asses in government can't seem to get their arms around.

Read the whole post at Doug Ross...........


Anonymous said...

You can look at the economy statically or dynamically. The static view is one where you can change a desired variable and that's it. A dynamic view assumes that when you change a variable, all other variables are affected unpredictably.

The static view works well for liberalism/socialism. It simplifies their arguments. If a liberal can convince someone to accept the premise of static effect all of the following arguments are believable:

-An increase in minimum wage raises the standard of living for everyone.
-Price controls lower costs.
-Tax rate increases increase tax revenues
-Tuition increases raise tuition receipts
-Keynsean stimuli boost the economy

The list goes on and on. The static model also works well when trying to break down the economy into formulas that can be published in a textbook which is why the static model is what universities like about it. It also plays into the notion that an economy is a giant machine with a couple of levers that can be used to make it do what we want, which is a convenient assumption for governments, which naturally want to control as much as they can.

Conservatives, on the other hand, assume that the economy is dynamic. We know that pulling a macro "lever" on the economy will have unintended, usually negative consequences. Raising the minimum wage might help those who can keep their job, but will effectively fire the least skilled, least educated. We know this is a bad thing.

Liberals don't accept this because it does not fit the static model results that they predict in their textbook and college laboratories. They just assume that an outside variable screwed them up (and call the variable evil right wingers). In fact the system is dynamic and they are their own variable.

Anonymous said...

You should create a "best of" tag and make this the first post. Loved it.