Unemployment Checks Fastest Way to Create Jobs

Webdog, if unemployment benefits create jobs why is the unemployment rate so high.

When the rate started to rise - and more people started to collect unemployment - shouldn't the increase in the number of unemployed collecting benefits have increased the number of jobs and brought the unemployment numbers back down?

Unemployment benefits is nothing new - so why hasn't it worked prior to now?

 

Unemployed people are only required to apply for jobs for which they are qualified. People who work seasonal jobs that are covered can get "rocking chair" every year even if they have made $100K that season. Commercial fishermen, for example.

 

At this point we are going around and around in circles and I'm done. Like I said, take away EUC and see the affects it has on jobs, housing and banking industires.

Have a great Independence Day!

 

You bring up a good point...like anything there are flaws and those who abuse the system. This can be said about anything, though.

 

This is the same "broken window fallacy" or "the blessings of destruction fallacy" of Keynesian economics. The idea is that destruction creates the need to pay for a good or service. This is good because both lives are improved: the consumer obtains the new good or service, and the producer receives more liquidity for operations.

The fallacy, of course, is that a factor was left out of the equation: the consumer is now short liquidity that he or she would have still had without the destruction.

Destruction does not create new wealth out of thin air; it simply redistributes wealth from one person to another.

If you understand this obvious truth, you are smarter than Nobel Prize-winning Paul Krugman and almost all mainstream economists.

 

Simply spending money does not improve the economy. If money is not spent productively, the spender decreases in wealth while the producer increases in wealth.

Injecting more "liquidity" into the economy does NOT result in an increase in the standard of living if such "capital" is not matched by an even greater increase in available goods and services.

Supply and demand does not work this way. I can "demand" $1,000,000 free. If the supply is not available, my demand does nothing to increase productive output. Someone has to be able to produce anything to match demand, and the equilibrium of supply and demand requires that BOTH sides of an exchange be mutual.

If the government simply creates the $1,000,000 out of thin air and hands it to me for free, I actually benefit at the expense of everyone else because the supply of money increased relative to the available goods and services. Everyone else has less purchasing power because of inflation, but my purchasing power relative to what it was before has increased more than the inflation.

 

An increase in supply is what is necessary to MEET any demand. Goods and services are limited resources. If the government tries to "stimulate" demand for, say, houses by providing artificially low interest rates and low teaser rates, and tries to coerce lenders into making loans that they realistically would never have made, such artificial demand causes prices to go up. The demand is artificial because people were buying new houses for purposes that did not really meet a need. Both supply and "demand" for houses increase, but the supply of available capital does not meet the artificial demand for the same.

A bubble forms when artificial conditions (caused by central economic planning) interfere with the natural equilibrium between supply and demand. The supply of ALL components must be present to meet any demand, otherwise the bubble bursts and prices fall as supply must be liquidated to avoid loss caused by reducing demand that was unsustainable.

Of course. Just realize that goods and services that increase the standard of living for EVERYONE come primarily from people who take risks for the purpose of enjoying the fruits of their investments.

No, we don't.

We definitely need to cut spending, and yes even in some areas of defense.

Absolutely. We could pay off the national debt by getting rid of the Federal Reserve, phasing out debt-based "Federal Reserve notes" with interest-free "U.S. notes," and allowing these "U.S. notes" to compete with duty-free precious metal money in the market.

I am pretty sure European governments have their own problems with national debts. Let's think of Greece, where the government tried to promise and spend too much.

Just remember that the bigger the government-created "safety net," the more it can be abused.

This, we can definitely use more of.

 

If unemployment checks are "the fastest way to create jobs" as Pelosi claims, then the Dem controlled congress should be willing to spend some of the unused stimulus funds for that purpose. This money was supposedly meant to stimulate the economy and "create or save jobs". Unfortunately Senate Dems are refusing to use any of this money to extend unemployment benefits.

Instead, she prefers to demagogue the issue and label her opposition as "just cruel" - LINK

 

Emergency spending has never been paid for, it is not part of paygo. By using stimulus funds now, it will set a new precedent that all emergency spending is paygo.

 

You're concerned about setting precedent? The stimulus funds were supposedly meant to create and save jobs in an emergency situation. Pelosi says that unemployment checks will create jobs. Well then she should be willing to use funds that have already been allocated for that purpose. The money obviously hasn't had the desired effect yet in the way that it's been spent.

 

You bet. It will open up Pandora's box in the instance of other emergencies. What would have happened if the victims of Katrina were not taken care of due to paygo?

 

Benefits were extended most recently in April without regard for paygo. I don't think we're in any danger of setting fiscal responsibilty precedents. You shouldn't worry about that particular pandora's box.

 

Wrong, the eligibility date to move to the next tier were extended, and will be again when the Senate returns from recess on the 12th. There are no additional weeks added to what is already in place. Those who exhausted their eligibility receive nothing. If the republicans extended the dates in April without being paid for, why are they being so insistent on paying for it now? They are clearly using this as their platform for re-election this fall at the hands of the innocent. I'm done with both parties.

 

Yeah, they're just being cruel, as Nancy says. Shame on them for trying to use a little responsibility

 

Because somewhere, somewhere, somehow, someway - all of this defecit spending has to stop?

Just how many trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars are you willing to go into debt?

 

Ares Man, you systematically took apart Paul's argument, and decimated his (il)logic.

Nicely done.

 

Yeah, so start with OUR own people who truly need the help. Try starting with these losing "wars" we keep pouring trillions into and bailing out the rich and other countries. Why would our own people be a priority with OUR tax dollars...the employed and unemployed alike. The unemployed do pay taxes, you know.

 

You should take that up with Obama.

He is the one in charge of those wars now - and has been for a year and a half now.

He is the one that is sending in more troops.

You are right - they are our tax dollars.

What we should be doing is cutting taxes - across the board.

The unemployed pay more taxes when they are working and not unemployed.

Tax cuts - rather than meager handouts from the government - is what is required to get the economy running again.