Job creation by itself is meaningless. It's easy for the government to create jobs. Just hire guys to dig holes and fill them up, or to build Pontiacs and Buicks that no one wants to buy. Jobs!!!! And later, inflation. But no creation of real societal wealth.
The question that libertarians, and everyone, should be asking, is what can government do to create good jobs, jobs that produce things that consumers want to buy, at prices they are willing and able to pay. Only private enterprise can produce such jobs, so the answer is: government can reduce taxes and spending, reduce regulations, repeal "anti-business" legislation. Unemployment was still in the double digits late in the 1930s. The New Deal turned what would have been a two-year recession into a ten-year depression. By contrast, when Reagan was confronted with a severe recession in 1981-82, he and his advisors wisely allowed the liquidations to happen, and the recession was quickly followed by 20 years of the greatest economic expansion the US has seen before or since. If Obama steadfastly follows FDR, we will have ten years of unnecessary depression followed by a war that kills hundreds of millions of people. Do you think Obama will repeal the 27th amendment so he can run for a third and fourth term? Or will he just run for a third and fourth term without bothering to repeal? --- On Mon, 2/9/09, ma ni <[email protected]> wrote: What do Libertarians, and Ron Paul, think of Rachel Maddow's chart last night (trying to advocate obama's government stimulus/spending plan) supposedly showing how the New Deal DID work? Her chart showed how jobs rose right after the New Deal. If it's accurate, how does a good libertarian quickly refute it? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
