Originally Posted by Northgate
It just seems kinda peculiar to me to hear Republicans screaming at the federal government, "Where are the jobs?" Since when did Republicans expect the federal government to create jobs for them when their view is the federal government is incompetent. Shouldn't they be screaming at Wallstreet for the jobs? They're the one's who create them. Not Washington.
Well when you borrow a few trillion during the first term, money that affects the ability of private markets to loan capital to others, or makes lenders less likely to lend when the Fed prints away the bonds they buy, thus driving inflation up. Then you have no choice in the matter and want to at least see a result for all the stolen and looted money. Understand the government stimulus would pay for almost 3 Apple Computer Companies. The amount borrowed over the first term would buy between 10-12 Apple Computers. We clearly haven't felt that result.
If you went to a studio with film proposal and they declared they couldn't fund it because the government had taken their profits with a "family values film" tax and would now credit them the money back as a grant, provided they make the right type of films, you would still expect to see something out of this very government controlled and distorted market.
If on the other hand no government sponsored family friendly films showed up nor did the jobs from creating them, I'm sure you'd scoff at anyone who retorted "You're a filmmaker, why haven't you made the films instead of asking what the hell the government did with all that money and why are you wondering about the results?"
You'd note that the government took money out of the available private pool of money to finance and green light films and that there should be a result from that. You'd note that there was the possibility of fewer private films due to the government intervention and that it is appropriate to ask if the government intervention yielded a results better, worse or the same as the private approach.
Now let us take this a step further. Let us suppose the government applied a "multiplier" effect to their family film grants. They declared they would be able to employ more people and get more films for the same number of dollars that would have been spent on violent and sexually charged films because they have no greedy profit motive, are serving the common good instead of narrow commercial interests and darn it films about puppies and rainbows are just cheaper to make. They declared the same number of dollars would make 15 government films for the cost of 10 commercial films. The government result ends up being 3 badly botched family films with inflated costs and several grants that went to "family friendly" film companies that then immediately went bankrupt.
If you question this result, your motives are impuned. Better still, the government declares the reason their results were so terrible is that they left private money still undertaking certain actions. If they just doubled down or grabbed even more of the available film financing dollars, then they could finally get an appropriate result that was better than the prior terrible result. Their films only cost so much because the entire market is tilted toward producing violent and sexually titilatting film fare. The companies awarded the grants only went bust because they didn't know that several companies would claim the grants but actually didn't know much about making films, they just had the right intentions.
This is what has happened only with the larger economy.