I don't get it. How does buying jobs with public dollars equate to a recovery? The labor sector that gained the most jobs during the Great Recession is government. Given that the only true source of wealth/money/taxes is through private businesses generating profits and creating employment, it is strange that this government-created recovery has been at the expense of our economic future filled with burgeoning national debt. Short term gain for long term pain.

Given that the only true source of wealth/money/taxes is through private businesses generating profits and creating employment,

That's where you go off the rails, Nolo. For one thing, on our particular planet, it's the government that "makes" the money. All of it. Otherwise, we'd all be bartering.

Jack if there was a video from "Brownie" explaining Katrina and its aftermath would you believe it anymore then we believe this talking head?

Just because you write White House on the board does not make it biblical in nature.

Funny, I don't hear any Republicans suggesting that we go back to the policies that subsidized mortgages for people who couldn't afford them. Or the SEC, run by Jack's buddy Chris Cox, which failed to thoroughly investigate leads that could have stopped Bernie Madoff much earlier. Nor do I hear any Democrats complaining about the fact that the Bush tax cuts gave a bigger tax cut to lower and middle income taxpayers than to the higher income taxpayers.

PJ, which facts from the video do you dispute?

The government does not make money. The federal reserve does.

Allan, you are incurable. Nolo is absolutely right: governments do not and never have created wealth.

Sure, governments have the ability to print and distribute currency...the fact that you don't know the differencce between that and wealth creation is SCARY, and a very big problem in this country.

Private sector job creation (wealth) has been non existant since Obama took office.

Folks that buy into this logic of printing money to create government jobs as a way out of this mess are only digging the hole deeper.

Now, get back to your government job Allan.

Private sector job creation (wealth) has been non existant since Obama took office.

Which is strange, as American corporations are currently sitting on the largest-ever collection of cash reserves. But they'd rather outsource than hire workers here.

Which is strange, as American corporations are currently sitting on the largest-ever collection of cash reserves. But they'd rather outsource than hire workers here.

In the uncertain business environment created by the Obama administration, sitting on cash is a very prudent thing to be doing.

If you want to blame someone for "outsourcing", look no further than the Big Dog, Bill Clinton.

The government does not and has never created wealth????? Really.... now that depends on century and form of government. The British, Dutch, and Spanish monarchies created tons of wealth back in the day.

"For one thing, on our particular planet, it's the government that "makes" the money. All of it. Otherwise, we'd all be bartering."

There is no reason to think that governments created the first medium of exchange. Anyway, money is like any other normal good; despite the fact that governments try to guide the rate of interest over time, etc., because it is a fungible normal good the folks who control its flow aren't the central banks, they are the people involved currency trading. Which is a good thing; it keeps governments honest over the medium and long term - which is why Britain is doing the responsible thing and cutting spending nearly across the board so they don't end up in a situation like of Greece.

Governments are there to protect property and validate the acceptable forms of exchange. Government is the gun in the hands of the wealthy, trained upon the masses...to keep them in 'order'. Disorder leads to disruption and leads to change of governance when those who control the wealth change, occasionally suddenly.

The trick is to get the masses to buy into it. That, and allowing anybody in the scenario weapons.

Private sector job creation (wealth) has been non existant since Obama took office.

PD, never let the facts get in the way of a good argument. Job creation has been going on — not enough, but the numbers are positive, whereas they were not in 2007-2008.

Oh— and nice work changing the subject from money to "wealth". Changing the subject is not a good debating technique, either, if the goal is to get at something meaningful.

Now, why would you think that just because a person has sensible arguments, he or she has to have a public sector job? And when did basic macroeconomics fall into the partisan divide?

The government does not make money. The federal reserve does.

For this purpose, that's a distinction without a difference.

Godfry -- can you cite an instance where "disorder leading to disruption" has resulted in a change of governance... where there hasn't been political AND economic upheaval?

In my lifetime we have seen China & Cuba go down the path that Russia began with the Bolsheviks. None of these economies have prospered, and the citizens of such countries have suffered as a result. Most have embraced economic reform where private wealth is encouraged (Cuba has only just admitted their revolutionary economy is not working).

What you are suggesting is certainly good if the only goal is to redistribute wealth, but it does not achieve a stable, prosperous economy. Given that we are now linked to a world economy, instability will only hasten our national debt as all investors from here and abroad will not find our economy and bonds safe for their investments. Political and economic stability is critical to our safety as a nation and to our standard of living and our futures.

A metaphoric run on the bank might give the common man a share of wealth now, but with a bankrupt financial system, how well will these folks fare later on? I suppose if we all have backyard chicken coops, curb-strip garden plots and solar panels, we can return to a 19th century standard of living as survivors the disorder and disruption you favor.

Is this really how the hipsters in Portland are thinking these days? How have we failed the education of this generation?

I was encouraged by the Intel expansion plans.

"I was encouraged by the Intel expansion plans."

Don't kill the Doomsayers' buzz by suggesting that Oregon is actually a good state for business investment.

Here I thought excessive and improvidently granted credit precipitated the financial meltdown and deep recession. Now we find out the economy turned because the government wasn't making the right "investments". Sure Austan. Right.

As I recall, we sold a history book or two to Goolsbee during the timeframe that his jobs graph covers. He wasn't looking at economic history. That's too bad because if he had reviewed economic history he might have noted that now, as we approach the three year anniversary of the recession onset, that a normal kind of recovery would have some blockbuster months with 400,000, 500,000 or 600,000 job increases. There would be sustained payroll employment increases of 200,000 to 300,000 a month.

I got to think if Goolsbee was lecturing on his own he would be talking in terms of unleashing the private sector, leveraging the dynamics of value creation, getting capital to work in value producing enterprises, and creating conditions where supply and demand driven forces re-aligh and rebuild the real economy. Instead Goolsbee lectures in terms of the simplistic algebra of Keynesian multipiers (and in so doing assumed multiplier effects slowed down job losses and spurred growth before the money was spent).

Goolsbee serves as the spokesman for the chief economist of the administration who is none other than the President himself. Good luck waiting for Obama's strategies to work effectively and sustainably for people other than me and my lobbyist, consultant and bureaucrat neighbors.

Allan, I made the distinction between "money" and "wealth" because you did not. None of us should ignore the fact that, yes, governments create money...and in Obama's case, lot's of it. Good for him and his printing press.

Wealth, however, has more to do with the inherent value of money...which has been severely eroded during this administration.

Your arguments lead me to believe that you think your government is guarding and creating wealth...which it clearly is not. Our government is eroding the value of our "money" by simply printing more, thereby destroying wealth...not creating it. Get it?

I find your arguments anything but sensible, therefore I have to assume that either you or someone under your roof is either a public employee or drawing from their platinum PERS plan.

There are just no facts to be found in support of the assertion that the value of money in the US has eroded in the last 2 years. Not in the CPI, not in interest rates, not in the foreign currency exchange rates. Even the burst housing bubble means much more real estate today for your dollar. So PD your assertion about this is just flat wrong.

And, by the way, it is you who lumped wealth and money together, nit me.

Peet's coffee just went up by $1.75 a pound.

"There are just no facts to be found in support of the assertion that the value of money in the US has eroded in the last 2 years."

Hogwash. It's called inflation (even with our potentially deflationary environment).

It would be, if we had it. But we don't, so your assertion about the erosion of value is simply false.

Allan L, here is a link to another video comparing and contrasting the WH video with another view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04y35I-r3Xw&feature=youtu.be

Allan L,

You obviously haven't been paying attention to commodity prices. Over the last year, not only have precious metals seen sharp increases, but wheat, oats, corn and cotton are all up double digits (among a few). Cotton alone has gone up well over 50%. As our government has decided to print money as a "solution" to "stimulate" the economy, investors have shifted to commodities -- which will always have value while the value of our "money" seems at the whim of the Fed and the president's policies.

As the economy starts to slowly crawl back, prices will rise...quickly, because producers, wholesalers, and retailers will have to pass these increases to end users.

So, that PERS check will buy a lot less in the future, so be mindful of that.

Dollar was a few ticks from all time low against the Yen earlier this week, did hit all-time low against the Rupee, did hit all-time low against Swiss Franc in September and would be flirting with all-time low against the Euro if it weren't for the debacle in Greece. Yes, there's limited internal inflation but only if you don't eat, travel, buy medical insurance and cool or heat your home.

PD and Grady, you're right — I haven't been paying close enough attention to commodity prices and foreign exchange rates, other than oil and the Euro. I'd say the foreign exchange rates are mostly a function of our enormous trade deficit — an indicator that the dollar has been overvalued in comparison with other currencies, making imports artificially cheap and our exported goods and services uncompetitive. If that's correct, two things mainly follow: (1) commodity prices in dollars increase as the dollar declines, because their sellers aren't all dollar-based; and (2) a lower dollar will be good for businesses that export US goods and services because it will lower their cost to foreign purchasers. No doubt there are other influences on commodity prices, such as constraints on supply and spikes in demand, and speculation, that have nothing to do with domestic policy in the US. All those considerations go into the composition of various price indices and explain why the core CPI excludes food and energy costs as it does. Of course a weaker dollar raises prices for consumers in the US, since so much of what is consumed comes from abroad.

Yep, I understand, oil was trailing other commodities until the last few weeks -- now the gold bugs are sharing the wealth.

Getting back to the Goolsbee graph, I heard from a friend on the right today who circulated the following to paint an ugly picture of the Democratic Congress.

http://www.politicalmathblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CongressJobsLarge1.jpg

Like the Goolsbee graph, the 8 million jobs the Democratic Congress has lost graph is more for show than understanding.

This video provides a useful rebuttal to the Goolsbee video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04y35I-r3Xw

"I was encouraged by the Intel expansion plans."

Paid for with taxpayer money. Very encouraging.

The first rule -- you may call it a 'germ' -- of Republican reduncidation is: 'NO' don't look at it, 'NO' don't hear it, 'NO' don't say it. (redundant recitation)

So there are any sort of other things to look at, thrown around like an argument ... YouTube-video other things ... anything EXCEPT the video Jack built the thread for.

There's a far difference between debate and 'NO'-and-I'll-tell-you-why-it's-'NO'.

It isn't that Obama/Congress don't do anything (right).
It IS that they can't do anything on account of sensible people NOT laughing (but instead shock&awe-ing) in the face of rightwing fascist-fumes advocating Supremacism seriously ... NOthing else, NO way.
It is to laugh at know-nothings who 'NO' everything.

The Republican darkness is where there is NO time to gather current facts and estimate trends, not even rapid-fed 'simple' facts as in a plainspoken Goolsbee video.

--

A point of information: Bucky Fuller defined 'wealth' as, the number of forward-days a system can be maintained, but ol' Bucky, he had a way with words. He said, "a guy with a pile of corn is wealthier than a guy with a pile of dollar bills." He coulda said youth is wealth ... as anybody who has spent theirs may tell you.

Gee, he could tell all that from a single chart? Ha! Goolsbee offers economics for the incurably biased.

I predict that he'll be the next casualty on the Council of Economic Advisors by early next year, after the Dems get trounced in next week's elections. Hopefully we can finally get back to good old divided government. In the meantime, I'd suggest that Austan call Christy Romer and Larry Summers to find out how they spun this line on their resume.