A shallow political diversion. by Van Bryant, II
(libertarian)
Monday, January 16, 2012
This article is in response to two fellow Nolan Chart contributors, Russell Davis and Bill Schmalfeldt, on the topic of "job creation."
Russell's article, "Obstructionist Right Wing Brown-Nosing Does NOT Create Jobs,"[1]makes two thrusts: first, that austerity would be anathema to jobs. Second, that Romney is disingenuous in counting jobs created without subtracting the jobs he cut during his tenure at Bain Capital. Bill Schmalfeldt's article, "Government Not Only Can, but Should Create Jobs!" [2]goes even further. According to the author, all our economic woes would be best solved by giving government total control over the utilization of idle labor. Not only that, public employees are not paid well enough for their services.
Both writers approach the issue from different tangents, but come to a similar conclusion: that government is the primary vehicle of economic recovery.
Firstly, I must criticize the merits of the topic in question. "Jobs creation," like all other labor-centric arguments, is at it's core Marxian demagoguery. It is an appeal to emotions (namely jealousy), discarding rational and objective evaluations of human actions that make not only jobs, but modern civilization possible.
To stress the importance of job creation over production in general is to ignore the fact that jobs are not in and of themselves productive. The "value" of the laborer's production (the job) is calculated indirectly by the actions of the worker, and directly by the judgments of the market. Understanding this fact, one can conclude that labor is above all an investment, speculative action on the part of the capitalist.
Just like a job is not guaranteed production, labor itself has no intrinsic, set value. Some workers may be better at certain jobs; some workers may be faster, stronger, smarter. Some labor may be completely misallocated: one man may spend the whole day baking pecan pies, while another bakes mud pies.
Thus, it is misleading to use the relative number of jobs lost or gained as a metric by which to measure a company's success; profit is the only adequate measurement of such. To suggest any other possibility is to put the cart before the horse. As far as any emotional appeals go: the market is a reflection of the heterogenuous values of it's participants. The producer, in his drive to win customers, is a reflection of his consumers. Attempting to attach one particular moral or ethical value to the market is inherently totalitarian.
Which brings us to the ultimate tool for denying the aforementioned realities: government.
I find myself in agreement with Bill's statement that "government can create jobs better than anyone else." Government can indeed employ every citizen if it so wishes. However, Bill is not willing to go beyond the utopian platitudes. I imagine he will find questions annoying: the statist envisions an unimpeded government as the metaphorical "EASY" button. That said:
How would the state fund such a labor-intensive endeavor? What kind of jobs would be created? If government jobs produce so much wealth, why does the government insist on taxing the private sector? If government jobs are so productive, what is the deal with the Postal Service? Why did the Hoover-FDR interventions in the economy not turn around the Depression? Why did TARP and the billions invested in "shovel-ready projects" not create stable, sustainable economic recovery?
Where is the proof that government is solely responsible for medical progress? Who says governments alone fix roads and bridges[3]? Why wouldn't markets emerge for defense? What came first, the road/law/defense/medicine/technology, or the government?
There is a ludicrous amount of dishonesty and ideological obfuscation in Bill's article: the suggestion that austerity would increase deficit, after decades of the current course and the resultant debt, is icing on the cake.
I don't expect much in the way of sound economic defense from one who sincerely thinks that government jobs are self-funding. That said, it would be interesting to read a response from Bill explaining how politically-driven planning boards trump profit-driven markets. One would think the Russian experiment had properly vanquished these Marxian impulses, but human memory tends to run short.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Van Bryant, II only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Van Bryant, II is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
