Sunday, February 14, 2010

I'm somewhat dismayed by the tenacity with which conservatives cling to their economic theories

Case in point.

From the comments, it is clear that "admin" fails to appreciate the theoretical merits of the compulsory employment model (as formulated by Speng Musselman and myself), preferring instead to stand by a quote from conservative shill Mark Steyn:
No, the idea that you, to qualify for a $6,000 dollar tax credit, you pay someone or you hire someone and take them on at $105,000 dollars. That’s what I mean about a know-nothing administration. It doesn’t understand why people hire people. You hire people because you are growing your business, you’ve got more sales, and you need to make more product. That’s why you hire people. You don’t hire someone to give them $105,000 dollars to access a $6,000 dollar tax credit. This is stupid.
Which begs the question:  If he is so learned in the ways of economics, why is he shilling himself out to AM radio and conservative rags?  But I digress.

On an obliquely related note, another discussion arose here, wherein the proprietor wrote glowingly of a recent Matthew Yglesias post exploring both the simplicity and effectiveness of another stimulus bill, as clearly illustrated below:

Which brings us to a natural extension of the Compulsory Employment Model as a means to promote jobs growth and heal our economy.   I submit that in the words of my colleague Speng Musselman:
  • "There is no proven correlation between sales growth and small-business hiring practices."  Only the presence of robust regulation can cultivate an economic environment condusive to jobs growth.
  • Government should step in and mandate that businesses with net profits above an arbitrary threshhold be required to hire additional workers.
And here's the kicker:
  • Government should then tax business based upon the additional workers they hire under the proposed mandate and use the additional revenue generated to fund more stimulus.

It is brilliant in it's simplicity.

(UPDATE:  2/15/2010)  "theLibertyPen" disagreed with me:
To be blunt, you (TP) and your friend (SM) display a remarkably stunted understanding of economic practicality – which is typical of those enamored with Keynesian models and their extreme variants (i.e. intromissive Marxism). Which in themselves are superiorly theoretical, non-quantitative models that neglect empiricism and other measures of viability.

Short hand version of the above rebuttal:  "No, you!"

Simply saying something is wrong is not enough to make it wrong.  Its not like in the Iraq War (which was wrong) which goes without saying.

In that same comments, someone actualy said that the compulsory employment model worked and led to smaller unemployment.
"Also, I have to point out that TP’s “idea” was implemented in a similar form in the former Soviet Union which constantly boasted of its extremely small unemployment rate."
So this proves our model is sound.


  1. The only time I ever hired someone was when I had the sales base to justify it. I don't have a graph to prove this correlation. The reality of the situation was that I only had a certain percentage of my sales that I was willing to allocate towards labor. If the government were to come in and mandate that I modify my profit margins to force me to hire additional workers, I would have just shut down and laid everyone off. My profits were for a few things: Cash reserves so that I could float my business through difficult times, and for me to reward myself for the risk and time that I put into the business.

  2. I own a business, but I'm the only employee. So, if we do a mandate on me hiring somebody else, that would really be okay.

    Because I'm tired of doing all the work anyway. And, I could probably afford more taxes if I had an employee to pay (besides me). So, it is pretty simply brilliant. I'm leaning toward supporting it.

    But, I'm gonna have to mull it over. Benjamin J Burr has some good points though, that I have never thought about...Like profit being for "Cash reserves," and "reward myself." I bet he took a class or something.

  3. That does nothing to address the issue of jobs creation

  4. Dang, you're right Trenton. Sorry! I kinda got lost while mulling it all over, but if we get a MANDATE to hire somebody if I make $20,000, I'll be down with it.

    I got some illegal Mexicans that rent one of my father's apartments, and they'll like kill two birds with one stone.

    And goats, too. They kill goats on Sunday when nobody is looking.

  5. Andy sometimes I dont thing you're being serious with me

  6. Trenton, Paul is a friend of mine. I was trying to bait the dude. I know he's a fan of your work, and thought I might razz him.

    But I think he's busy on a long haul right now, or something.

    Hey man, I'm enjoying the living crud out of your posts. Seriously.

  7. Oh btw, I put that comment on the wrong post. I'm being serious with you.

    Our wetback illegal renters do slaughter goats out behind the place on Sunday. When nobody's looking.

  8. If you are renting to illegal aliens you are in violation of the law and I will not stand for it.

  9. Did I say "illegal" wetbacks? Oooops! I meant "undocumented aliens, killing goats that Americans just won't kill."

    Real Progressives will understand...

    Besides, I'm not renting to the wetbacks. My Dad is! Green American rectangles spend just the same, no matter who forks 'em over to him. Capitalist pig!