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.
- 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.