Theory of Government Borrowing & Hiring Proven Wrong

Did borrowing from Social Security to hire government workers really ever boost or jumpstart the economy?

Or:  Nordhaus and Proving a Theory Wrong

Since the 1950s, Nordhaus' book  "Economics", has been considered a fundamental textbook in economics.  He, the Ivy League professor, won a Nobel prize.  Refuting or denying his assertions in his text would leave one wide open to attacks as an ignoramus or just a plain idiot.  No matter what your logic or math.  Facts just confuse the issue and are not important.  However, if one reads Nordhaus carefully and truly understands economics; one understands that Nordhaus and many other economists are conjecturing--guessing.  Their theories are just that--theories.  Unfortunately, as many mathematicians have noted; because math is a logical system, when anyone--economists included--express an idea with mathematical symbols; that idea is given a credibility it does not have; as if transformed into a real mathematical formula.  When Nordhaus wrote that when unemployment is high, the government must borrow money to hire people to create jobs and boost the economy; that was his theory.--A theory that has yet to be proven.

While this approach was tried during the Roosevelt era, with the TVA and other programs, there were many other factors to account for.  This is another factor of economics and all social sciences.  It is a science that deals with people and how people react.  The factors are so many and complicated, so many different relationships, that we mere mortals truly can't know.  Jonathan Weeks, a noted sociologist has pointed this out very well in his works.  Paul Krugman, a noted economist has pointed out , that some facts of economics we can know empirically.--We see it!  But, there is so much more we don't know.

The economic programs of the Depression Era did not really pull the USA out of the Depression.  They may have helped.  But, WWII really got this country out of the Depression.  Millions of men, able bodied young men, were taken off the streets and unemployment by being made soldiers and shipped off to Europe or the Far East.  The whole country went into production overdrive supporting the US army and lend lesae for all the Allies, including Russia.  (An often skipped over fact.)  Then, for a decade, while the rest of the free world, was in physical and financial ruin; the US had free reign to soar economically.

Did borrowing from Social Security to hire government workers really ever boost or jumpstart the economy?

I would say no.

While the economy was good, America at the top of the economic ladder, the borrow & hire policy could be implemented without loss and; go unnoticed as a luxury.  But now, that money is tight.  The failure of the policy is proven.  It doesn't work.  An Obama stimulus package did not stimulate.  The theory is finally proven for what it is.

To add insult to injury, many of these government services are unnecessary.  The workers are arrogant and working in a way that is detrimental to society.  The normal checks & balances that would overcome bad worker attitude and bad workmanship are not present in the false economy of the government workforce.

Most of what we know about economics is empirical.  We see it.  Supply & demand.  Tariff wars don't work.  Etc.  For decades, people talk about balancing the budget and the false economy of government jobs.  It a home situation we know how it works.  You need to balance your budget.  You can't spend more than you have.  Businesses don't hire people who don't produce.  Etc. Etc.

Giving unemployed people jobs not created from need, may give someone a job; a nice charitable move--better than welfare; but it does not stimulate or get the economy going.

You Want to Know Why There is so Much Child Abuse & Neglect?

Banning Children.  What a novel idea?!  As a kid I used to see this sign, "No kids allowed" in some antique shops.  My parents liked to go antiquing and took me along on their Sunday outings.  That is where I got a book on backgammon and learnt the game.  Some shops had signs that said, "If you break it, you bought it."  In one shopping area, with several antique shops, only one had the "No kids" sign.  My father said, with a smile, 'We won't go into that store.'  As if we were on boycott!

Of course, we can debate the legalities and ethics and practicalities of kids in an antique shop.  Surely, some kid has broken something.  Surely, it was an accident.  Surely, the kid does not have to pay.  Surely, the parent has to pay.  But, what if they can't?  At the moment?  What of the aggravation?  What of the accusations and counter-claims?

True.  There are some places that kids do not belong.  There are some parents that should teach their kids better manners.  But, kids are kids and; Americans are anti-children.

While there are some places where kids do not belong, I think this is much more about America being anti-child than anything else.  This is about people not having patience; or being forgiving or tolerant.  Since kids are powerless against adults, adults can easily blame kids for things and get away with it.  A serious trip for some adults how love "to rule over children".  And,  while some couples may try and not have kids, there really is a certain selfishness to the DINKs.  (Dual Income No Kids)

I once saw this anti-child attitude and child neglect manifest in a woman, that had to have her mink coat, but couldn't afford to buy her kids clothes.  One pair of pants for the entire school year.  No joke.  Now, *that's* real neglect!  She got away with it.  She didn't want to be a mother and did the bare minimum not to be arrested.

And, they want to know why there is so much child abuse & neglect.  Because people do not give a damn about kids.  People hate kids.  Kids are annoying and noisy.

In a country where you get more tax deductions for raising horses than children, what do you expect?

The U.S. birth rate is negative.  Americans do not have children and have to rely on the foreigners, immigrants with kids (Mexicans with large families) to keep the U.S. birth rate up.  Let us not forget all the adoptions of foreign children or; reaping of children, from minority foreigners (Mexicans) by Child Protective Services, to keep our population growing.

This is an anti-child society.  Adults do not marry and have children.  The many single mothers can't compromise and get along with a man.  They have to rely on artificial insemination or adoption of foreign children.

What does that say about our society as a whole, in getting along with other people?  Children, by the way, are people.

We, U.S. citizens, need to rethink our position.  Perhaps being nice to children, giving them attention, positive direction and activities, setting examples of good behavior--Yes, even at a public restaurant--might go a long way to having children who would be pleasant to be around.

Clearly, the current anti-child philosophy is not a sustainable life philosophy.

Do we need a Leiby law? -- NO!

Well, this is a very Jewish way of looking at it, but, we don't need a Leiby law.  We should not allow one kook to so disrupt our lives.

A Note to Parents Worried Their Child Will Be Nex,  By Lenore Skenazy


We know it's wrong to kill little kids and chop them up into tiny pieces.
We don't need a new law for this.  Just follow the ones we have.
And, we know that this is far from a common occurrence.

It was sad.  It was tragic.

Grieve and move forward without being neurotically paranoid.