What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
142 Comments
- blorc, on 01/08/2009, -14/+94Yeah, I bet it will. Just like the last stimulus did, right?
Give me a ***** break.
This is typical Keynesian thinking that doesn't examine both sides of the equation. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this $30bn actually will create jobs and "stimulate" the economy. What they're not mentioning is that it's $30bn less in the hands of taxpayers that would have stimulated the economy as well through purchases of various goods/services.
The idea that this money spent is creating stimulus out of thin air without a cost is completely asinine. So is the idea that government actually knows how to better spend said $30bn than the free market does. This is simply trading off a far more efficient use of $30bn for a far more inefficient use of that money.
Buried for being a ***** retarded article. - inactive, on 01/08/2009, -9/+50cough ***** cough
- XPpro, on 01/08/2009, -1/+33Ok, let's say that the government spent $30 billion and created 950k jobs, then what? Does the government do this every year to keep those jobs in place? What happens when the government program ends? Do we end up with 950k unemployed people?
- Moonkeeper, on 01/08/2009, -0/+30There hasn't been a free market in the last 8 years.
- govsucks, on 01/08/2009, -3/+29Yes, seizing 30 billion dollars from the people who earned it, and running it through the worlds largest and most wasteful middle man will stimulate growth.
GD sick of this ***** and ready to fight. - minoss, on 01/08/2009, -2/+22Actually it's worse. We end with with 950k people with skills in a field that now has a much smaller number of available positions, and not in the fields that need workers. This will lower the wages of every single person in these fields, while simultaneously creating a number of people with skills for which there isn't enough work. They need to then restart at most likely entry level positions in a new line of work.
Politically, this will be great for Obama. Look at all the jobs he created! Economically, it's disastrous. Especially in today's highly specialized economy and work environment. It's going to be a lot harder for people to switch fields than it was in the great depression government work era. - Moonkeeper, on 01/08/2009, -4/+22Where does the money come from? It comes from other people that would create jobs. Since indirect effects will not hurt politically as much as direct effects help politically, Obama looks good, buys 950,000 votes with someone else's money, and is never held accountable for the jobs cost with the tax.
- sloppychris, on 01/08/2009, -3/+21Here ***** here. The other option besides direct taxation of course, is to just print the money for the "stimulus". This way the government can tax everyone's savings account through inflation without them even knowing about it.
- XPpro, on 01/08/2009, -2/+20We never had a free market. You can not have a free market with the FED in place. What we have is a planned economy. FED lowers rates, boom, raises rates, bust, lowers rates, bubble, raises rates, burst, lowers rates, inflation, raises rates, deflation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy - sloppychris, on 01/08/2009, -0/+15Yes, lets put the people responsible for bringing us the DMV in charge of the internet.
- Topher06, on 01/08/2009, -6/+20What do they consider Tech Jobs. 950k new call center jobs will NOT stimulate the economy (i.e. people making minimum wage can't afford new cars and houses and waste money on other commercial goods). $30 billion into 950k is approx a $30k/year or $15 an hour job, hardly HIGH tech..
Here is a thought, why not put $30B into education so you can edjumacate a new generation of kids so they won't get themselves into this same mess another 20 years from now.
There are only two things the government should put money into, Health and Education (and more heavily in Education). If a company like a bank or car company goes ***** up because of bad management or inadequate investment in R&D, then so be it. That company should not be allowed to exist and the government should not subsidize failure. All the US government is doing is enabling a generation of inept companies to bascially bankrupt the American people by subsidizing their inability to compete and innovate at a global level. - induren, on 01/08/2009, -1/+11Uh... no.
And also, is Obama going to do anything to make sure these jobs don't immediately get outsourced? - FaithclubDotNet, on 01/09/2009, -2/+12I call BS.
- angryfirelord, on 01/09/2009, -0/+10No nation has ever become economically successful by relying on the government. Why the media and our politicians continue to defy hundreds of years of history is beyond me. I can guarantee that pretty much every device or invention out there was put there by someone's desire to be successful and make something better, not because the government deemed it so. In return, this creates an industry which puts people to work. This is the point of a free market, where people can provide a good or service which makes society better off.
Keynesian economics = epic fail - inactive, on 01/09/2009, -0/+10" it will create or retain"
why do idiots keep skipping over these words?
LOL @ "retaining" current jobs now being equated with creating new jobs - inactive, on 01/09/2009, -1/+10Hey Barry! Didn't Jimmy Carter warn you yesterday that garbage like this doesn't work in the 70's?
- merreborn, on 01/09/2009, -0/+9FTA/FTS: "create or RETAIN approximately 31,000 jobs"
Emphasis mine.
A retained job is not a new job. So, yeah, this is pretty lame. - Bicep, on 01/08/2009, -3/+12Nice.... so I'll get a raise then? haha just kidding
- 560Benz, on 01/09/2009, -0/+8you, sir, need to go back to school and take an economics course. Yes, doing nothing would be much better for the economy than this move
- AbsurdParadox, on 01/09/2009, -1/+9Anyone who believes this is a FOOL.
- yunus, on 01/08/2009, -0/+8It's a "Free economy" with one hand tied behinds its back. My view is either regulate the crap out of it or let it go free but you can't choose both or you end up where we are today.
- Hobobob, on 01/09/2009, -0/+7No such thing as a free lunch.
- TheYoshi, on 01/09/2009, -0/+7This is absolutely typical of what's coming with this administration. Illogical government programs which are being called on to "stimulate" the economy. At best they'll cause no short term impact and ultimately cost future generations dearly, at worst they will extend and worsen this economic downturn as well as screw future generations.
- Tanelorn, on 01/09/2009, -0/+6Basic economics. When you increase the supply of money, the value of each individual bill is decreased. Essentially, you are not creating new wealth. Instead, you get more money than before, but with the same overall value. In this way, the government has the ability to take value from citizens that hold dollars unchecked. This is why goods and services used to cost much less in dollar amount than they do today. Their value hasn't fluctuated, but the value of the dollar has.
- sloppychris, on 01/09/2009, -1/+7That's a good way of putting it. Even though indirect effects can be much more damaging to everybody, they're must less damaging politically.
A politician is better of causing lots of indirect damage, and creating a smaller amount of direct benefit, since people only pay attention to direct results. - sloppychris, on 01/09/2009, -1/+7What could possibly be so terrible about people saving?
Only buying things we can actually afford, how awful is that? - govsucks, on 01/09/2009, -0/+6Yep thats me, a poorly trained ***** talking internet rambo.
- Barackalypse, on 01/09/2009, -0/+6Explain this to me, earlier this year many of us got $600 checks as part of a $168 billion stimulus package and just a few months ago we spent $700 billion on a financial bailout and we've still got trouble, how is $30 billion more going to make any difference in anything other than the deficit?
- synapz, on 01/09/2009, -0/+6Corporations are a result of government, not the free market. Corporations sprout from government-created corporate law, nowhere else.
- inactive, on 01/08/2009, -1/+6Basic math does not compute....
- inactive, on 01/09/2009, -2/+7950,000 jobs that pay $30,000 a year which is slightly above the poverty level for a family of four will not stimulate the economy. These people will still be dependant upon the government for a wide array of benefits.
400,000 $60,000 a year jobs will stimulate the economy. These people will not need further assistance from the government and will add investment back into the country.
I am curious as to what skilled Tech Job pays $30,000 a year, or shoudl I say what quality of tech worker are you going to get for $30k a year. - steviesteveo, on 01/08/2009, -4/+9And then 950,000 of your coworkers will be fired once the stimulus package runs out and free market demand takes back over and suddenly people have to spend the money they get from customers.
Tech's important but you need to have money to buy tech, and if everyone's working the in field that makes the economy unbalanced and even more vulnerable to downturns. - synapz, on 01/09/2009, -0/+5Ridiculous. Any money that the government possesses to put INTO the economy came OUT of the economy. The only difference is where the money goes to, and I can't fathom why anyone would think that the government knows better where to spend that money than they do.
Ridiculous. - bobcat7407, on 01/09/2009, -0/+5And you prove him wrong where?
- Ne007, on 01/09/2009, -0/+5These stimulus packages rob money that would go to free market-driven jobs, and gives it to run down business models that are destined for bankruptcy.
- zigardne, on 01/09/2009, -4/+9the checks and balances of a free market are supply and demand
- FrozenPie, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2x7R8pxUs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv_kLqxbtcg - SirFink, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4More like 1.8 million tech jobs... in India.
- mandarin, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4Lucky you, the rest of the country isnt as lucky.
- nmessick, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4If you ever worked in any kind of government office or under a program you would know full well the DISGUSTING waste of space and money that our government is. It takes $50 to get someone to pickup a pen...
- bloodguard, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4I wouldn't get too excited. You just know that someone's going to attach an amendment calling for a massive increase in H1B visas. Now that Accenture has lost Hillary to the state department I wonder who their senate shill is going to be though.
- cubicledrone, on 01/09/2009, -1/+5Only problem with that plan is President Obama isn't doing the hiring. The hiring will be up to middle management, which means $30B in spending will produce 950K jobs in Vietnam and Mexico and enough Powerpoints in America to make everyone's ass bleed.
- MasterDwarf, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4I'll never believe that Uncle Sam, or Wall St, can do math correctly ever again.
- sloppychris, on 01/09/2009, -2/+6We don't need to imagine anything, Hong Kong and Singapore are two very successful economies with lots of opportunities for the average person, and a very small amount of intervention from government.
- tgc1, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4Say it with me. Cluster *****.
They are handing out money like candy on Halloween. What part of Recession do these politicians not understand? You have to REDUCE SPENDING DRAMATICALLY so that you can recover. It's the recovery process that takes years, but it can only happen when you get spending under control. Bailouts are spending. Stimulus is spending. Where in this equation of theirs is there a reduction? Or do they still have their fingers in their ears screaming lalalalalalala?
How does the US expect to ride out this Recession if it's spending money faster than at any other time in history? They are spending these billions faster than they are rolling off the printing presses!
The market CAN recover from this. It's happened before. But what has not happened before is this massive contradiction in tactics to deal with the situation. Spending more is not a solution. If you have debt on your credit cards and so on, you already know this. It's not rocket science. - kingp, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4Can you imagine how our economy would be thriving, if all of this money for bailouts and stimulus were given to US (the American people) instead of businesses or stupid pork-barrel projects of the politicians in Washington? This may be a tough question, but you know what I would've done? Paid off debt, and then bought stuff with it. Once my debt is paid off, guess what I'll go right back in it. There is the solution to your credit freeze problem.
I don't know. Maybe I'm just being greedy, or unrealistic. - vsthsd, on 01/09/2009, -1/+4i'm so tired of your type.
- Zanarkand, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3If $30 billion created/retained that many jobs imagine how much $700 billion would do????
- zapa47, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3Ill be behind you with an AR 15 ;)
- godofallcows, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3I thought you said Kenyanesian lol
-
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is