Comments on: Truth and rhetoric in job creation A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: rodgermitchell Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:01:41 +0000 “. . . at the top of the list has to be attempts to boost lending to small and medium-sized businesses “

Isn’t it odd that people who want the federal government (which cannot go bankrupt) to borrow less, also want the private sector (which is subject to bankruptcy) to borrow more.

“That kind of money, leveraged and lent out to small businesses, can do more for creating jobs than just about any other government program.”

This is the myth of fractional-reserve banking. It doesn’t exist. Bank lending is not limited by its reserves. A bank could have $0 reserves and still lend billions. Bank lending is limited by capital.

Rather than trying first to indebt business, the government first should provide business with profits. It does this by buying goods and services, in short, by deficit spending.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

By: AllDueRespect Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:02:58 +0000 So, Felix, am I to understand that you believe:

1. $30 billion to small businesses will create new jobs? That seems to be your de-facto preseumption. If so, please provide your own proofs/studies so that others may respectfully examine.

2. redistributing dollars from “bad/profitable” oil companies to “noble/profitability unknown” small businesses is a good thing?

I think you are having more and more “Krugman” moments.

By: CDN_finance Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:23:24 +0000 Chicken and the egg: people have to spend to get business to hire, but people can’t spend more until more are hired… Either the corporates need to take the bottom-line hit to grow their top-lines – and apparently they have the cash to do that – or small business need to get access to credit lines at reasonable rates to hire more. I don’t think business will step up to the plate because the legacy of greed is too intense, so I guess we wait it out til enough debt is paid down that the average Joe that is gamefully employed will spend enough to cover the people that aren’t.

By: Zdneal Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:54:36 +0000 Isn’t this still supply side action? Not “tax cuts pay for themselves” supply side, but increasing supply supply side. If there is no demand how will increasing supply help anything?

By: y2kurtus Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:38:56 +0000 Break the global trading system? That’s an awesome idea nyet… I’d love to pay three times the current rate for my clothes and electronics so that people who though a highschool education was the ticket to a life of prosperity can keep their low skill medium wage jobs.

You want to create jobs… mandate that 10% of workers salaries be put into a 401k actively managed by an ultra-low cost provider like Vanguard. Mandate further that the funds be invested in risk assets like stocks and corporate bonds. Give workers ZERO access to the funds for any reason until they collect social security in retirement or through the disibility program.

Phase the manditory 10% investment program in at 2% per year if you want so that all the stores that peddle overpriced frivlous crap don’t close overnight.

Net result we’re a nation of savers again… capital is plentiful and the majority of the working class can look forward to a comfortable retirement rather than scrape by at or near poverty line income levels as millions of seniors sadly do.

If you progressive types want to further advantage the working poor than put their earned income tax credit directly into the 401k instead of letting them spend it on beer, smokes, and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

By: nyet Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:10:37 +0000 Xie is spewing nonsense. We need tariffs. With high enough tariffs, the jobs will come back.

The global trading system: Break it, then mend it.

The brutal truth is that profits are up, even as the American people spiral down into the toilet.

Who cares about Marx, or Reagan. Just break globalization.

By: a.soffronow Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:58:03 +0000 >when the U.S. GDP shrank by 6.4 percent and corporate profits decreased by 5.25 percent, these companies still earned more than $13 billion in profits

Comparing growth rates to absolute values? Excuse me, I think I can hear my bullshit detector ringing.

By: DanHess Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:51:13 +0000 Felix, you and others on the hard left who wish to sing the administration’s tune that everything is fine and a little more Keynesian stimulus will get us around the corner are dancing to the wrong music, music of a 20th-century, non-globalized world. You need to take a look at Andy Xie’s latest output.  /china-drains-obama-stimulus-meant-for- u-s-economy-commentary-by-andy-xie.html

I hate what Xie is saying but it explains things very clearly.

Xie in China does not have a horse in the American political game. You certainly act like you do and it is ruining your reporting.