My Own Pie

Libertarian Thoughts from Renaissance Guy

How to Create Jobs and Stimulate the Economy

with 9 comments

     To create jobs, you should first start a business.  

     Next, employ people to work in your business.  You might want to hire somebody to keep your books, somebody to run your office, a personal assistant, and some workers to produce the goods or provide the service that your business offers.

     Voila!  You have created jobs.  Real jobs.  The kind of jobs that fuel the economy and that are not just impressive-sounding titles in a government office that are financed by people with real jobs.

     Your workers are suppoting the government through the taxes that they pay on real money earned through producing something.  They are stimulating the economy by spending, investing and saving the real money that they are earning in producing something.  They are not just recycling money through the big-government, magic-money machine.  (In case you don’t realize it, there is no such thing.  It’s a liberal fantasy.)

     Furthermore, your employees are earning money rather than staying home and having money handed out to them after it is confiscated from those who are earning money.  Which means that they are not being a drain on public money.  They are stimulating the economy instead of stifling it.

     Any government body that wants to create jobs and stimulate the economy–sincerely wants to do so–will make it easy for you to start your business and to hire people.  It will keep your taxes low, will impose as few regulations as are absolutely necessary, will not give unfair advantages to your competitors, and will preserve a strong dollar by not printing money as though that’s all there is to producing money.   (Your parents taught you that it doesn’t grow on trees, right?)

     It’s really simple, so simple that millions of people miss it.  Too bad!  Too bad for all of us.


Written by ambrosianideas

December 5, 2009 at 1:49 pm

Posted in Jobs, Taxation

Tagged with ,

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Yes. It certainly is a simplistic view of the problem. But then the answers ARE simple, if only these people would see the wood for the trees.

    However, you would have much more chance of someone putting your suggestion, or some variation of it, into practice if politicians and bureaucrats alike didn’t see something intrisically valuable in “governing” or “administering” per se, rather than their true worth (if any), which lies in the benefits of what those things do (or don’t) achieve for citizens in general and that those same citizens actually want!


    December 6, 2009 at 12:12 pm

  2. No. no. no RGuy-

    What you do is hold a summit. You figure out how to get people employed. Then what you do is create a department to include analysts, secretaries, a boss, some IT guys, etc.
    then you have created some jobs. you take out some of their money in the form of taxes to help pay for their paychecks, the rest of it you just pay from the cash fund provided by other people’s taxes from their jobs outside that sector. You see, it looks like negative accounting, BUT, once you use the ‘trick’ of incorporating other taxpayers in the mix to account for the rest, you see the real story, which is jobs created…and all in the public sector!

    Thank you for reading Sarcasm Weekly!

    Mike Lovell

    December 6, 2009 at 5:20 pm

  3. […] · Leave a Comment      On my other blog I have written a post that concisely explains how to create jobs and stimulate the economy. I would love for President Obama and the Democrats in Congress to read it. Possibly related posts: […]

  4. Furthermore, your employees are earning money rather than staying home and having money handed out to them after it is confiscated from those who are earning money.

    Which is not how unemployment works. The entire time you work, you pay for UC in specific taxes. So, if you do end up unemployed, you are not leeching off of the productive, you’re simply getting back what you paid into. Also, UC benefits are taxed, so you’re still paying the government. Presumably, you’re also paying bills and buying food, etc., so you’re also stimulating the economy.

    Personal Failure

    December 7, 2009 at 2:46 pm

  5. To go from a vague “make it easier to start businesses” to dealing with all the issues that face an economy is to add layers upon layers of complexity. Sometimes the simple answers aren’t really the right ones — sometimes reality is extremely complicated, especially when you’re dealing with over 300 million people, and a myriad of issues ranging from human rights, environmental concerns, safety concerns, concerns about fraud and abuse, cultural factors, etc. Moreover, we do have a massive debt to pay, and have been living beyond our means for three decades. Restructuring and rebalancing all of that without considerable human suffering (or at least trying to minimize it) is not easy!

    Scott Erb

    December 8, 2009 at 2:27 am

  6. Scott, yes, but that is all the more reason to let people manage their own lives and businesses. It is much too complex for a government to manage it.

    Personal Failure, I was not talking about people who are temporarily unemployed. Of course they are entitled to what htey paid in. I am talking about people who could and should work but do not.


    December 8, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  7. Government can’t manage it all, but there needs to be rule of law and oversight — the history of exploitation of workers and citizens, and disregard for life and the environment by big business is immense. Governments have a similar bad record. Any corporate identity which centralizes power creates problems. Somehow we have to have clear rule of law and accountability by both business and government. By the way, Obama’s new plan is designed to help small business. Do you think that’s a step in the right direction?

    Scott Erb

    December 8, 2009 at 5:02 pm

  8. Good question. I haven’t looked at it.

    If it lowers taxes and reduces burdensome regulations, then yes, it is a step in the right direction. If it gives them “free” money, then no. It’s more than the wrong direction–it’s evil.


    December 9, 2009 at 11:58 am

  9. I’m not sure evil is a word I would use. To me evil is something like genocide, torture, murder and the like. Evil strikes to the spiritual essence of the self, I tend not to use it for descriptions of material gang or loss, unless it’s to the point that it forces extreme poverty on someone (in which case that suffering is what determines the evil). The government borrowing and handing out free money may be a bad policy that will yield negative consequences in the future, but evil? I think, though, it is mostly targeted tax breaks, and I would hope they’d look at regulations. A lot of the regulatory scheme is put in place in a way that has the support of big corporations, and the regulations often punish small business. It’s almost more like corporate socialism than real market capitalism. Perhaps that’s a critique on big government that we can agree a bit upon!

    Scott Erb

    December 10, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: