Early last month, I wrote an article for The Federalist on job creation.
I used that opportunity to document that there is a serious problem with jobs under Obama, and I explained that the problem existed in part because the President was intervening with so-called stimulus schemes.
The far better approach is for government to “get out of the way.”
Though that’s not really correct. I want changes in government policy. Indeed, major changes. But those policy changes would involve less government, whereas Obama pushed major changes in the other direction.
I took this discussion to the next level in this debate on C-Span.
My opponent, Ross Eisenbrey of the Economic Policy Institute, was my mirror image.
He wanted more spending and I urged less spending.
He called for more intervention and I advocated less intervention.
We would probably even disagree about the answer to 2 + 2 = ?.
Viewers can make their own decisions on who did a better job in the debate. I’ll simply state that my strongest point (at least in my humble opinion) is that businesses only create jobs when they expect new workers will increase net revenue.
But don’t believe me. You can read what actual real-world employers have to say about the topic.
In other words, I agree with the message of this poster. If you think more government is the answer, you’ve asked a very silly question.
P.S. I’m in Monaco for the Convention of Independent Financial Advisors and the Princess of the Levant is with me at the Hotel Hermitage. It’s nice to get a glimpse at the lifestyle of the infamous Top 1 Percent.
Fortunately, Monaco seems to have plenty of guys with women out of their league, so I don’t feel too out of place.