While it's not the only topic in current politics or economics, we still talk about the importance of increasing employment. Basically, we want folks to be working. One of the statements we hear often is that one new job stimulates twelve new jobs. I don't know that that's true; and I've found a web page that's more specific and circumspect. However, it seems well established that each new job does generate additional jobs, by creating additional demand as the new worker seeks to fill his or her needs or wants. (And perhaps over time that will add up to twelve, if each new job stimulates another new job....)
So, based on that premise, I have three questions:
FIrst, isn't that as true of government funded jobs, whether employment by government or by contractors (like, say, adding new employees on road crews spending highway funds) as of any other source of funding? If not, why not?
Second, while political pundits talk about "the Governments money" and "our money," since we live in a government of, by, and for the people, and since we all pay taxes, isn't "the Government's money" really all "our money?" If not, why not?
Third, then, why shouldn't we encourage our Government to spend our money to generate jobs in the economy, instead of waiting for corporations, whose purpose is to make a profit for the benefit first and foremost of shareholders, to see the increased demand that will make it reasonable for them to add jobs? Indeed, isn't in the best interest of those corporations for our Government to spend our money to create jobs, so as to increase the demand to the point where it is reasonable for corporations to increase jobs? If not, why not?
Talk among yourselves.