Government Force or Market Forces? – What’s Better for the Job Market . . .

By all accounts, future job growth is going to be sluggish at best and we can expect double digit unemployment at least through next year.  The Democrats’ response is a $300 billion jobs program.  Many Republicans would rather rely on the private sector to fuel the recovery and job growth.  So what’s better, Government Force or Market Forces?

The use of the phrase Government Force is based on the nature of government programs.  The vast majority of the people would prefer to pay little or no taxes.  They are literally forced by government to pay those taxes.  As it relates to a jobs bill, the Democrats will tax one set of people or businesses (taxpayers) and/or borrow money (a delayed tax) and then transfer a portion of those collected/borrowed funds to other people or businesses.  In that manner, the Democrats believe they have created a job – or in today’s vernacular, saved a job.  But have they?

In the process of taxing some and transferring to others, the government force has taken money away from a business/taxpayer in California and perhaps given it to someone in Alabama.  That means the business in California cannot hire someone (or save a job) with the money transferred to Alabama – a type of zero sum game.  Actually, it is worse than a zero sum game because government always manages to waste money in the transfer and so Alabama is never helped so much as California is hurt.

Put another way, in an effort to fill Alabama’s bucket, the government forces the emptying of California’s bucket through tax and spend transfers.  Perhaps that is why Churchill famously said “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

(more…)