The Myth Of Government Job Creation...

[Blazing Saddles]

How did the movie studio come to be anyway?

I'm guessing it was more ego than good business sense. "Hey everyone, we have a Hollywood movie studio here in the county". Yipee, yipee, yippeeeee (echoing because there is nothing in that big building).

 

[ShoeDiva]

The movie studio is bleeding, profusely. Hoping to see if anyone is interested in using it at the IBA meeting today. I believe it has been sitting idle for months.

By all means do your own research, what I have discovered in the last three months leaves me

I always thought the movie studio was a weird thing to have here. I also remember speaking with commissioners that were on the fence on whether it would be a profitable venture. :dunno Though if we get an airport and possibly a convention center it would make more sense. Maybe they were just ahead of the game when building it. )

I do think that somehow privatizing it would be much better and I have a feeling it would get more use.

I honestly believed that the movie studio was private, and when you look at what Newnan has been able to do with a movie studio (which I'm not sure if that is privately owned or not), I can see what our county was thinking. However, if it isn't profitable, they need to look at their game plan and see what/who is limiting the studio and keeping it from attracting filming to our area. I'm not opposed to our government participating in joint ventures with private industry if it is handled appropriately and it is something the county has great and successful experience in. If the studio is losing money, then the marketing, management and oversight of it needs to be re-evaluated. Sometimes, it's a simple matter of not advertising, other times, it can be the economy, or it could be poor management, among other things. Without actually seeing how the operation is run, it's impossible for us to tell.

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

:thumbsup

 

[ShoeDiva]

I do think that somehow privatizing it would be much better and I have a feeling it would get more use.

this is the key to just about everything. If it was something that could make money, the private sector would have seen the need and probably put a studio here. Instead, we get govt involved and now we have buildings and contacts to burden the taxpayers with.

I can agree that with most all the private sector would be better. They can not afford to lose money. I am not sure of the initial reasoning behind doing it and as I said I know some of the commissioners were leery, but the problem is now it is here. Either sell it to someone, convert it for better business use, or make it work. Obviously if they are losing money they do not have the right person running it. Get a better company. Do something where it is not a burden and can run in the black.

They should have never done it the way it was done. That's the whole point of this thread. Seems govts don't learn the lesson. That's the whole point of the thread. The question is the myth of govt job creation. That's the point of the thread. Lets not continue to do the same mistakes OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Don't just say "the problem is now, it is here". Lets all do something about it. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome. It doesn't happen that way.

Maybe they should not have, but they did. I do not see everything as exclusive and do think there are models of things that work within govt/private partnerships.
Everything is just not so black and white and while if you can point to something specific here that did not work and they did it anyway, that I could agree would not be the best decision. If they do something based on something working I do not consider that insanity, but progress and a way to better a community.

 

[honeybunny]

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

Maybe you should go back and read those two links in the first post.

 

[ShoeDiva]

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

Maybe you should go back and read those two links in the first post.

SMH

 

[honeybunny]

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

Maybe you should go back and read those two links in the first post.

SMH

? ? ?

 

[ShoeDiva]

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

Maybe you should go back and read those two links in the first post.

SMH

? ? ?

Maybe she has and that is still her stance.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

Maybe you should go back and read those two links in the first post.

They're probably too long. :coffeespit

 

[LisaC]

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

Maybe you should go back and read those two links in the first post.

SMH

? ? ?

Maybe she has and that is still her stance.

I have and I don't necessarily agree with all that the two links say.

 

[honeybunny]

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

Maybe you should go back and read those two links in the first post.

SMH

? ? ?

Maybe she has and that is still her stance.

And that stance completely ignores the basic economic principle of opportunity cost :


Every dollar that the government uses to "create jobs" is a dollar that must be seized by force from the private sector.

 

[LisaC]

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

Maybe you should go back and read those two links in the first post.

SMH

? ? ?

Maybe she has and that is still her stance.

And that stance completely ignores the basic economic principle of opportunity cost :


Every dollar that the government uses to "create jobs" is a dollar that must be seized by force from the private sector.

What stood out the most in your first link is that the author bases his argument on government entities operating on tax dollars. There are government entities that rely on income other than taxes to operate and "raising taxes" isn't option for them. If they run out of money, they have to make solid business decisions to continue operations.

 

[honeybunny]

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

Maybe you should go back and read those two links in the first post.

SMH

? ? ?

Maybe she has and that is still her stance.

And that stance completely ignores the basic economic principle of opportunity cost :


Every dollar that the government uses to "create jobs" is a dollar that must be seized by force from the private sector.

What stood out the most in your first link is that the author bases his argument on government entities operating on tax dollars. There are government entities that rely on income other than taxes to operate and "raising taxes" isn't option for them. If they run out of money, they have to make solid business decisions to continue operations.

Okay, I would like to hear more about these successful (profitable) government entities which operate without taxpayer dollars.

 

[LisaC]

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

Maybe you should go back and read those two links in the first post.

SMH

? ? ?

Maybe she has and that is still her stance.

And that stance completely ignores the basic economic principle of opportunity cost :


Every dollar that the government uses to "create jobs" is a dollar that must be seized by force from the private sector.

What stood out the most in your first link is that the author bases his argument on government entities operating on tax dollars. There are government entities that rely on income other than taxes to operate and "raising taxes" isn't option for them. If they run out of money, they have to make solid business decisions to continue operations.

Okay, I would like to hear more about these successful (profitable) government entities which operate without taxpayer dollars.

While the state supports the harbor expansion and provides some capital, our ports generate millions of dollars of revenue for the state of Georgia annually. The ports also work with many private industries that help the port operate effectively and profitably. On a federal level, the post office and federal reserve are examples of agencies that do not receive tax dollars. While the post office is suffering, it's still going.

And, I also think that if a government can come up with a public/private business venture that will generate more money for the county or state over tax dollars, then the government has an obligation to the tax payers to explore those options, especially when it has the expertise to do so.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

Maybe you should go back and read those two links in the first post.

SMH

? ? ?

Maybe she has and that is still her stance.

And that stance completely ignores the basic economic principle of opportunity cost :


Every dollar that the government uses to "create jobs" is a dollar that must be seized by force from the private sector.

What stood out the most in your first link is that the author bases his argument on government entities operating on tax dollars. There are government entities that rely on income other than taxes to operate and "raising taxes" isn't option for them. If they run out of money, they have to make solid business decisions to continue operations.

Okay, I would like to hear more about these successful (profitable) government entities which operate without taxpayer dollars.

While the state supports the harbor expansion and provides some capital, our ports generate millions of dollars of revenue (they are called import TAXES)for the state of Georgia annually. The ports also work with many private industries that help the port operate effectively and profitably. On a federal level, the post office (a stamp is a TAX and they get federal money) and federal reserve (the FED is a PRIVATE Bank) are examples of agencies that do not receive tax dollars. While the post office is suffering, it's still going.

And, I also think that if a government can come up with a public/private business venture that will generate more money for the county or state over tax dollars, then the government has an obligation to the tax payers to explore those options, especially when it has the expertise to do so.

You want to try again?

 

[ShoeDiva]

:huh

Good grief that was necessary? I believe I would have been told it was not.

 

[LisaC]

As for my stance in the proper role of government - the government can be a business and it is an employer. We have worked with several very successful government entities over the years.

Maybe you should go back and read those two links in the first post.

SMH

? ? ?

Maybe she has and that is still her stance.

And that stance completely ignores the basic economic principle of opportunity cost :


Every dollar that the government uses to "create jobs" is a dollar that must be seized by force from the private sector.

What stood out the most in your first link is that the author bases his argument on government entities operating on tax dollars. There are government entities that rely on income other than taxes to operate and "raising taxes" isn't option for them. If they run out of money, they have to make solid business decisions to continue operations.

Okay, I would like to hear more about these successful (profitable) government entities which operate without taxpayer dollars.

While the state supports the harbor expansion and provides some capital, our ports generate millions of dollars of revenue (they are called import TAXES)for the state of Georgia annually. The ports also work with many private industries that help the port operate effectively and profitably. On a federal level, the post office (a stamp is a TAX and they get federal money) and federal reserve (the FED is a PRIVATE Bank) are examples of agencies that do not receive tax dollars. While the post office is suffering, it's still going.

And, I also think that if a government can come up with a public/private business venture that will generate more money for the county or state over tax dollars, then the government has an obligation to the tax payers to explore those options, especially when it has the expertise to do so.

You want to try again?

You're so right - we should allow companies to send boats overseas and unload their cargo for free. The "tax" is what the companies shipping goods into our country have to pay in order to have their cargo unloaded off of the ships and brought into this country.

The post office doesn't receive tax dollars and the idea that the stamp is a tax is comparable to saying that we pay a "tax" to UPS or Fedex when we ship a package.

The Federal Reserve is a government entity which has it's leadership appointed by the President and approved by Congress. (I guess you missed that day in social studies).

 

[honeybunny]

And, I also think that if a government can come up with a public/private business venture that will generate more money for the county or state over tax dollars, then the government has an obligation to the tax payers to explore those options, especially when it has the expertise to do so.

Milton Friedman just rolled over in his grave.



:huh

 

[Blazing Saddles]

You're so right - we should allow companies to send boats overseas and unload their cargo for free. The "tax" is what the companies shipping goods into our country have to pay in order to have their cargo unloaded off of the ships and brought into this country.

The post office doesn't receive tax dollars and the idea that the stamp is a tax is comparable to saying that we pay a "tax" to UPS or Fedex when we ship a package.

The Federal Reserve is a government entity which has it's leadership appointed by the President and approved by Congress. (I guess you missed that day in social studies).

Wrong. We are only talking about the govt. You said there were govt sectors that didn't rely on tax dollars. If you are going to refer to our ports, then the gov't charges import taxes for revenue. There are other private companies that do work but we weren't talking about that. As for the Post Office, try this : http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jul/24/american-postal-workers-union/postal-service-claim-not-fully-target/ The US Post office receives $100,000,000 a year in tax revenue from us. Also, the article goes on to explain all the other stuff as well.

Now, your most outrageous claim of all. The Federal Reserve. SMH. Sister, it is a private bank. You need to do your research a little more. Don't get the US Treasury (which should be handling our money) mixed up with the private entity set up by Congress in 1913.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

Here's a brief explanation of the Fed for all to see. BTW, Federal Express is NOT a gov't entity either.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489

 

[lotstodo]

Would love to weigh in here but this screen is too small for me to pontificate. I agree mostly with HB. Suffice to say that REGARDLESS of how you view the proper roll of government, the math of redistribution does not work. Robert Barro and others have devoted their lives to the study.

Sent from a small screen using fat thumbs.