azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Sure, taxation provides income and an well being for a government employees, yet it is transferring wealth from those who are productive, but fundamentally, the government employee is creating anything new. They uses existing money.That's true of any job creation, however. Money from one hand exchanges into another.1. Taxation doesn't create new wealth because it only transfers wealth from one who creates new wealth.Unless you're mining gold and silver, you're never really creating wealth but exchanging it. This holds true even if you take cheap goods and combine them to make something valuable, because your profit is traded from someone elses' pocket.In this way taxation would simply be an alternate means of creating jobs.2. Government borrowing is just as inadequate as taxation, yet at least in taxation, it is paid. It reduces investment in capital, labor and land. Consequently, this translates into fewer new factories, machines, and homes being built. Not only does this decrease in private investment slow economic growth, it results in additional unemployment in these industries.Which I imagine is still a rational tradeoff compared to living in a depression.3. The worst source of additional government spending is creating new money either by simply printing more money or lower interest rates. Thus, this monetary event always results in inflation by eroding the value of the currency.Which goes back to my statement about gold and silver, and really any precious resource that printed money may symbolically represent.Actually, there are 4 million federal employees and 16 million state/local employees.So therefore the government created those jobs.Government doesn't invest money. It spends or wastes. If the government is going to spend our money, it should be putting money that yields a return.shouldn't they be putting it into something that is going to make us some money? So your complaint isn't that government cannot create jobs, it is that government isn't a trade market representing entrepreneurs since it operates as the police force.No, because no one entity or person is smarter than the invisible hand. The invisible handI'm going to resist the urge to make a joke about the invisible hand. It will be hard.A number of institutions which serve the public interest but are not profitable (or ought not be profitable) benefit from government subsidy. An example would be schools, where education being profit-based means it will either be more expensive (through unnecessary classes, or higher up-front costs when few alternatives exist), or it will cut corners (outdated textbooks, curricula, lower salaries). Another example would be hospitals (in a purely profit-driven system, palliatives become favoured over cures, and cures are made exceedingly expensive to dissuade their use where a repeat treatment may be used).Put another way, just as we are smarter than natural selection and have selectively evolved life to cater towards us, we are smarter than a group acting out of self-interest and may prevent that group from ruining the state.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

we may not be on the gold standard, however finding gold in your back yard is still equivalent to finding money, A lot of it. Also it causes each dollar bill to be worth more, since money's value is equivalent to the value of the entire set of tradable goods in a society, and gold still is considered to have inherent value.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

we may not be on the gold standard, however finding gold in your back yard is still equivalent to finding money,No, it isn't. Finding gold in your backyard is equivalent to finding gold. Gold will always have value, and always be used as a commodity to exchange goods and services; gold can be only used as a exchange commodities. Again, you can't buy food at WalMart with Gold.Also it causes each dollar bill to be worth more, since money's value is equivalent to the value of the entire set of tradeable goods in a society, and gold still is considered to have inherent value.Sorry, but WTF?Anyway, When government mindlessly prints more and more money, the exchange rate for Gold increases only due to the value of the dollar note is decreasing because the money supply is increasing. Again, gold will always have inherent value because Gold's values never decreases while government notes will.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

If gold will always have a inherent value, then gold will always be exchangeable (in other words equivalent) for money, goods, or services. Gold's value fluctuates like anything else, it isn't some magical constant. If demand for gold increases, its value/price increases, if supply increases with a constant demand its price/value decreases. Most gold isn't found in America(where I live, and was assuming you did to), Finding gold in your back yard would increase supply however it would increase the supply in America, you'll want to exchange this gold for American dollars, increasing the demand of a constant supply of dollar bills. you haven't read capital volume one have you?
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

If gold will always have a inherent value, then gold will always be exchangeable (in other words equivalent) for money, goods, or services. Of course, gold will not an inherent value in the exchangeable market, but it will always have inherent value as a commodity because it is valued everywhere in the world. Paper is not an commodity. It is only recognized by its citizens as a form of commodity. If not, gold would still be the commodity as a means to exchange along with tobacco, silver, platinum and many others.Gold's value fluctuates like anything else, it isn't some magical constantI didn't say that. I said that while the demand is high, the supply remains consistent, not constant.Finding gold in your back yard would increase supply however it would increase the supply in America, you'll want to exchange this gold for American dollars, increasing the demand of a constant supply of dollar bills. Yes, I know this already.The supply of dollar bills isn't constant. It fluctuates much more than gold.you haven't read capital volume one have you?You are a strawman.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

a commodity is a good for which there is demand, if there is demand for gold then there is demand to exchange something for it if the demand to acquire gold is ever going to be realized. Paper is a good for which there is demand.Of course the supply of dollar bills are not constant, however for all practical purposes it can be considered constant for small amounts of time;. As for my comment asking if you read capital volume one, i wanted to know how much of that vocabulary I can use.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Taxation may transfer wealth from one party(s) to another, then if the receiving party puts that money into roads(that allow for a distribution industry, or most all modern industry), A war which protects the country(and thus all the industry in it, well boasting one), or technology research agencies like Darpa and Nasa, then that party that received wealth did indeed invest that wealth and created/maintained the conditions necessary for other/more wealth. Government borrowing may have to be paid back, but it may be at a time when a tax is less burdensome. The invisible hand is the net force/influence of the each individual's economic influence. Capitalism allows for a few to have a much greater influence then the rest of the members in a society, democratic processes allow the other members to put checks on those highly influential members. The invisible hand can behave very stupidly, if not enough members of society are influential enough to counter what is bad for a large enough section of society. When society damages itself, well how can society operate optimally?
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Taxation may transfer wealth from one party(s) to another, then if the receiving party puts that money into roads(that allow for a distribution industry, or most all modern industry), A war which protects the country(and thus all the industry in it, well boasting one), or technology research agencies like Darpa and Nasa, then that party that received wealth did indeed invest that wealth and created/maintained the conditions necessary for other/more wealth. Regardless of where tax money is being transferred, it doesn't create jobs or wealth because it is merely shifting money from one industry to another. Government projects assume that it only knows how to allocate resources better than consumers or businesses know how to spend or invest.Government borrowing may have to be paid back, but it may be at a time when a tax is less burdensome. Then, you have a huge debt. Basically, what we have now? What a mess our government has got us into.Capitalism allows for a few to have a much greater influence then the rest of the members in a society, democratic processes allow the other members to put checks on those highly influential members.Wrong, capitalism puts checks and balances on capitalism through competition and incentives.Democratic and Constitutions puts highly influential members at check.The invisible hand can behave very stupidly, if not enough members of society are influential enough to counter what is bad for a large enough section of society. When society damages itself, well how can society operate optimally?The invisible hand is incapable of stupidity because it weeds out the ignorant and weak.If your alternative to the invisible hand is the iron fist, you are sadly mistaken.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

The transferring of wealth doesn't create wealth, but the use of wealth in a certain way does. I see no reason why government can not use the wealth it acquires in a way that creates wealth(I would argue that it has). Its the same situation when I buy something, I transferred my wealth to a company or individual, if they then use that money to increase their productivity then they have created wealth. government projects do not assume private entities do not know how to spend their money, it assumes that the government is the only entity that will willingly or most efficiently do the project. I would rather government spending compensate for a declining consumer spending; helping to keep cash flow up in a debt based economy then allow for the continuation of a downward spiral to a depression. The government basically did a large scale loan consolidation, and just like i would rather have one large loan with a small interest rate then multiple maxed out credit cards, I would rather have a higher tax rate later then have my bills continue to increase and my income decrease. Capitalism naturally leads to monopolies if there isn't government regulation.The self-justification of power is a beautiful thing isn't it?My alternative to the invisible hand is the open one.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Truthfully, I am not going to waste any more time debating or arguing Keynesian economics or Marxism economics to classical or Austrian Economics.I see no reason why government can not use the wealth it acquires in a way that creates wealth(I would argue that it has). Finally, because government doesn't possess any wealth, it has to take away wealth from those with wealth; thus, it is transfer wealth. No matter how you spin it, government can't use wealth to create wealth. It is a fallacy.Its the same situation when I buy something, I transferred my wealth to a company or individual, if they then use that money to increase their productivity then they have created wealth. Again, Keynes multiplier effort is ineffective. Goes back to the broken window fallacyCapitalism naturally leads to monopolies if there isn't government regulation.I am not having this conversation again. I had it with avesde.BUTNo, government regulation naturally leads to monopolies. This is already self evident.It is called government monopolies. The USPS has the most embedded government regulation monopoly than other than organization or entity in the US.It is so far embedded, it is even in the US Constitution.Government regulation also leads to private monopolies. Government regulation limits competition by adding additional costs.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

The USPS isn't a government monopoly because you can use UPS or FedEx.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Another liberal who doesn't know what a government monopoly is.What a surprise?A liberal who thinks just because I can use UPS or FEDEX, there is no government monopoly. LET ME ASK THIS, when was the last time, FEDEX or UPS sent our first class mail to us. NEVER.Government monopoly is a entity that prohibits competition by law, therefore, even in the Constitution, it mentions that the Federal Government must establish a postal service, this is only the beginning of the government monopoly of the USPS.There is literally mountains of regulations that prohibit UPS and FEDEX from delivering First Class Mail. There is even mountains of regulations preventing you or I starting a first class mail business. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Okay. You're right. USPS is a monopoly.What does being liberal have to do with a monopoly?
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

If taxation transfers wealth from citizens to the government, then the government has wealth. The broken window fallacy is fallacious, It may be true that the broken window merely changes where money is spent, and possibly diverts money away from the growth of capital for a particular business, however it doesn't mean that the window maker can't take the money he gets and put it towards his capital or such. Capital growth may still happen, just in a different industry or area. As for the government regulated monopolies, they exist because they are what are called "natural monopolies", it would be inefficient for multiple companies to create separate overlapping networks of pipes, wires etc. This inefficiency would add to the price and decrease service, so a monopoly with heavy government regulation would be the most effective. Such a monopoly without government regulation would be worse, since competition would be unlikely to develop then.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

If taxation transfers wealth from citizens to the government, then the government has wealth. No, without taxation, government possess no wealth. Therefore, taxation is not a form of wealth if it is coerced.As for the government regulated monopolies, they exist because they are what are called "natural monopolies", it would be inefficient for multiple companies to create separate overlapping networks of pipes, wires etc.The general definition of a monopoly is the result of a single seller, thus eliminating the supply.Therefore, Natural Monopoly = Coercive Monopoly.Government create coercive monopolies. Government claims of natural monopoly as a justification for government intervening to establish a statutory monopoly where competition is outlawed, under the claim that multiple firms providing a good or service entails more collective costs to an economy than that which would be the case if a single firm provided a good or service. This has often been done with electricity, water, telecommunications, and mail delivery.Natural monopolies produce a lot of dead weight loss in the market."A coercive monopolist will tend to perform his service badly and inefficiently."---Murray Rothbard
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

So If I rob a bank at gun point, get away with all the money and successfully launder it. Am I not wealthy?A seller can't eliminate the supply, then they would have nothing to sell. ok...i'll go along for now, so a natural monopoly is a Coercive monopoly(as are all monopolies), does such coercive monopolies actually decrease collective costs to an economy as judged from as much of a scientific perspective as possible?
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

You've never heard of government jobs?Yes of course we all have. But where does those government jobs get their money from? Even a company that sells stuff to the government like Northrop or any other company that gets government contracts from. Where does the money flow start? It all has to be created in the private sector. None of these jobs would be created at all if it was not for complete private sector. Example of "Real Money" You have a restaurant I own insurance company. I come to your restaurant and pay you for a dinner. You have just created free market capitalism. None of that revenue you got was derived from government. You are now taxed that profit that you just made, most times 30%. Both you and I have business that hire and create jobs where money is created. Non of which we get any money from government because we are private if we did receive money from government we would be getting those monies from taxes which you just paid on when you made profit when i ate at your restaurant. That is the only way government can survive is by the independent business owner private sector with that money being created nothing else would be possible.there would be no government jobs there would be no NASA. Look to any country that has overwhelming government jobs when you do you will see those countries have no currency strength and mostly impoverished because they do not have a healthy private sector in which they can take from in taxes and spend. so what do they do countries that have weak private they print out their own money more and more of their own money that they don't have to collect from private sector. Eventually what happens is that other countries like Germany, China, Brazil end up have better bonds and currency rate and become more powerful with what they can buy. I can go on and on but that would be a whole lesson plan. Let's hope that they reduce spending so that our currency doesn't keep dropping and commodities like gas, cotton, copper keep going through the roof. I'm not going to like to pay $4 or 5$ a gallon if that happens.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

But where does those government jobs get their money from? Even a company that sells stuff to the government like Northrop or any other company that gets government contracts from. Where does the money flow start? It all has to be created in the private sector.I see no important difference between a government job and a private sector job in terms of income.A government job receives income through taxes, which are a charge for a service (government, meaning military protection, police, schools, roads, water, etc.). That money provides jobs for people to oversee these services (military jobs, road jobs, etc.).A private business provides a service (food for example). The money for that service funds the job to provide it.Look to any country that has overwhelming government jobs when you do you will see those countries have no currency strength and mostly impoverished because they do not have a healthy private sector in which they can take from in taxes and spend. If the private sector is all business owners and no employees, then it will become impoverished too.Both systems require a balance.Let's hope that they reduce spending so that our currency doesn't keep dropping and commodities like gas, cotton, copper keep going through the roof. I'm not going to like to pay $4 or 5$ a gallon if that happens.I've been suggesting reduced military spending, but that seems to be a sacred cow. Imagine how much better our cities and airways would be if we used that money to update our infrastructure and install solar power on city roofs. We also wouldn't be... what was it last, 13 trillion? in debt.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

I see no important difference between a government job and a private sector job in terms of income.(government military protection, police, schools, roads, water, etc.)All of which could be privatized and already are either by contracting or outsourcing.WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET THIS THROUGH YOUR TINY LITTLE BRAIN?Government possesses no assets without coerced taxation, which means that the government PUTS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD if you don't pay. Therefore, it is impossible for it to create jobs or wealth because it takes from others. For example, Robin Hood is like the government, he didn't create new wealth, he transferred it from taking from the rich. NO NEW NET WEALTH WAS CREATED. Therefore, after taking money from private citizens, it is transferring potential PRIVATE SECTOR jobs to public. The difference between government services is forced payment and business services are voluntarily.If the private sector is all business owners and no employees, then it will become impoverished too.There is no proof of that. Whereas overwhelming government is overt in democracies like India.I've been suggesting reduced military spending, but that seems to be a sacred cow.Who isn't?how much better our cities and airways would be if we used that money to update our infrastructure and install solar power on city roofsRather imagine how many new long term jobs would have been instead of your short term infrastructure jobs with a limited budget.We also wouldn't be... what was it last, 13 trillion? in debt.That was only created by the LIBERAL KEYNESIANS and the CONSERVATIVE KEYNESIANS. That is why they are the REPUBICRATS.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

All of which could be privatized and already are either by contracting or outsourcing.Coca-cola could be state-owned, along with oil, electricity, and 7/11 Mini Marts. So?Government possesses no assets without coerced taxation, which means that the government PUTS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD if you don't pay. Coca-cola possesses no assets without coerced payment, which means that the police put a gun to your head if you take a Cola without paying for it... (What, are you trying to argue that living in America, you ought to have Military protection, Government protection and representation, a legal system, courts, roads, sewers, schools, etc. all for free? You use these services simply by existing within the borders and becoming a citizen).Therefore, it is impossible for it to create jobs or wealth because it takes from others.Coca-cola doesn't create jobs or wealth. It takes wealth from customers and jobs from the state.For example, Robin Hood is like the government, he didn't create new wealth, he transferred it from taking from the rich. NO NEW NET WEALTH WAS CREATED. You just describe economics in a nutshell. New wealth is (almost) never created Ex Nilho. It comes from somewhere else.What made Microsoft rich? Not new wealth. It simply made these floppy disks with patterns of bits really attractive to customers who gave the company their money. It made those disks worth something due to demand.Does government make wealth? Well, it does print money, and it does operate in the world economy, which changes the value of our money. However, that value has to come from somewhere, like natural resources.Basically speaking, most wealth comes from trading, not creating. You could create wealth if you exploit a natural resource which is limited, because then you are adding something of intrinsic value to the market (instead of value that comes purely through demand and capital).There is no proof of that. Whereas overwhelming government is overt in democracies like India.It's a simple math problem. If everyone is a business owner, who will do the work? There is a number of employees available, a number of jobs per business and an ideal number of businesses which perfectly utilises the employees.Rather imagine how many new long term jobs would have been instead of your short term infrastructure jobs with a limited budget.We lack them because businesses moved them overseas. Thanks capitalism!