azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Alright dude i don't necessarily agree with you but I appreciate your response to an open debate logically. Government is not all that bad yes they do good things but it's when they overreach that is not good. Remember the money that government takes and gives to research comes from private sector. It's all good I gave you an up vote
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

All new jobs are not created by pre-existing capital.YOUR IGNORANCE IS HEMORRHAGING PROFUSELY!!!If all new jobs were created by preexisting capital, how does the GDP grow or decline every year? When GDP grows, it means that new goods and services were created, thus, new capital is required to accommodate those goods and services, or print new money.Even socialist President Obama agrees with me. Government can't create jobs and new wealth.Whether taxation, borrowing or printing money, each of those reduces income and wealth among those paying taxes, servicing debts or stuck with shrinking greenbacks. In short, governments can't "create jobs." Adding government jobs is never a net addition to employment opportunities, because it means a heavier burden on private employers and employees. TaxIt merely SHIFTS JOBS from one industry to government. It is taking away from one industry and taking more tax money.If the capital can be used to hire people in positions that didn't previously exist, then new jobs have been created. Taxation isn't capital. It never was and never will be. Taxation is redistribute or transfers. To suggest otherwise is to betray a gross ignorance of reality or outright dishonesty.You are absolutely correct. Either you are really stupid or keep lying to yourself.WHY DO YOU DO THAT TO YOURSELF?
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

All new jobs are not created by pre-existing capital.Really? Name one single job that can be created in the absence of capital. Protip: catch 22. If all new jobs were created by preexisting capital, how does the GDP grow or decline every year?The increase in the production of some thing that can be traded or implemented in the market - or the lack thereof.Even socialist President Obama agrees with me. Government can't create jobs and new wealth.You'll have to struggle with the idea that I don't care. Although, to state that the government can't create jobs to replace millions lost during the recession isn't the same thing as stating that the government can't create jobs at all.In short, governments can't "create jobs."The author of the article is a moron. Adding government jobs is never a net addition to employment opportunities, because it means a heavier burden on private employers and employees.One, this is a non-sequitur. Two, it's just not true. The burden on the private sector has no bearing on whether the government itself can create jobs or create wealth. But more importantly, the term "employment opportunities" necessarily makes the author's claim here fairly ridiculous.Taxation isn't capital. It never was and never will be.You're right. But, one, I'm not suggesting that it is; taxation is only a mechanism for collecting one form of capital: money. Two, this is irrelevant to my point. I will reiterate it here: If the capital can be used to hire people in positions that didn't previously exist, then new jobs have been created.Taxation is redistribute or transfers. So is a small-business loan. But that has no bearing on whether that small business can buy a warehouse, hire some people and make some thing to trade on or implement in the market. You are absolutely correct.If I am absolutely correct, then you are indicting yourself.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Really? Name one single job that can be created in the absence of capital. Protip: catch 22. All jobs can be created with the absence of capital except for government jobs are created by preexisting capital.Government uses preexisting capital to create jobs, which is transferring from one industry to another. It is merely shifting industries.Private industry uses new capital to create jobs, such as when they take out a loan where they must pay it back or invest their own money from their own pockets. See the difference.You'll have to struggle with the idea that I don't care. Although, to state that the government can't create jobs to replace millions lost during the recession isn't the same thing as stating that the government can't create jobs at all.Actually it is the same the thing.The author of the article is a moron. Typical liberal, resorts to name calling when it is trapped and pinned in the corner with nothing intellectual to say.If the capital can be used to hire people in positions that didn't previously exist, then new jobs have been created.No, because it is just shifting or reallocating pre-existing money from somewhere else. It is new money. It is money already earned, but government took the money by force and now it transferring it somewhere else.So is a small-business loan. But that has no bearing on whether that small business can buy a warehouse, hire some people and make some thing to trade on or implement in the market. But a business loan is new money. Taxation is not new money. See above.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

I didn't say that no single job can be created in the absense of capital. You said that all jobs are created in preexisting capital. That is false. Either it is false (as you claim in the second sentence) that all jobs are created with preexisting capital and you are saying that no single job can be created in the absence of capital. Or you are saying that some jobs can't be created in the absence of capital, which means that some jobs can be created with no preexisting capital.If capital is required to create jobs, then the capital must, by definition, preexist those jobs. Any disagreement you might think you have are not disagreements with me. They are disagreements with the definition of "preexisting", which you don't seem to know, and sentential logic, in which you seem woefully inadequate.Actually it is the same the thing.To someone who doesn't have an adequate grasp of the English language, it certainly is.No, because it is just shifting or reallocating pre-existing money from somewhere else.Name one single job, which actually exists, that has been created without the shifting or reallocation of money. I don't need an argument here. All I need you to do is name the job that has been created without money being shifted or reallocated.Private industry uses new capital to create jobs, such as when they take out a loan where they must pay it back or invest their own money from their own pockets. I can prove one of two things. (1) You don't actually believe this or (2) you're holding two conflicting positions (doublethink). Or both. A very large number of small businesses get loans through the federal 7(a) loan program, by way of the Small Business Administration. I'm going to leave it at that for now to see if you have the intellect or honesty to pick up on the consequences that revelation has for your position. I'm going to leave your own words here to help you along: "But a business loan is new money. Taxation is not new money. See above."Typical liberal, resorts to name calling when it is trapped and pinned in the corner with nothing intellectual to say.Right, because me calling the author a moron is the only thing I ever wrote about his work or to you.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Other than government jobs, all private jobs are created by the absence of capital.Aaaaaaand we're done. You've lost all credibility.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Aaaaaaand we're done. You've lost all credibility.Way to cower like a little girl.The typo was made when I edited two statements ago and I copied and pasted in the previous statement in generalization.I rushed it and I was in a hurry. Simple mistake!If you're done, that is fine, but the previous statement was wrong. It should be:(Other than government jobs, all private jobs are created by new capital.)To prove it was a typo, the sentence below states from the previous statement is:(If new jobs are created, new capital must be created in order to accommodate those new jobs, and GDP proves this measure.)
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

This could very easily devolve into a semantics debate, but yeah, it can.Simply because a firm has a coercive monopoly doesn't mean it isn't producing "wealth" (depending on exactly what you mean by that).
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

the side with no argument is winning?I think its as simple as...raising the tax just a bit more % to pay for a new job which is directly made by the government using the tax money to pay, an example..A Dog Pound, of course this is already there, but its an example, this would be great in other countries which don't have some.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to go through this, or how long it's going to take before the anarchists realize no one agrees with their crazy views and stop annoying everyone in forums,But we are government. Government is a body of people working together within a society.If there were no such thing as a government, humans would make one, it is our instinct, we are pack animals.Our particular government happens to be a democracy, which happens to be working extraordinarily well from a historic perspective.The type of economy every western democracy has adapted happens to be capitalism. It doesn't have to be any more than the type of government has to be a democracy. As such though, capitalism too happens to be working quite well all things considered.However, you cannot have a successful capitalist society, without social oversight and programs. That would no longer be a democratic government because only those 1% or 2% with inordinate wealth would have influence on government. A purely capitalist society would quickly fall into either fascism or feudalism, both of which we see historically do not work well at all for the vast majority.Okay, now that we are clear on definitions (I know we're not because we've been through this a million times now).Yes, "government" as it were, is no more or less capable of creating jobs and wealth than whichever undefined capitalist-anarchy these "independents" like Ron Paul seem to be in favor of.The difference is, the number of people who have any sort of opportunity.In the world of capitalist-anarchy, no amount of work will get you anywhere. It's a world of no minimum wage, no education if you're not rich, no retirement if your not rich. You work your whole life for slave wages and die young. That's pure capitalism. In a democratic capitalist society (which we are) everyone has opportunity.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

"Typical liberal, resorts to name calling when it is trapped and pinned in the corner with nothing intellectual to say." Funny you'd say that!You called him a douche, an assfuck, an asshole, fucking special, and a pathetic citizen.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Funny you'd say that!He has called me an idiot, moron, right wing ideologue among many others.Tried of his name calling. Just giving back his own medicine.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

He has called me an idiot, moron, right wing ideologue among many others.Excuses, excuses... You're a hypocrite. And yes...I am liberal.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Excuses, excuses... You're a hypocrite. And yes...I am liberal.Oh, I get it. It is okay for him to call me names but when I call him on his own medicine, all of a sudden I am a hypocrite. That makes sense.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

It does. That's like you calling someone a murderer and saying bad things about them, and then turn around and kill someone.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Regardless of whether it's a good thing, the government CAN create jobs and wealth. The real question is whether or not it's a good idea. But as for the resolution, yes the government can create jobs and wealth
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Yes Big Govco can create by how much they want to pass laws on adding taxes and more regulation where maybe none is needed. They are the hand on the faucet whether they want to tighten and restrict or open up the valve and let more flow that being business wealth and jobs. From the policies passed down by government they the private sector "Market" makes adjustments on the framework allowed to operate in. If incentives are given and business is less burden markets respond in hiring and liquidity in the economy. When things are tightened and uncertainty with what Govco is going to do Markets sit on the fence and usually lay off and de-leverage, which is what is happening now. That is why I find it absolutely insane that they would want to raise any taxes right now in a deep recession.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Well, it is not a matter of a good or bad thing, it is a matter of economics, and your lack of evidence clearly shows how government can indoctrinated.READ CAREFULLY.Government possesses no assets or wealth, thus, it must tax those with assets or wealth, therefore, government merely transfers wealth. Finally, it transfers jobs from the private to public. Hence, there is no net job creation or growth.Public sector is inherently incapable of creating wealth due to the fact it doesn't pursue profit.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

I suppose you don't have a job if you work for a non-profit organization then.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

I suppose you don't have a job if you work for a non-profit organization then.Seriously, this is sad.Non profit organization are good because money is generated by private donations by the good of people; people who voluntarily lend a helping hand with their own money, thus, there is no force; however, it is still transferred wealth due to its charity status. Private donations are great.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

So you discredit your previous claim then? a non-profit organization can indeed create jobs. There is a reason that people voluntarily give money to such an organization(aka Pay voluntarily), its because that organization is useful to them in someway, it uses its money to create a wealth of some type(or else why would any one give money to them?)
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

No such thing was discredited. You are just confused.Non profit organization are the same as government taxation. The only difference is government is forced and non profit are voluntarily since both don't possess any assets.Sure both created incomes, not new net job growth because of the transfer of wealth. It is not new wealth.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

YES on a micro-perspective, meaning considering only the people who will receive the transferred jobs.But NO on a macro-perspective, where we will also consider the people from where the jobs came from. In this perspective, the net job produced is zero. It was just a matter of transferring of jobs.Same is true for wealth.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Yes, of course the Government can create jobs as they employ many, many people. And a Government can also create wealth; although an extreme case, the Nazi Government created wealth for Germany by taking the gold reserves of other countries.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Wrong, as noted in numerous other posts, government jobs are a transfer of jobs from the private sector to the public jobs via taxation. Taxation is redistributing resources rather than creating because there is no market.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: YES

Government as those who distribute taxes or borrow in the name of government (for deficit spending) have the lever which determines who will work harder by their construction of the tax code, and distribution of those taxes. When they pay government contractors, (war and weapons makers) or private business (i.e., prisons), they distribute taxes to those persons. When they tax businesses, (or those persons who own businesses), they send the message to work harder, or work less hard (by giving tax cuts).Government is simply the lever (i.e., of the faucet) that tends to create jobs, or to reduce jobs by the choices they make in the messages of stimulus or of tax fairness they choose.To insure they work for the American people, government must know where income comes from for all in order to choose wisely, and spur the economy, or cool it down to prevent inflation.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: YES

The Government can and should create jobs and wealth. Everyone needs a push for success in life.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: YES

Painting your roof enhances the building's or home's aesthetic appeal. - roof painting auckland nz
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

The biggest fallacy of all political rhetoric is that government can create jobs and wealth. Fundamentally, this ultimately refers to the broken window fallacy.Government is economically incapable of creating jobs and wealth. It is impossible because of taxation. Since government possesses no assets or wealth without coerced taxation, taxation simply reallocates money paid by taxpayers to government projects; it prevents from new investment in capital, labor, land or maybe even entrepreneurship.It merely shifts attention and valuable resources from one industry to another.What this reallocation of resources does is it hides the true costs of government interference in the market. Government projects assume that it only knows how to allocate resources better than consumers or businesses know how to spend or invest.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

The biggest fallacy of all political rhetoric is that government can create jobs and wealth. Fundamentally, this ultimately refers to the broken window fallacy.I assume you mean that the tax dollars that people pay could go towards paying others which means (supposedly) more jobs for those who take in the money.It's actually a lot more complicated than that, however, because you're referring to necessary data rather than conjecture. For example, if a person is taxed and loses ten percent of his income, that is ten percent that could have paid for someone to work, right? Well, what if that ten percent funds two government jobs and if the tax didn't exist, those two jobs are gone but the person's income instead goes to pay for one job (such as an accountant). In this case the "broken window\" pays for more jobs than the unbroken one does (in reference to the tailor).There are doubtless many permutations of this scenario, and the simple point is that without actual data, you don't know which is more efficient usage of money.Government is economically incapable of creating jobs and wealth.You've never heard of government jobs?Since government possesses no assets or wealth without coerced taxation, taxation simply reallocates money paid by taxpayers to government projects; it prevents from new investment in capital, labor, land or maybe even entrepreneurship.As mentioned above, it could be the case that government invests tax dollars more effectively so that more jobs are created by it than if the money were left alone to be invested privately.What this reallocation of resources does is it hides the true costs of government interference in the market. Government projects assume that it only knows how to allocate resources better than consumers or businesses know how to spend or invest.Sometimes it does.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

For example, if a person is taxed and loses ten percent of his income, that is ten percent that could have paid for someone to work, right? Well, what if that ten percent funds two government jobs and if the tax didn't exist, those two jobs are gone but the person's income instead goes to pay for one job (such as an accountant).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.The Keynesian legacy that government can reduce unemployment with large spending programs is the biggest fallacy in economics.Government spending has three sources of misrepresented stimulus.1. Taxation doesn't create new wealth because it only transfers wealth from one who creates new wealth.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.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.You've never heard of government jobs?First, how is this question?Actually, there are 4 million federal employees and 16 million state/local employees.As mentioned above, it could be the case that government invests tax dollars more effectively so that more jobs are created by it than if the money were left alone to be invested privately.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? Sometimes it does.No, because no one entity or person is smarter than the invisible hand. The invisible hand
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Actually, there are 4 million federal employees and 16 million state/local employees.So...what's your point. They are still government jobs.