BallMark said: jk,
I will just say that I tend to look at it differently then you. If I understand what you are saying, is for example. We need weapons for defense, since the defense dept. does not make it's own weapons, they hire contractors to make the weapons for them. So in reality the contractors make the jobs, that is what I think you are saying. So if the defense dept. made their own weapons would the employees they hired to make the weapons be govt. employees so in essence they did create jobs? What about the soldier, they are hired to protect the nation, the govt. created that job and that employee. That is how I see it.
In my other response to defense contractors, they are some huge employers, and as I said, it will be interesting what the gang of 12 come up with to save those jobs. Now Boeing, does have other work besides the government contracts. They have airlines ordering planes as well as the Air Force ordering tankers, but some of these contractors are relying on the government to provide a market for their weapons systems.
Like I see it and view it, the government has created those jobs by being a customer wanting a product. Just like me being a customer wanting a new car.
If you don't see it that way, I have to respect that. Just don't expect my vote when you run for office.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but I'll comment briefly, I suppose. Remember, I said only that governments do not create jobs -- I never said that they don't employ people. Businesses create wealth by producing goods or services worth more than their cost. That wealth is used to create (actually make) jobs from whense no wealth was available to do such previously.
For example, let's say the owner of a widget manufacturer makes enough money on each widget sold to pay himself and have some left over. He may use that left over money to hire an engineer to make widget accessories. If the widget accessories are desirable and people buy them, enough wealth can be amassed to add a widget accessory production line, which consists of multiple workers. This business has created jobs.
But, with the military as your example, money must be taken from the widget maker to pay the soldier. Without passing judgment on the intrinsic value of the soldier's duties, we can say for certain that he doesn't make or sell products and, thus, doesn't create wealth. He does consume products (food, weapons, etc), but accounting tells us that his ability to consume can't exceed the dollar value of his employment. Thus, the money that was taken from the widget maker to fund the soldier necessarily produces less than it would if it were used to make widget accessories (since nothing of dollar value was added to the economy).
Now, understand that this only accounts for dollars and doesn't account for emotional things, like intrinsic value, honoring our soldiers, or the value of protection. Those certainly are important, but don't play a role in the economics of creating jobs.
You do bring up another interesting point, which is private sector jobs servicing the government. These jobs certainly do add value to their products, but their source of revenue is often that money that could have been used in the pre-government private sector.
In short, the private sector produces value with its money, while the government merely takes money out of the economy's right-hand pocket and puts it in the left-hand pocket, without producing value. Thus, jobs are not created, merely redistributed.
Now, back to Warren Buffett ....