War, debt, and unemployment. Which is worse?
Democrats, fearing the loss of the White House, are focused on jobs. A president can weather war and debt, but job-loss is going to lose votes.
The creation of jobs is as mysterious as creating poems, except we know the selling of shirts depends on two things: manufacturing shirts and bare backs.
Why can’t the United States manufacture shirts, even if there are none to sell, simply stocking them up for later use?
But the makers of shirts demand payment for their labor. Who shall pay them?
The government shall pay the shirt manufacturers, for the last I saw, government employees, who work in the post office or the military, wear shirts.
This will create jobs. It seems such an easy solution, that one wonders why unemployment is ever a problem. There’s always something that can be made, whether it sells or not. And we don’t speak of poems, but what is real: shirts.
Anyway, and surely a poet will understand this, if there are ‘no jobs,’ isn’t this a good thing? Isn’t this proof that, for many, there’s no further work to do? And what could be better than that?
But what of those who have no work, and thus no paycheck?
Let them make shirts!
The needy unemployed only need to let the government know who they are, and the government will get them a job making shirts: building a shirt factory, working at home from a computer, or sewing in the factory, whatever fits. Federal spending will increase the supply of shirts—which the nation can always use, eventually. Job-creation always creates more job-creation: guards, for instance, will be hired, to guard the swelling shirt-inventory.
All benefit: the new shirt-makers pay taxes, increase state revenue, thus paying down the national debt, and making the country stronger.
One could point out that this plan boils down to the government printing money to artificially spur the economy, with a risk of inflation. But don’t shirts (unlike poems) have tangible worth? What is wrong with borrowing money to produce something of value—actually, two things of value: employment and shirts?
The worst case scenario: inflation, falling shirt prices, less poetry, but this can only translate into more bare backs, and thus more need for shirts, more motive for work, and a greater desire for poetry—an automatic correction.
Worried that if every unemployed person is guaranteed a job making shirts, there will be less incentive for persons to find real jobs? But more shirt-makers couldn’t slow the eternal desire for more interesting and more profitable pursuits. This objection is groundless, as well.
There, I’ve saved the economy.
Now excuse me, while I go write a poem.