The Jobs Numbers And Why They Will Remain

Last week, the unemployment numbers were released for the month of June. They included a very meek 80,000 jobs created in the month of June and unemployment percentages at 8.2%, which is not a change from the previous month. This is one of the most dismal reports we have seen in several months, prompting both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama to come out firing at the other candidate, saying that it will change if they are elected in November. Romney said we have to invest in manufacturing, Obama said we have to invest in the public sector. In the end, though, these numbers will not change regardless of whether our next President is Obama or Romney, and I'll tell you why.

I will start with our President. Obama will often tout his stimulus as a job creator, saying that he saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. Then he will say that we are no longer in a recession because of his policies. Indeed, the economy has improved greatly since he entered office. The stock market has recovered and unemployment has decreased (somewhat). This is true, and that is why Americans are ready to get the vote out for him in November. However, only intelligent Americans can see through this and understand that this is not a reason to vote for him. You see, if you pump enough money into the economy, it will improve. It will be used toward infrastructure, creating thousands of jobs. However, eventually that money is going to run out, and the huge bubble that has been created (and touted as an economic success) is going to burst and we will fall back into recession. This is basic economic thought that anyone could understand, but too many Americans this November will not look past the state of our economy right now. So if Obama is re-elected this November, expect his policies to continue to create gigantic bubbles, only to burst a few years later, and that is why jobs numbers will remain under him.

So, Mitt Romney must have the answer, right? Not so much. For years, the Republican Party has talked a good game when it comes to Austrian Economics. Mitt Romney goes around the country talking about how he will roll back taxes and encourage growth. In reality, his campaign promise is only to roll the income tax back by an average of 10%. That is pretty small considering the big changes that need to be made to improve the economy. In terms of encouraging growth, he is talking about government investment. He wants to "invest in manufacturing," which means more bailouts and government subsidies. So basically, Romney isn't talking as conservative of a game as George W. Bush did before his elections, and Republicans always move left of center when elected. If Bush was considered a strong conservative and he wound up paying millions to bail out companies, how far left will Romney move if he is elected? The answer is right around where Barack Obama is. There really won't be much of a difference between an Obama second term and a Romney Presidency, and that is why jobs numbers will remain under him.

In conclusion, the bubbles are raging. Our politicians love the idea that they can throw money into the economies to get part-time growth so that they can use it to get elected. This will not change in November because we have a one-party system posed as two parties, and the one party is a Keynesian one. It's time that Obama supporters study economics, and Romney supporters envision a Romney Presidency. If both sides did this, they would see that both "choices" are a bad choice. They would see that the jobs numbers are awful, and they aren't going anywhere soon.