If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Government Accountability Office counts up the number of federal jobs cut by the devastating evil budget sequester, and finds...one   (reason.com) divider line 255
    More: Followup, Government Accountability Office, Office of Management and Budget, Stephanie Cutter, evils, austerities, federal employees, Congressional Budget Office  
•       •       •

1066 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2014 at 3:17 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-08 11:53:46 AM
So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

cloudfront-media.reason.com

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.
 
2014-05-08 11:57:23 AM

Clent: So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.


Yeah, this.
 
2014-05-08 12:03:08 PM

Clent: No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.


Also, the headline implies that jobs = employees, but the chart shows that job positions were left unfilled through retirement and leaving positions vacant.
 
2014-05-08 12:21:12 PM
FTFA "As Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) explains:..."

I see where this is going.

Also from TFA: "19 agencies reported curtailing hiring; 16 reported rescoping or delaying contracts or grants for core mission activities; 19 reported reducing employee training; 20 reported reducing employee travel; and 7 reported furloughing more than 770,000 employees from 1 to 7 days. "

Gee, Tom (R-at bastard), please 'splain to me again how it didn't affect the Gov or the economy at all.
 
2014-05-08 12:26:08 PM
We hurt job and GDP growth because the party that ran up our deficit/debt all of sudden gave a damn about it.
 
2014-05-08 12:31:48 PM
See the sequestration was perfectly fine.  The government can run forever on nothing, you evil Dems just want to punish the successful, that is the only reason for taxes, as we can see they don't actually pay for vital services.
 
2014-05-08 12:35:21 PM
And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?
 
2014-05-08 12:37:21 PM
19 reduced training - because we don't need our employees to know what they're doing.
19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.

Not to mention the economic impact of furloughs, which reduced worker take-home pay by as much as 1/5.

Yeah, the sequester was totally awesome.
 
2014-05-08 12:37:36 PM
WE WANT MORE PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED, GODDAMNIT!

/and cut off their food stamps while we're at it
 
2014-05-08 12:38:45 PM
That... He couldn't even read the chart he put up... I am astounded.
 
2014-05-08 12:41:16 PM
Why doesn't Reason employ people who aren't either liars or completely stupid or some combination of the two.
 
2014-05-08 12:45:05 PM

dr_blasto: Why doesn't Reason employ people who aren't either liars or completely stupid or some combination of the two.


There must be a good Reason.
 
2014-05-08 12:51:34 PM
No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:


DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a 
reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 
2013. 
 
2014-05-08 01:11:16 PM
Reason is trying really hard to be more disingenuous than Investors Business Daily.

Keep trying, guys. You've still got a way to go, but you're gaining on them.
 
2014-05-08 01:23:59 PM

Clent: So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.


but, not so fast:

James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:


DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a 
reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 
2013.


yep.  still just one federal employee.

good work there, farkers.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-08 01:33:04 PM
Probably that's because the sequester was dealt with by furloughing employees, not by eliminating them so it's not too surprising that something that no one thought was going to happen didn't happen.
 
2014-05-08 01:39:11 PM
A whole farking energy plant had to be closed down due to the sequest. I'm sure there was more than one person working there. Of course they all said it was revenge for not voting for Obama and had nothing to do with getting their funds cut.
 
2014-05-08 01:40:09 PM

WhiskeyBender: A whole farking energy plant had to be closed down due to the sequest. I'm sure there was more than one person working there. Of course they all said it was revenge for not voting for Obama and had nothing to do with getting their funds cut.


Sorry, the plant was shut down in western Kentucky.
 
2014-05-08 02:46:02 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Also, the headline implies that jobs = employees, but the chart shows that job positions were left unfilled through retirement and leaving positions vacant.


Which, much to the chagrin of government haters, is exactly where most government cuts start.

REASON: LESS SPENDING!

Gov't: We have left positions vacant which has resulted in significant salary savings

REASON: BUT WE WANT TO SEE ACTUAL PEOPLE FIRED!!

Gov't: This saves money and doesn't reduce our ability to provide services

REASON: GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS INCOMPETENT!!
 
2014-05-08 02:48:34 PM
Reason's figure is only off by 5 orders of magnitude. I must admit, they're getting more honest.

The funny thing is, one could argue the following numbers are small. But that raises the point, "why do Republicans always have to lie?"

From the Report:
SBA completed an early retirement offering, through which nearly 200 employees retired.
SBA also achieved $9.5 million in savings by implementing a partial hiring
freeze


DOE officials also estimated that
contractors reduced or left vacant approximately 1,000 positions in fiscal
year 2013, including laying off or voluntarily separating more than 300 of
their employees.
These figures do not include subcontractor employees,
university researchers, and others who do not have a direct contractual
relationship with DOE.

however, as of March 2013, the hiring freeze no
longer allowed for the automatic backfilling of such personnel. DOJ
reported that it lost over 3,500 employees between January 2011, when
the hiring freeze was implemented, and September 21, 2013,
the last pay
period in fiscal year 2013. This loss equals almost 3 percent of DOJ's
workforce, including almost 400 agents, almost 200 intelligence analysts,
and over 400 attorneys. DOJ stated that the largest losses-of over 2,000
employees-were among support staff, such as paralegals, chemists,
accountants, and contract specialists.

Implemented a hiring freeze, with only minimal hiring in critical frontline
areas. SSA reported that this action resulted in the loss of about
11,000 employees since 2011,
including about 1,875 federal and state
employees from March 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013.83
 
2014-05-08 02:54:23 PM
research.stlouisfed.org
 
2014-05-08 03:19:00 PM
Yes, but it caused UNCERTAINTY.
 
2014-05-08 03:19:49 PM

James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.


So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.
 
2014-05-08 03:20:28 PM

Rapmaster2000: Yes, but it caused UNCERTAINTY.


My farts cause uncertainty too.
 
2014-05-08 03:20:51 PM

MrBallou: FTFA "As Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) explains:..."

I see where this is going.

Also from TFA: "19 agencies reported curtailing hiring; 16 reported rescoping or delaying contracts or grants for core mission activities; 19 reported reducing employee training; 20 reported reducing employee travel; and 7 reported furloughing more than 770,000 employees from 1 to 7 days. "

Gee, Tom (R-at bastard), please 'splain to me again how it didn't affect the Gov or the economy at all.


I just used Dr. Tom's house as a Comparable Listing on an appraisal I did in Muskogee, Ok.

I think it is for sale for about $840K.     Which would mean it would sell for $4mil+ on either coast.
 
2014-05-08 03:20:55 PM

DamnYankees: Clent: So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.

Yeah, this.

Since when have facts meant shiat to these farking idiots.
 
2014-05-08 03:21:06 PM
more lying liars with lies from those upstanding good people over at the GOP.
 
2014-05-08 03:22:17 PM

abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.


Yeah, but the guy is technically correct.  So good for him.
 
2014-05-08 03:23:07 PM
who left all these jobs lying around
 
2014-05-08 03:23:22 PM

abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.


And I'm fairly certain everyone was talking about the sequester in its entirety, something like 10 budget years, n'est-ce pas?

And wasn't the GOP pissed it didn't result in MORE job losses? I'm confused as to what Reason's arguing here - that the sequester didn't go too far enough?
 
2014-05-08 03:24:08 PM
1. Who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?
2. Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?
3. Who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop?
 
2014-05-08 03:24:39 PM

abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.


And a lot of people weren't hired for projects that were scheduled to start.

But none of those jobs count. So in the conservative (unskewed) reality, the sequester had very little economic ramifications.
 
2014-05-08 03:24:44 PM

Mrtraveler01: 1. Who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?
2. Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?
3. Who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop?


Oops...wrong thread.
 
2014-05-08 03:25:24 PM

Clent: So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.


So I came into here wondering "Hmmm I wonder, how is this 100% complete bullshiat" - Thanks for pointing it out in the very Weeners.

To me it's amazing how these people still keep going back to the same BS even if it's proven wrong again and again.
 
2014-05-08 03:26:37 PM
They found one because they stopped looking after that.
 
2014-05-08 03:26:44 PM
CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

Oh look. The CBO calls BS on the sequester doesn't destroy jobs talking point.

Reason is good when they write about protecting privacy. On other fronts, they often sound identical to the GOP outlets they purport to be better than.
 
2014-05-08 03:26:52 PM

Dr Dreidel: And wasn't the GOP pissed it didn't result in MORE job losses? I'm confused as to what Reason's arguing here - that the sequester didn't go too far enough?


Yep, the GOP mindset seems to be:

"Unemployment is bad...unless those people who are getting laid off are government workers, then in that case, fark them!"
 
2014-05-08 03:27:10 PM

kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?


Not enough.
 
2014-05-08 03:27:40 PM

DrPainMD: kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?

Not enough.


Why do you want higher unemployment?
 
2014-05-08 03:28:12 PM

Dr Dreidel: abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.

And I'm fairly certain everyone was talking about the sequester in its entirety, something like 10 budget years, n'est-ce pas?

And wasn't the GOP pissed it didn't result in MORE job losses? I'm confused as to what Reason's arguing here - that the sequester didn't go too far enough?


No, they're upset that the sequester didn't make Obama look bad.
 
2014-05-08 03:28:17 PM
Well in that case it looks like we can cut military funding again without any issues.
 
2014-05-08 03:28:24 PM

fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

Oh look. The CBO calls BS on the sequester doesn't destroy jobs talking point.

Reason is good when they write about protecting privacy. On other fronts, they often sound identical to the GOP outlets they purport to be better than.


I always figured that Reason was "Libertarian" in the same sense that Rand Paul and Cato are libertarians.

Which is that they'll pay lip service to the libertarian wing of the GOP but for the most part just recite GOP talking points.
 
2014-05-08 03:29:13 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Well in that case it looks like we can cut military funding again without any issues.


"But if we don't have a budget that's larger than China and Russia's combined, then the terrorists win"
 
2014-05-08 03:29:32 PM

fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014


1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.
 
2014-05-08 03:30:37 PM

Mrtraveler01: Dr Dreidel: And wasn't the GOP pissed it didn't result in MORE job losses? I'm confused as to what Reason's arguing here - that the sequester didn't go too far enough?

Yep, the GOP mindset seems to be:

"Unemployment is bad...unless those people who are getting laid off are government workers, then in that case, fark them!"


They seem to believe that the money that government workers make is somehow either a. not real (that is, it can't be used to pay for things like 'real' money that's made by a worker in the private sector) or b. isn't deserved by that worker, since they have the audacity to work for the government, of all things (conveniently forgetting that they themselves also work for the government...which makes them, government workers).
 
2014-05-08 03:31:40 PM

qorkfiend: DrPainMD: kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?

Not enough.

Why do you want higher unemployment?


Give the saved money back to the taxpayer to spend and there won't be any increased unemployment. People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs) instead of having that money taken and spent on things that have no value to them, and our overall standard of living increases.

A better question is: why do you want to have a lower standard of living?
 
2014-05-08 03:32:25 PM

DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.


a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?
 
2014-05-08 03:32:50 PM
plenty of contractors, actually.
 
2014-05-08 03:33:10 PM

DrPainMD: Give the saved money back to the taxpayer to spend and there won't be any increased unemployment. People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs) instead of having that money taken and spent on things that have no value to them, and our overall standard of living increases.


Aren't you precious:

www.zoom-comics.com
 
2014-05-08 03:34:23 PM
Hey subby, I knew that guy.  And basically, he was a slacker. On fark all day long. Never put cover sheets on his TPS reports.  Drank the last cup of coffee and didn't make more. Used speakerphone in a cubicle field. Flossed his teeth at his desk.

Basically, we are better off since he left.
 
2014-05-08 03:34:38 PM

Mrtraveler01: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

Oh look. The CBO calls BS on the sequester doesn't destroy jobs talking point.

Reason is good when they write about protecting privacy. On other fronts, they often sound identical to the GOP outlets they purport to be better than.

I always figured that Reason was "Libertarian" in the same sense that Rand Paul and Cato are libertarians.

Which is that they'll pay lip service to the libertarian wing of the GOP but for the most part just recite GOP talking points.


I don't vote for the Republicrats or the Democans.  I'm a Libertarian.  I'm my own man.  I'm a loner... a rebel.

So vote Republican.
 
2014-05-08 03:34:58 PM

abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.


Congress is concerned about vacant jobs? So that means we'll have more judge confirmations this week, right?
 
2014-05-08 03:35:08 PM

DrPainMD: People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs)


Raising the minimum wage would have the same effect.
 
2014-05-08 03:35:26 PM

DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

www.thefrisky.com

Seriously what the fark is wrong with you?
 
2014-05-08 03:35:31 PM

SlothB77: Clent: So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.

but, not so fast:

James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:


DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a 
reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 
2013.

yep.  still just one federal employee.

good work there, farkers.


Yes, but ultimately as firings are insanely difficult to do on short notice most agencies choose furloughs and reductions in hirings over direct firings. The "projections" where long term projections in how many less federal jobs there would be over the long term if sequetor went into effect and stayed in effect. The chart on page 58 shows (im estimating here based on the first line being 3.8 million days rounding up to 4 million) 4 million days or 32 million man hours being reduces for just the 6 months that the sequester was in place. You couldn't realistically expect them to continue furloughing forever, they would eventually have to fire some people and significantly lower hiring. 32 million man hours over 6 months is equal to 30,769 full time positions. And most agencies took serious hits to operating budgets to achieve that.
 
2014-05-08 03:36:06 PM

nmrsnr: 19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.


That analysis is light on facts and heavy on speculation and hypotheticals.
 
2014-05-08 03:36:11 PM

Rapmaster2000: So vote Republican.


So vote Ronpaulagain
 
2014-05-08 03:36:13 PM

Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?


Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.
 
2014-05-08 03:36:48 PM

James!: abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.

Yeah, but the guy is technically correct.  So good for him.


He might have been technically correct, if he had made his argument about ONLY firings made specifically to hit sequestration limits, but that wasn't the argument made.  The article claims ""Devastating" Sequester Cuts Cost a Total of One (1) Federal Job!"
 
2014-05-08 03:37:05 PM

nmrsnr: 19 reduced training - because we don't need our employees to know what they're doing.
19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.

Not to mention the economic impact of furloughs, which reduced worker take-home pay by as much as 1/5.

Yeah, the sequester was totally awesome.


My friend works for the Department of the Interior.  In addition to working a crazy number of hours because they're leaving vacancies unfilled, they've slashed the travel budget.   So my friend can't even do on-site inspections.  They're being asked to essentially regulate water quality from a cubicle.

On the one hand the GOP is slowly suffocating the department and saving mining companies from regulation.   On the other hand, they're gambling with the water sources for ranchers and rural communities (part of the GOP voting base).   It's short sighted in so many ways.
 
2014-05-08 03:37:21 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


So it's better to put them out of work and on welfare?

Because the notion that they'll just magically find work in the private sector without any issue is laughably absurd.
 
2014-05-08 03:38:27 PM

beakerxf: It's short sighted in so many ways.


I think that's the GOP's new slogan.
 
2014-05-08 03:39:21 PM

DrPainMD: qorkfiend: DrPainMD: kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?

Not enough.

Why do you want higher unemployment?

Give the saved money back to the taxpayer to spend and there won't be any increased unemployment. People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs) instead of having that money taken and spent on things that have no value to them, and our overall standard of living increases.

A better question is: why do you want to have a lower standard of living?



Yeah, that's the spirit.  Who needs that pesky Department of Justice, or that worthless FDA?  Don't even get me started on the Department of Transportation or the EPA!
 
2014-05-08 03:39:25 PM

Mrtraveler01: Mrtraveler01: 1. Who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?
2. Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?
3. Who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop?

Oops...wrong thread.


This is never in the wrong thread.
 
2014-05-08 03:39:31 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


I talk to the engineers so the customers don't have to! I'M A PEOPLE PERSON!
 
2014-05-08 03:40:34 PM

Rapmaster2000: Yes, but it caused UNCERTAINTY.


Generally when you furlough tens of thousands of people so they don't get paid for several weeks, it has bad side effects. Of course Congress excluded themselves on not getting their paycheck.
 
2014-05-08 03:40:56 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


jobs that provide people middle class incomes in an economy that relies on consumer spending are not parasitic, jobs like at walmart who pay their employees a non living wage who have to use food stamps to eat are though. If you want to force companies to pay a real wage then I guess it'd be a wash if you eliminated government jobs that actually pay well if they are truly not necessary.
 
2014-05-08 03:42:30 PM

Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.

So it's better to put them out of work and on welfare?


No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

You can verify it for yourself. Hire a guy to spend all morning digging a hole in your yard, and all afternoon filling the hole back in. Pay him a living wage. See where it gets you.

Tomorrow, hire a guy to build you a table. Pay him a living wage and put the table in your dining room, to use for years to come. Which job added to the economy and which job didn't.

If you think that both jobs added to the economy evenly, show your logic.
 
2014-05-08 03:42:41 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark:

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


those gov't employees should just sit around and wait for the Job Creator'sTM to trickle them jobs!

you seem like a supply side economist.
 
2014-05-08 03:42:49 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.

*ploink!*
 
2014-05-08 03:45:16 PM

Headso: jobs that provide people middle class incomes in an economy that relies on consumer spending are not parasitic, jobs like at walmart who pay their employees a non living wage who have to use food stamps to eat are though. If you want to force companies to pay a real wage then I guess it'd be a wash if you eliminated government jobs that actually pay well if they are truly not necessary.


Again:

You can verify it for yourself. Hire a guy to spend all morning digging a hole in your yard, and all afternoon filling the hole back in. Pay him a living wage. See where it gets you.

Tomorrow, hire a guy to build you a table. Pay him a living wage and put the table in your dining room, to use for years to come. Which job added to the economy and which job didn't.

If you think that both jobs added to the economy evenly, show your logic.

Really, this is freshman-level economics.
 
2014-05-08 03:45:35 PM

DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?


That's easy to understand. It's just that it's made up bullshiat.
 
2014-05-08 03:45:47 PM

James!: That... He couldn't even read the chart he put up... I am astounded.


You stop being shocked when you automatically assume the worse of the Right.
 
2014-05-08 03:45:52 PM

DrPainMD: qorkfiend: DrPainMD: kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?

Not enough.

Why do you want higher unemployment?

Give the saved money back to the taxpayer to spend and there won't be any increased unemployment. People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs) instead of having that money taken and spent on things that have no value to them, and our overall standard of living increases.

A better question is: why do you want to have a lower standard of living?


How many tri-corner hats do you own?
 
2014-05-08 03:45:58 PM

GoldSpider: nmrsnr: 19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.

That analysis is light on facts and heavy on speculation and hypotheticals.


How so? How can an agency curtail hiring and not have net fewer jobs compared to if there hadn't been a sequester?

If there are net fewer jobs, how does that not translate to less availability of people to obtain those jobs that now do not exist?
 
2014-05-08 03:46:03 PM

DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?


So put them out of work, hope they find a job, or else they'll just starve and die?

Seems like a good plan to me.

And you do know that highway projects pretty much fit what you defined in bold right?
 
2014-05-08 03:46:11 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


Yup, the only non-parasites are farmers and factory workers. Let's start stringing up CEOs and priests from lampposts since they are just parasites.
 
2014-05-08 03:46:34 PM

DrPainMD: Really, this is freshman-level economics.


Serious question - do you believe charity is an economically worthless activity, and should only be engaged in for purely moral reasons?
 
2014-05-08 03:47:08 PM

DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy.


Your argument is that all (or most) government jobs are useless make-work jobs?  Does that magically change when those jobs are done by contractors?
 
2014-05-08 03:47:41 PM

DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?


Because you're assuming that government workers don't provide a service. Most businesses rely upon the infrastructure and regulation of the government to stay in business. It is vital to have working roads, environmental protections, a justice system, a well-regulated financial system etc. etc. The free market can't exist without a functional government.
 
2014-05-08 03:47:41 PM

DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?


It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.
 
2014-05-08 03:47:51 PM
DrPainMD:

No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

You can verify it for yourself. Hire a guy to spend all morning digging a hole in your yard, and all afternoon filling the hole back in. Pay him a living wage. See where it gets you.

Tomorrow, hire a guy to build you a table. Pay him a living wage and put the table in your dining room, to use for years to come. Which job added to the economy and which job didn't.

If you think that both jobs added to the economy evenly, show your logic.


Hey there, NASA engineer! What's your dirt doing in my ditch?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-08 03:48:13 PM

Isitoveryet: you seem like a supply side economist.


Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country. Parasites are parasites. How much would you pay to have someone come to your house and do nothing all day? Nothing, that's how much. Yet, the government takes money from you and gives it to someone who provides you nothing in return and you think it's great. There's no difference between the two scenarios.
 
2014-05-08 03:48:27 PM

DrPainMD: Tomorrow, hire a guy to build you a table. Pay him a living wage and put the table in your dining room, to use for years to come. Which job added to the economy and which job didn't.


You sound like a commie.
 
2014-05-08 03:48:57 PM
It worked so well, let's do it again.  Is what I'm hearing.
 
2014-05-08 03:49:25 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


So then you think the federal government is doing perfectly in how fast they operate? They don't need anymore people to make things go through government faster?
 
2014-05-08 03:50:37 PM
It most certainly cost me a job last year. A sweet gig traveling across Europe doing server installs for NATO.

Hestonbeachbiatching.mp4
 
2014-05-08 03:51:11 PM

DrPainMD: Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country.


I remember my college professors emphasizing that basic econ isn't meant to be applied to complex real world solutions and really is just an overly simplified view of how it works.

Trying to apply basic econ to the real world just reminds me of how delusional and misguided people on the right are when it comes to the economy.
 
2014-05-08 03:51:21 PM

Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.


Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.
 
2014-05-08 03:51:35 PM

kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?


None.

The sequester meant government-payroll people took it in the shorts*, but since contractors had contracts, they were fine unless they had to rebid or recompete.

*My boss was telling us that there are some rules about pension/vacation time accrual when working for the Feds - basically, if you drop below a certain threshhold of hours worked, you aren't eligible for vacation time or pension contributions. So they stuck it to those workers when they collected their paychecks (furlough), and again whenever they collect retirement or want to take a sick day. But again, they couldn't do that to the contractors, who had "inviolable" contracts.

// worked for a contractor at the time - the government people, who could make official decisions after communication with DoD, VA, HHS and the thousand offices within each we had to deal with, were gone one day a week; but the workers, whose job it was to implement decisions that could no longer be made one day a week, had to keep working
// and that's called "efficiency", apparently
 
2014-05-08 03:51:51 PM

nmrsnr: How so? How can an agency curtail hiring and not have net fewer jobs compared to if there hadn't been a sequester?

If there are net fewer jobs, how does that not translate to less availability of people to obtain those jobs that now do not exist?


It's meaningless unless you can guarantee a certain level of hiring without the sequester.  The most accurate you can claim is that hiring was likely reduced by the sequester.  Even then it sounds like when politicians disingenuously spin a reduction in the rate of increase in program spending into a "spending cut".
 
2014-05-08 03:52:03 PM
DrPainMD becomes Emperor.

Day 1:
DrPainMD: "There are no longer any government jobs."
Day 2:
DrPainMD: "Hey, were did all my money in my bank account go! You can't do that!
Banks: "We took it and bought a boat."
DrPainMD: "You can't do that!"
DrPainMD: *calls the authorities*
DrPainMD: "Why isn't anyone picking up?"
 
2014-05-08 03:52:38 PM

kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?


None! In fact, contractors had so much more private work during the shutdown, they don't even need to go back to federal contracting!
 
2014-05-08 03:53:00 PM

beakerxf: nmrsnr: 19 reduced training - because we don't need our employees to know what they're doing.
19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.

Not to mention the economic impact of furloughs, which reduced worker take-home pay by as much as 1/5.

Yeah, the sequester was totally awesome.

My friend works for the Department of the Interior.  In addition to working a crazy number of hours because they're leaving vacancies unfilled, they've slashed the travel budget.   So my friend can't even do on-site inspections.  They're being asked to essentially regulate water quality from a cubicle.

On the one hand the GOP is slowly suffocating the department and saving mining companies from regulation.   On the other hand, they're gambling with the water sources for ranchers and rural communities (part of the GOP voting base).   It's short sighted in so many ways.


And yet to some extent, it still seems to be working.  I drove through California's Central Valley this past weekend, and if the political billboards are any indication, a fair number of people think the state's water shortage (which should be a completely nonpartisan issue) is some kind of diabolical conspiracy involving state senators, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama.
 
2014-05-08 03:53:20 PM

DrPainMD: Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.

Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.


Food sales in the immediate vicinity skyrocket and the agents go spend $3,000 at Wal Mart, which combined creates a massive economic boost?
 
2014-05-08 03:53:44 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


Where do you think the money goes? Down some sort of sinkhole? Do you think people with jobs never spend the money they earn?
 
2014-05-08 03:54:53 PM

DrPainMD: Isitoveryet: you seem like a supply side economist.

Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country. Parasites are parasites. How much would you pay to have someone come to your house and do nothing all day? Nothing, that's how much. Yet, the government takes money from you and gives it to someone who provides you nothing in return and you think it's great. There's no difference between the two scenarios.


I knew I had you favorited for a reason.
 
2014-05-08 03:55:03 PM

DrPainMD: If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.


And what's the effect on the economy from the government spending millions of dollars to steal tens of millions of dollars worth of slaves from the South, and not even bothering to sell them to recoup the expenses?
 
2014-05-08 03:55:22 PM

DrPainMD: Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.

Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.


Do you think those ten DEA agents did that work for free? Or that they don't spend the money they earned doing that job?

Fark, do you even know how money works? It's clear that you think that all money earned by federal employees is rounded up and burned at the end of the day, never to be seen in the economy again.
 
2014-05-08 03:55:33 PM

anfrind: beakerxf: nmrsnr: 19 reduced training - because we don't need our employees to know what they're doing.
19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.

Not to mention the economic impact of furloughs, which reduced worker take-home pay by as much as 1/5.

Yeah, the sequester was totally awesome.

My friend works for the Department of the Interior.  In addition to working a crazy number of hours because they're leaving vacancies unfilled, they've slashed the travel budget.   So my friend can't even do on-site inspections.  They're being asked to essentially regulate water quality from a cubicle.

On the one hand the GOP is slowly suffocating the department and saving mining companies from regulation.   On the other hand, they're gambling with the water sources for ranchers and rural communities (part of the GOP voting base).   It's short sighted in so many ways.

And yet to some extent, it still seems to be working.  I drove through California's Central Valley this past weekend, and if the political billboards are any indication, a fair number of people think the state's water shortage (which should be a completely nonpartisan issue) is some kind of diabolical conspiracy involving state senators, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama.


Which is ironic because the Federal Government was the main reason they're able to farm in the Central Valley.

Such rugged individualists they are.
 
2014-05-08 03:55:53 PM

Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country.

I remember my college professors emphasizing that basic econ isn't meant to be applied to complex real world solutions and really is just an overly simplified view of how it works.

Trying to apply basic econ to the real world just reminds me of how delusional and misguided people on the right are when it comes to the economy.


yeah but the laffer curve is named after a guy with a degree and everything
 
2014-05-08 03:56:07 PM

odinsposse: Because you're assuming that government workers don't provide a service. Most businesses rely upon the infrastructure and regulation of the government to stay in business. It is vital to have working roads, environmental protections, a justice system, a well-regulated financial system etc. etc. The free market can't exist without a functional government.


What you are describing is a VERY small percentage of government spending. End the drug war, which is an extreme negative-sum game, and we could cut the number of cops, judges, prison guards, prosecutors, etc. in half. That would give the economy a big boost. Cut the military down to just what is needed to repel a foreign invasion, and not a penny more (we have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. we could cut the military by 90%), and our economy would start a real recovery (instead of this debt-financed fake recovery we're currently in).
 
2014-05-08 03:56:27 PM

DrPainMD: If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy?


Now try it with 10 fire fighters who spend all day putting out a fire, preventing it from spreading across an entire city. Or 10 FDA inspectors who observe unsanitary practices at a factory and save a couple hundred thousand people from getting sick and dying. Or 10 CDC scientists who notice a trend early and stop an outbreak of infectious disease, saving tens of thousands of lives.

If you only choose scenarios that fit your view that the government and its workers are useless, you'll only ever end up thinking government and its workers are useless. It's a self-fulfilling mindset that reaffirms your world view. Safe. Unchangeable. Juvenile.
 
2014-05-08 03:57:19 PM

DrPainMD: If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.


That's about 10,000 quarter ounces of weed. If one figures a marijuana user will use 1/8 ounce of weed to get high and stay home from work, the DEA agents have added 20,000 man days of labor to the economy. At median income, that's about $3,070,000 at the small cost of $3,000 in agents.
 
2014-05-08 03:57:22 PM

DrPainMD: Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.

Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.


So the fact that the FDA doesn't create anything but rather attempts to ensure the safety of drugs being released on the market, mean that we should promptly abolish them?  You appear to be well infromed.
 
2014-05-08 03:57:52 PM

DrPainMD: What you are describing is a VERY small percentage of government spending.


Show your work.
 
2014-05-08 03:57:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.

Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.

Do you think those ten DEA agents did that work for free? Or that they don't spend the money they earned doing that job?

Fark, do you even know how money works? It's clear that you think that all money earned by federal employees is rounded up and burned at the end of the day, never to be seen in the economy again.


Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.
 
2014-05-08 03:58:54 PM

DrPainMD: ny job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.


What market value do your posts here today contribute to the economy?
 
2014-05-08 03:58:55 PM

GoldSpider: nmrsnr: How so? How can an agency curtail hiring and not have net fewer jobs compared to if there hadn't been a sequester?

If there are net fewer jobs, how does that not translate to less availability of people to obtain those jobs that now do not exist?

It's meaningless unless you can guarantee a certain level of hiring without the sequester.  The most accurate you can claim is that hiring was likely reduced by the sequester.  Even then it sounds like when politicians disingenuously spin a reduction in the rate of increase in program spending into a "spending cut".


At least in my department, they can. We got E-mails about the hiring freeze (the had previously asked us to be on the lookout for prospective hires), and they even had to withdraw some USAJobs postings since they no longer had funding for them.
 
2014-05-08 03:59:18 PM

DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant.


DrPainMD: People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs)

 
2014-05-08 03:59:35 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: DrPainMD: If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy?

Now try it with 10 fire fighters who spend all day putting out a fire, preventing it from spreading across an entire city. Or 10 FDA inspectors who observe unsanitary practices at a factory and save a couple hundred thousand people from getting sick and dying. Or 10 CDC scientists who notice a trend early and stop an outbreak of infectious disease, saving tens of thousands of lives.

If you only choose scenarios that fit your view that the government and its workers are useless, you'll only ever end up thinking government and its workers are useless. It's a self-fulfilling mindset that reaffirms your world view. Safe. Unchangeable. Juvenile.


It's not about scenarios that fit my view. It's about jobs that produce nothing, or produce a good or service at a cost that is greater than its realized market value. This isn't that complicated.
 
2014-05-08 03:59:38 PM

DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.


How is that not relevant? I think the grocery store owners would be very glad to get $100 extra a week. How is that not relevant to the economy? How does that not add anything to the economy? How does ensuring that people don't die from unsafe drugs not contributing to the welfare of workers in the economy?

You can't just repeat the same thing over and over and expect us to just believe it without some sort of evidence.
 
2014-05-08 04:00:03 PM

DrPainMD: odinsposse: Because you're assuming that government workers don't provide a service. Most businesses rely upon the infrastructure and regulation of the government to stay in business. It is vital to have working roads, environmental protections, a justice system, a well-regulated financial system etc. etc. The free market can't exist without a functional government.

What you are describing is a VERY small percentage of government spending. End the drug war, which is an extreme negative-sum game, and we could cut the number of cops, judges, prison guards, prosecutors, etc. in half. That would give the economy a big boost. Cut the military down to just what is needed to repel a foreign invasion, and not a penny more (we have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. we could cut the military by 90%), and our economy would start a real recovery (instead of this debt-financed fake recovery we're currently in).


1.Cut jobs
2.???
3. Profit
 
2014-05-08 04:01:00 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant.

DrPainMD: People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs)


No don't you get it? It's irrelevant because it's completely devastating to his argument which appears to consist of screaming "THEY ARE PARASITES AND NO I WON'T EXPLAIN HOW OR WHY NOR WILL I CONSIDER OTHER FACTORS"
 
2014-05-08 04:01:02 PM

GoldSpider: It's meaningless unless you can guarantee a certain level of hiring without the sequester. The most accurate you can claim is that hiring was likely reduced by the sequester.


So you think pulling money out of the economy could somehow create jobs?

Just because a number is an estimate it doesn't mean it could be not real at all. You seem not to understand how statistics work.
 
2014-05-08 04:01:57 PM

DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.


So there is no value in law enforcement? You honestly think there would be no costs associated with the disbanding of law enforcement agencies? I'm beginning to doubt you actually made it all the way through that econ 101 class.
 
2014-05-08 04:02:28 PM

DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.


So if I take my paycheck and go shopping at the mall, am I not helping the economy by providing people incentive to create stores (and thus jobs) at that mall? If I spend my paycheck at a restaurant, are they not going to use that money to hire waitstaff? If I spend my paycheck to hire a guy to chop down a tree in my front yard, is that money not going back into the economy? The fact that they spend their money is very relevant. The true parasites (bankers) do not spend their money, but squirrel it away in off-shore bank accounts, literally taking away money from the economy.
 
2014-05-08 04:02:28 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.

Where do you think the money goes? Down some sort of sinkhole? Do you think people with jobs never spend the money they earn?


He also believes that roads magically appear, that his water is naturally clean, his food is free from industrial chemical by default, and that the bad guys lock themselves away out of politeness.

Or he is a very successful troll.
 
2014-05-08 04:02:40 PM

DrPainMD: Isitoveryet: you seem like a supply side economist.

Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country. Parasites are parasites. How much would you pay to have someone come to your house and do nothing all day? Nothing, that's how much. Yet, the government takes money from you and gives it to someone who provides you nothing in return and you think it's great. There's no difference between the two scenarios.


The ERA, how the crap did that work?
 
2014-05-08 04:02:58 PM

DrPainMD: It's not about scenarios that fit my view. It's about jobs that produce nothing, or produce a good or service at a cost that is greater than its realized market value.


Firefighters, FDA inspectors, and CDC scientists produce no product to sell. Yet somehow, as if by magic, they save us all money with their actions. This is in conflict with your view of the government and its workers.
 
2014-05-08 04:03:05 PM
The sequester and furlough were a really shiatty way to treat people, and pretty much the worst way to solve a self inflicted wound as possible.
 
2014-05-08 04:03:07 PM

DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.


But they are being productive. You are lying. Making infrastructure contributes,  making a safe drugs and food contributes to making a safe market for those items. Federal law enforcement keeps down corruption which helps commerce.

Just because you are too simple minded to understand what they do doesn't mean they do nothing.
 
2014-05-08 04:03:18 PM

odinsposse: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

So there is no value in law enforcement? You honestly think there would be no costs associated with the disbanding of law enforcement agencies? I'm beginning to doubt you actually made it all the way through that econ 101 class.


I'd be surprised if he graduated. From elementary school.
 
2014-05-08 04:04:30 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Fark, do you even know how money works? It's clear that you think that all money earned by federal employees is rounded up and burned at the end of the day, never to be seen in the economy again.


Silly me for reading the complete works of Nobel Prize winner Hayek (who, unlike Krugman, won his prize for monetary theory).

Do you think that the money paid to federal employees is imported from some alternate universe. It's coming out of YOUR pocket. It's lowering YOUR standard of living. You seem to think that if you work all day for a buck, and the government takes that buck and gives it to someone else, who then gives it back to you ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU WORK ANOTHER DAY, that you're better off. Well, you're not... you've just been conned into feeling good about working two days and only getting paid for one.
 
2014-05-08 04:05:46 PM

odinsposse: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

So there is no value in law enforcement? You honestly think there would be no costs associated with the disbanding of law enforcement agencies? I'm beginning to doubt you actually made it all the way through that econ 101 class.


Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.
 
2014-05-08 04:05:59 PM

DrPainMD: Silly me for reading the complete works of Nobel Prize winner Hayek (who, unlike Krugman, won his prize for monetary theory).

Do you think that the money paid to federal employees is imported from some alternate universe. It's coming out of YOUR pocket. It's lowering YOUR standard of living.


You think the money that makes my water safe to drink, my food safe to eat, my drugs safe to take, my roads passable to drive on and my health insurance affordable is LOWERING my standard of living?

IN WHAT UNIVERSE IS THIS TRUE?
 
2014-05-08 04:06:13 PM

DrPainMD: Isitoveryet: you seem like a supply side economist.

Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country. Parasites are parasites. How much would you pay to have someone come to your house and do nothing all day? Nothing, that's how much. Yet, the government takes money from you and gives it to someone who provides you nothing in return and you think it's great. There's no difference between the two scenarios.


Then do us all a favor.  Since you obviously have SO much time to waste posting to a message board all day, you quite obviously have a useless job and are one of those 'parasites' you speak of.  Quit now and find yourself a 'real' job, be the bootstrappy patriot you've always wanted to be!
 
2014-05-08 04:06:24 PM

DrPainMD: instead of this debt-financed fake recovery we're currently in


You do understand how credit markets work right? And how expansion is generated through debt based financing?

I think you understand but statements like "instead of this debt-financed fake recovery" worry me.

//Cheers
 
2014-05-08 04:06:25 PM

DrPainMD: You can verify it for yourself. Hire a guy to spend all morning digging a hole in your yard, and all afternoon filling the hole back in. Pay him a living wage. See where it gets you.

Tomorrow, hire a guy to build you a table. Pay him a living wage and put the table in your dining room, to use for years to come. Which job added to the economy and which job didn't.

If you think that both jobs added to the economy evenly, show your logic.


So uh, which job in the economy is equivalent to hiring a guy spending all morning digging a hole and then all afternoon filling the hole back in?

It's teachers isn't it?
 
2014-05-08 04:06:32 PM

beakerxf: Or he is a very successful troll.


which is in doubt only to small babies or very smart waterfowl
 
2014-05-08 04:06:41 PM

DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

So there is no value in law enforcement? You honestly think there would be no costs associated with the disbanding of law enforcement agencies? I'm beginning to doubt you actually made it all the way through that econ 101 class.

Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.


But if you cut in half, then you're still producing nothing, just paying half as much for it according to you.

Right? Isn't that your argument?
 
2014-05-08 04:06:46 PM

DrPainMD: Do you think that the money paid to federal employees is imported from some alternate universe. It's coming out of YOUR pocket. It's lowering YOUR standard of living.


How so?

I get infrastructure and services out of the money I pay to the city, state, federal government.
 
2014-05-08 04:06:49 PM

DrPainMD: You seem to think that if you work all day for a buck, and the government takes that buck and gives it to someone else, who then gives it back to you ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU WORK ANOTHER DAY, that you're better off.


Dude, lay off the acid.
 
2014-05-08 04:07:44 PM

DrPainMD: Isitoveryet: you seem like a supply side economist.

Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country. Parasites are parasites. How much would you pay to have someone come to your house and do nothing all day? Nothing, that's how much. Yet, the government takes money from you and gives it to someone who provides you nothing in return and you think it's great. There's no difference between the two scenarios.


but it does.

you are under the impression that these gov't employees do nothing, are parasites and contribute 0 to our economy. you would rather they be unemployed, and wait for the private sector capitalists to employ them. that is trickle down economics aka supply side economics.

these employee's aren't parasites, they are performing duties (that may not benefit you directly but that's your choice) and being compensated for their services, what is it you believe they don't do with the money they earn? you don't think they spend it? consumption, i don't know about you but that IS participation in our economy, they are practicing demand, consumers of goods & if you think that's a parasitic role in our economy, thank goodness you aren't in any position of power to enforce your supply side beliefs.

honestly, do you really believe they do nothing? contribute nothing? I wonder if you could provide an example of what doing nothing may encompass.
 
2014-05-08 04:08:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

So there is no value in law enforcement? You honestly think there would be no costs associated with the disbanding of law enforcement agencies? I'm beginning to doubt you actually made it all the way through that econ 101 class.

Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

But if you cut in half, then you're still producing nothing, just paying half as much for it according to you.

Right? Isn't that your argument?


Not only that, it's more people out of work who wouldn't be able to find work in the private sector.

He doesn't think his cunning plans all the way through.
 
2014-05-08 04:08:56 PM

DrPainMD: THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!!


By that logic, neither are cops or judges. (Well, maybe judges produce rulings?)

The government project I worked on was a DoD study of military and veterans' eye injuries. Now, most people would agree that if the government's going to send twentysomethings into battle, they have an obligation to repair the bodies and lives they break (some of those that don't are in Congress, but moving on...), and it takes far more people to make that happen than you'd think.

The DoD, obviously, has a huge hand in things - medical officers and offices, integration with the 4 largest soldier-record databases/systems (and the IT departments of each), DoD's own IT services people, etc - but also the VA and HHS (each with their own agendas), members of Congress (each of whom has their own individual vision for a program funded by Congressional vote), military-political brass...

Sounds simple...isn't. And believe it or not, it's a good thing (mostly). I don't want the DoD or VA half-assing a study like this, and I want to make damn sure all the T's get crossed and the, um, eyes get dotted.

So, is this a good thing since we produced stuff, a bad thing since we needed many government people (who didn't "produce" so much as "support and advise")...? Help me out here, my world is rather gray, but you seem to have a black-white filter.

// and yet, for a while it still looked like the contract was in jeopardy, because the GOP wants to cut food stamps
 
2014-05-08 04:09:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

So there is no value in law enforcement? You honestly think there would be no costs associated with the disbanding of law enforcement agencies? I'm beginning to doubt you actually made it all the way through that econ 101 class.

Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

But if you cut in half, then you're still producing nothing, just paying half as much for it according to you.

Right? Isn't that your argument?


What about private sector law enforcement (aka mall cops)? Do they produce anything?
 
2014-05-08 04:09:38 PM

Mrtraveler01: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

So there is no value in law enforcement? You honestly think there would be no costs associated with the disbanding of law enforcement agencies? I'm beginning to doubt you actually made it all the way through that econ 101 class.

Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

But if you cut in half, then you're still producing nothing, just paying half as much for it according to you.

Right? Isn't that your argument?

Not only that, it's more people out of work who wouldn't be able to find work in the private sector.

He doesn't think his cunning plans all the way through.


Also a good point. Then they really ARE producing nothing, getting paid nothing, and contributing nothing to the demand-side of the economy.

He really has this whole "economy" thing completely backwards.
 
2014-05-08 04:09:39 PM

DrPainMD: Do you think that the money paid to federal employees is imported from some alternate universe. It's coming out of YOUR pocket. It's lowering YOUR standard of living. You seem to think that if you work all day for a buck, and the government takes that buck and gives it to someone else, who then gives it back to you ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU WORK ANOTHER DAY, that you're better off. Well, you're not... you've just been conned into feeling good about working two days and only getting paid for one.


Actually it mostly comes from rich people who horde it AND PRODUCE NOTHING WITH IT. Rent seeking PARASITES.

By taxing them, we reduce speculative bubbles, and parasitic rent seeking, while giving it to people whose jobs keep an economy running on track, we further increase economic yield.
 
2014-05-08 04:09:39 PM

Corvus: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

But they are being productive. You are lying. Making infrastructure contributes,  making a safe drugs and food contributes to making a safe market for those items. Federal law enforcement keeps down corruption which helps commerce.

Just because you are too simple minded to understand what they do doesn't mean they do nothing.


What I've written and what you've read seem to be two totally different things.

Where did I say that infrastructure shouldn't be built, or that assuring safe food and drugs isn't valuable (altho both of those jobs could be done MUCH more efficiently)? Half of all law enforcement is taken up with drugs (and now an increasing share is being taken up "fighting" non-existent terrorism). I don't think you realize just how little of your tax dollars go to anything that provides a return on the investment.
 
2014-05-08 04:09:56 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: jobs that provide people middle class incomes in an economy that relies on consumer spending are not parasitic, jobs like at walmart who pay their employees a non living wage who have to use food stamps to eat are though. If you want to force companies to pay a real wage then I guess it'd be a wash if you eliminated government jobs that actually pay well if they are truly not necessary.

Again:

You can verify it for yourself. Hire a guy to spend all morning digging a hole in your yard, and all afternoon filling the hole back in. Pay him a living wage. See where it gets you.

Tomorrow, hire a guy to build you a table. Pay him a living wage and put the table in your dining room, to use for years to come. Which job added to the economy and which job didn't.

If you think that both jobs added to the economy evenly, show your logic.

Really, this is freshman-level economics.


You could certainly make an argument that government spending on certain things could be spent on other things but the people getting the wages spend their incomes on a wider variety of goods and services and at a faster velocity and more locally than the 1% who are paying most of the income taxes that go to these middle class people.
 
2014-05-08 04:11:12 PM

rebelyell2006: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

So there is no value in law enforcement? You honestly think there would be no costs associated with the disbanding of law enforcement agencies? I'm beginning to doubt you actually made it all the way through that econ 101 class.

Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

But if you cut in half, then you're still producing nothing, just paying half as much for it according to you.

Right? Isn't that your argument?

What about private sector law enforcement (aka mall cops)? Do they produce anything?


That is an excellent question that I am sure Dr Pain will refuse to answer.
 
2014-05-08 04:11:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

So there is no value in law enforcement? You honestly think there would be no costs associated with the disbanding of law enforcement agencies? I'm beginning to doubt you actually made it all the way through that econ 101 class.

Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

But if you cut in half, then you're still producing nothing, just paying half as much for it according to you.

Right? Isn't that your argument?


Yep. The idiot can't argue they produce nothing, so paying them hurts everyone. Then turn around and say we should just pay them half, cause reasons.
 
2014-05-08 04:11:30 PM

DrPainMD: I don't think you realize just how little of your tax dollars go to anything that provides a return on the investment.


Most of our infrastructure as well as most services we get from the government provide a negative or zero ROI.

But it shouldn't matter.
 
2014-05-08 04:12:00 PM

DrPainMD: odinsposse: Because you're assuming that government workers don't provide a service. Most businesses rely upon the infrastructure and regulation of the government to stay in business. It is vital to have working roads, environmental protections, a justice system, a well-regulated financial system etc. etc. The free market can't exist without a functional government.

What you are describing is a VERY small percentage of government spending. End the drug war, which is an extreme negative-sum game, and we could cut the number of cops, judges, prison guards, prosecutors, etc. in half. That would give the economy a big boost. Cut the military down to just what is needed to repel a foreign invasion, and not a penny more (we have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. we could cut the military by 90%), and our economy would start a real recovery (instead of this debt-financed fake recovery we're currently in).


Yet the sequester has not done much to affect the War of Drugs or the military.   It has, however, put pressure on those same agencies that help public safety and that are a "small" part of the government spending.   That's what happens when spending is cut across the board and not carefully targeted.
 
2014-05-08 04:12:05 PM

DrPainMD: Where did I say that infrastructure shouldn't be built, or that assuring safe food and drugs isn't valuable (altho both of those jobs could be done MUCH more efficiently)? Half of all law enforcement is taken up with drugs (and now an increasing share is being taken up "fighting" non-existent terrorism). I don't think you realize just how little of your tax dollars go to anything that provides a return on the investment.


So you are successfully able to name a lot of things that the government is useful for, and nothing that it isn't.

Aren't you sort of contradicting your argument here?
 
2014-05-08 04:12:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

So there is no value in law enforcement? You honestly think there would be no costs associated with the disbanding of law enforcement agencies? I'm beginning to doubt you actually made it all the way through that econ 101 class.

Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

But if you cut in half, then you're still producing nothing, just paying half as much for it according to you.

Right? Isn't that your argument?


Preventing loss has value, but like anything, its economic value declines as its cost increases. The mall may have 10 security guards, but hiring 1000 more won't cut the malls losses due to theft by 100 times. This really is basic economics.
 
2014-05-08 04:12:58 PM

DrPainMD: It's about jobs that produce nothing, or produce a good or service at a cost that is greater than its realized market value.


You just described "government jobs".  Governments are not a business.
 
2014-05-08 04:13:53 PM

DrPainMD: (altho both of those jobs could be done MUCH more efficiently)


The reason why the government does that is because people do not exercise self-responsibility at the individual and corporate level. If we trusted canning factories to regulate themselves, what incentive is there? People will still buy their product, and if the government has no hand in enforcing regulations then there is nothing they can do when the companies get too lazy to prevent massive shipments of botulism everywhere. The state of our internet infrastructure is proof that for-profit corporations have no interest in investing in infrastructure.
 
2014-05-08 04:14:10 PM

DrPainMD: Preventing loss has value, but like anything, its economic value declines as its cost increases. The mall may have 10 security guards, but hiring 1000 more won't cut the malls losses due to theft by 100 times. This really is basic economics.


But what about on the days in which the 10 security guards produce nothing? Are they still valuable to the economy?

The answer is: of course they are, because we're not idiots.
 
2014-05-08 04:14:18 PM

DrPainMD: Where did I say that infrastructure shouldn't be built, or that assuring safe food and drugs isn't valuable (altho both of those jobs could be done MUCH more efficiently)?


How much more efficiently? Give me a number.
 
2014-05-08 04:14:34 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Where did I say that infrastructure shouldn't be built, or that assuring safe food and drugs isn't valuable (altho both of those jobs could be done MUCH more efficiently)? Half of all law enforcement is taken up with drugs (and now an increasing share is being taken up "fighting" non-existent terrorism). I don't think you realize just how little of your tax dollars go to anything that provides a return on the investment.

So you are successfully able to name a lot of things that the government is useful for, and nothing that it isn't.

Aren't you sort of contradicting your argument here?


No. It would help if you actually understood my argument. I keep assuming that farkers have the reading comprehension skills of a garden slug; I should have learned by now.
 
2014-05-08 04:14:49 PM

DrPainMD: Hayek


 

DrPainMD: Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country.


You sound confused.
 
2014-05-08 04:14:58 PM

DrPainMD: Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.


I'm keeping up. I think you don't have much of a grasp of what you're arguing. The DEA combats crime associated with drug smuggling in America. There is, in fact, quite a lot of crime associated with drug smuggling. Including theft, murder, and enabling criminal organizations by funding them with drug money. Crime is bad for the economy generally. Since we don't want cartels running roughshod over civilians a la Mexico we have the DEA and other law enforcement agencies to deal with that crime.

Yes, it would be silly to have an agency combating drug crime if we ended the drug war. That's obvious. But you didn't say that. You said the job the DEA was doing was hurting the economy which is incorrect. There are a lot of problems with drug-related crime and that crime can be a major detriment to the economy. So as our drug laws stand now the DEA adds positively to the economy. The drug war itself is a separate matter.
 
2014-05-08 04:15:27 PM

DrPainMD: The mall may have 10 security guards, but hiring 1000 more won't cut the malls losses due to theft by 100 times.


And what does that have to do with anything?
 
2014-05-08 04:15:58 PM

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: Fark, do you even know how money works? It's clear that you think that all money earned by federal employees is rounded up and burned at the end of the day, never to be seen in the economy again.

Silly me for reading the complete works of Nobel Prize winner Hayek (who, unlike Krugman, won his prize for monetary theory).

Do you think that the money paid to federal employees is imported from some alternate universe. It's coming out of YOUR pocket. It's lowering YOUR standard of living. You seem to think that if you work all day for a buck, and the government takes that buck and gives it to someone else, who then gives it back to you ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU WORK ANOTHER DAY, that you're better off. Well, you're not... you've just been conned into feeling good about working two days and only getting paid for one.


It makes sense that you cite the works of someone proven wrong by history in your quest to be consistently wrong in this thread
 
2014-05-08 04:16:35 PM

beakerxf: Yet the sequester has not done much to affect the War of Drugs or the military.   It has, however, put pressure on those same agencies that help public safety and that are a "small" part of the government spending.   That's what happens when spending is cut across the board and not carefully targeted.


When faced with cuts, the government will always cut the most needed and the most productive jobs first. It's called extortion. That's not an economic issue.
 
2014-05-08 04:16:43 PM

DrPainMD: odinsposse: Because you're assuming that government workers don't provide a service. Most businesses rely upon the infrastructure and regulation of the government to stay in business. It is vital to have working roads, environmental protections, a justice system, a well-regulated financial system etc. etc. The free market can't exist without a functional government.

What you are describing is a VERY small percentage of government spending. End the drug war, which is an extreme negative-sum game, and we could cut the number of cops, judges, prison guards, prosecutors, etc. in half. That would give the economy a big boost. Cut the military down to just what is needed to repel a foreign invasion, and not a penny more (we have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. we could cut the military by 90%), and our economy would start a real recovery (instead of this debt-financed fake recovery we're currently in).


You're adorable. Don't ever change.
 
2014-05-08 04:16:47 PM

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Where did I say that infrastructure shouldn't be built, or that assuring safe food and drugs isn't valuable (altho both of those jobs could be done MUCH more efficiently)? Half of all law enforcement is taken up with drugs (and now an increasing share is being taken up "fighting" non-existent terrorism). I don't think you realize just how little of your tax dollars go to anything that provides a return on the investment.

So you are successfully able to name a lot of things that the government is useful for, and nothing that it isn't.

Aren't you sort of contradicting your argument here?

No. It would help if you actually understood my argument. I keep assuming that farkers have the reading comprehension skills of a garden slug; I should have learned by now.


You should have learned by now that your argument is terrible and makes no sense in a real-world where the economy has both a SUPPLY and a DEMAND.
 
2014-05-08 04:17:32 PM

Corvus: So you think pulling money out of the economy could somehow create jobs?


Does putting money into the economy necessarily create jobs?  Just ask the banks!

Corvus: Just because you are too simple minded to understand what they do doesn't mean they do nothing.


Ad hominems and personal attacks don't really add much to your argument.
 
2014-05-08 04:17:56 PM

DrPainMD: beakerxf: Yet the sequester has not done much to affect the War of Drugs or the military.   It has, however, put pressure on those same agencies that help public safety and that are a "small" part of the government spending.   That's what happens when spending is cut across the board and not carefully targeted.

When faced with cuts, the government will always cut the most needed and the most productive jobs first. It's called extortion. That's not an economic issue.


Show your work.
 
2014-05-08 04:18:34 PM

GoldSpider: Does putting money into the economy necessarily create jobs?  Just ask the banks!


No, that's why supply-side economics doesn't work. You have to put the money into the hands of people who will buy things.
 
2014-05-08 04:18:56 PM

GoldSpider: Corvus: Just because you are too simple minded to understand what they do doesn't mean they do nothing.

Ad hominems and personal attacks don't really add much to your argument.


To be fair, the guy he was addressing is very simple-minded.
 
2014-05-08 04:19:35 PM
I know for a fact that some hiring was cancelled or pushed back for a year at at least one agency.
 
2014-05-08 04:19:41 PM

odinsposse: DrPainMD: Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

I'm keeping up. I think you don't have much of a grasp of what you're arguing. The DEA combats crime associated with drug smuggling in America. There is, in fact, quite a lot of crime associated with drug smuggling. Including theft, murder, and enabling criminal organizations by funding them with drug money. Crime is bad for the economy generally. Since we don't want cartels running roughshod over civilians a la Mexico we have the DEA and other law enforcement agencies to deal with that crime.

Yes, it would be silly to have an agency combating drug crime if we ended the drug war. That's obvious. But you didn't say that. You said the job the DEA was doing was hurting the economy which is incorrect. There are a lot of problems with drug-related crime and that crime can be a major detriment to the economy. So as our drug laws stand now the DEA adds positively to the economy. The drug war itself is a separate matter.


If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be the associated crime (notice how the alcohol industry was very violent during prohibition, but not so much any more). Almost every argument for outlawing drugs would disappear if drugs were legal.

And, no, there is absolutely no economic benefit to having the DEA. Every penny spent on it is wasted and hurts the economy.
 
2014-05-08 04:19:45 PM

GoldSpider: Corvus: So you think pulling money out of the economy could somehow create jobs?


Does putting money into the economy necessarily create jobs?  Just ask the banks!


Some professional deflection here. How about answering the question? Do you think pulling money out of the economy creates jobs?
 
2014-05-08 04:21:08 PM

DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

I'm keeping up. I think you don't have much of a grasp of what you're arguing. The DEA combats crime associated with drug smuggling in America. There is, in fact, quite a lot of crime associated with drug smuggling. Including theft, murder, and enabling criminal organizations by funding them with drug money. Crime is bad for the economy generally. Since we don't want cartels running roughshod over civilians a la Mexico we have the DEA and other law enforcement agencies to deal with that crime.

Yes, it would be silly to have an agency combating drug crime if we ended the drug war. That's obvious. But you didn't say that. You said the job the DEA was doing was hurting the economy which is incorrect. There are a lot of problems with drug-related crime and that crime can be a major detriment to the economy. So as our drug laws stand now the DEA adds positively to the economy. The drug war itself is a separate matter.

If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be the associated crime (notice how the alcohol industry was very violent during prohibition, but not so much any more). Almost every argument for outlawing drugs would disappear if drugs were legal.

And, no, there is absolutely no economic benefit to having the DEA. Every penny spent on it is wasted and hurts the economy.


Outlawing which drugs? Because gangs would just shift from one drug to another.
 
2014-05-08 04:21:47 PM
The sequester was good because the War on Drugs in bad.

...
..
.
 
2014-05-08 04:21:56 PM

DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

I'm keeping up. I think you don't have much of a grasp of what you're arguing. The DEA combats crime associated with drug smuggling in America. There is, in fact, quite a lot of crime associated with drug smuggling. Including theft, murder, and enabling criminal organizations by funding them with drug money. Crime is bad for the economy generally. Since we don't want cartels running roughshod over civilians a la Mexico we have the DEA and other law enforcement agencies to deal with that crime.

Yes, it would be silly to have an agency combating drug crime if we ended the drug war. That's obvious. But you didn't say that. You said the job the DEA was doing was hurting the economy which is incorrect. There are a lot of problems with drug-related crime and that crime can be a major detriment to the economy. So as our drug laws stand now the DEA adds positively to the economy. The drug war itself is a separate matter.

If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be the associated crime (notice how the alcohol industry was very violent during prohibition, but not so much any more). Almost every argument for outlawing drugs would disappear if drugs were legal.

And, no, there is absolutely no economic benefit to having the DEA. Every penny spent on it is wasted and hurts the economy.


Every penny? So keeping the cartels from reaping chaos and destruction hurting the economy? Stopping them from decapitating people here is hurting the economy? How much money is there in unlawful decapitation? Do you work for a cartel and that is why you hate the government?
 
2014-05-08 04:22:25 PM

cameroncrazy1984: You should have learned by now that your argument is terrible and makes no sense in a real-world where the economy has both a SUPPLY and a DEMAND.


Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.
 
2014-05-08 04:22:50 PM

DrPainMD: If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be the associated crime (notice how the alcohol industry was very violent during prohibition, but not so much any more). Almost every argument for outlawing drugs would disappear if drugs were legal.

And, no, there is absolutely no economic benefit to having the DEA. Every penny spent on it is wasted and hurts the economy.


You still don't seem to be following. I'm not arguing for the drug war. The part I bolded is a separate argument from the argument about the drug war. Do you actually think that ending the DEA and allowing drug associated crime to flourish would be good for the economy?
 
2014-05-08 04:23:01 PM

DrPainMD: Preventing loss has value


And a lot of the jobs you said "produce nothing" do just that.

So which is it?

Your original assertion wasn't that the DO produce value, but because the law of diminishing returns, we have far too many employed, and we could get a much higher ROI by reducing their size (of course you're going to show your work, with citations for all the data you analyzed). Which is where you now seem to be moving the goalpost.

There's a reason for this:
DrPainMD
(favorite: economic moron http://www.fark.com/comments/8128743)
 
2014-05-08 04:23:28 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

How is that not relevant? I think the grocery store owners would be very glad to get $100 extra a week. How is that not relevant to the economy? How does that not add anything to the economy? How does ensuring that people don't die from unsafe drugs not contributing to the welfare of workers in the economy?

You can't just repeat the same thing over and over and expect us to just believe it without some sort of evidence.


Oh, but in his scenario, the Department of Labor is parasitic as well.   So teh grocery store owners can cut their worker's wages below minimum and they'll pocket more profit.   So they won't miss the $100 from government workers.

Oh, and without the USDA, grocery store owners could get cheaper cuts of meat since meat packers won't have to keep diseased meat out of the food supply.   And farmers can switch to cheap DDT to handle pests.   Oh, and they could use all the undocumented labor they want because we didn't need those parasitic Border Patrol agents.

Man, getting rid of government workers is going to be great!   Well...not for me. I work for a hospital system and we treat a lot of Medicare and Medicaid patients.  We'd probably go bankrupt without government workers.

But hey!   It'll be great for that Dr.Pain fella and that's all that matters, isn't it?
 
2014-05-08 04:24:00 PM

DrPainMD: If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be the associated crime (notice how the alcohol industry was very violent during prohibition, but not so much any more). Almost every argument for outlawing drugs would disappear if drugs were legal.

And, no, there is absolutely no economic benefit to having the DEA. Every penny spent on it is wasted and hurts the economy.


I have little argument there. But that's just one agency.
 
2014-05-08 04:24:18 PM

GoldSpider: Corvus: Just because you are too simple minded to understand what they do doesn't mean they do nothing.

Ad hominems and personal attacks don't really add much to your argument.


It's the only argument he has.
 
2014-05-08 04:24:57 PM

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: You should have learned by now that your argument is terrible and makes no sense in a real-world where the economy has both a SUPPLY and a DEMAND.

Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.


From the wikipedia: In Say's view, a rational businessman will never hoard money; he will promptly spend any money he gets "for the value of money is also perishable."

Sounds like the government employees are the right side of the equation.
 
2014-05-08 04:25:22 PM

impaler: DrPainMD: Preventing loss has value

And a lot of the jobs you said "produce nothing" do just that.

So which is it?

Your original assertion wasn't that the DO produce value, but because the law of diminishing returns, we have far too many employed, and we could get a much higher ROI by reducing their size (of course you're going to show your work, with citations for all the data you analyzed). Which is where you now seem to be moving the goalpost.

There's a reason for this:
DrPainMD
(favorite: economic moron http://www.fark.com/comments/8128743)


You keep posting that you've farkied me as "economic moron." And I keep saying, "thank you." Move on.
 
2014-05-08 04:26:34 PM
I don't understand why you people can't seem to comprehend what DrPlain is trying to explain to you.  Cutting dollars to the federal government will create a net GAIN in jobs, not a net LOSS.

Consider:
Eliminating the EPA will create increases in employment for workers constructing toxic waste dumps, water filtration centers, disaster recovery organizations, air cleaner manufacturers, and more.
Eliminating the FDA will create increases in employment for hospital workers, ambulance drivers, CDC poison hotline workers, undertakers, and more.

And so on.

Come on people, try and use your brains.
 
2014-05-08 04:26:50 PM
but like

what even IS a job?

makes u think

#wow #woah
 
2014-05-08 04:26:52 PM

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: You should have learned by now that your argument is terrible and makes no sense in a real-world where the economy has both a SUPPLY and a DEMAND.

Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.


are you somehow neglecting the whole services concept? services aren't goods? or are you suggesting that only physical goods are real goods? ever paid for any legal advise?
 
2014-05-08 04:27:02 PM

DrPainMD: When faced with cuts, the government will always cut the most needed and the most productive jobs first. It's called extortion. That's not an economic issue.


Oh, I see.  You're arguing from a POV that exists outside of objective reality.

Carry on, then.
 
2014-05-08 04:27:33 PM

qorkfiend: Do you think pulling money out of the economy creates jobs?


Of course not, but then I didn't suggest that it did.

DrPainMD: It's the only argument he has.


In his case, yeah, but you aren't doing yourself any favors with your line of reasoning either.
 
2014-05-08 04:28:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.

Where do you think the money goes? Down some sort of sinkhole? Do you think people with jobs never spend the money they earn?


That seems to be the GOP's perception of government spending; it has no impact on the economy and is tantamount to being put in a pile and set on fire.
 
2014-05-08 04:28:59 PM

fenianfark: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.

Where do you think the money goes? Down some sort of sinkhole? Do you think people with jobs never spend the money they earn?

That seems to be the GOP's perception of government spending; it has no impact on the economy and is tantamount to being put in a pile and set on fire.


They haven't been to DC or Northern Virginia lately.
 
2014-05-08 04:29:15 PM

Isitoveryet: DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: You should have learned by now that your argument is terrible and makes no sense in a real-world where the economy has both a SUPPLY and a DEMAND.

Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.

are you somehow neglecting the whole services concept? services aren't goods? or are you suggesting that only physical goods are real goods? ever paid for any legal advise?


I guess then he is morally opposed to restaurants, since he can get the same materials from a store and make them himself.
 
2014-05-08 04:29:44 PM

udhq: Oh, I see.  You're arguing from a POV that exists outside of objective reality.


True, they don't actually cut the necessary services, they just threaten to do it.  Like when the Pentagon warns of the dire national security threats that will go unanswered if they don't get their $600 billion this year.
 
2014-05-08 04:29:57 PM
If you count contractors, I know at least 20 or so personally.

Although more than half of them ended up on new contracts in the same agency within a few weeks.
 
2014-05-08 04:30:11 PM
Yeah, this is sad. Railing against the government backpedaling to railing against the DEA.

Chicago School derp will only take you so far.
 
2014-05-08 04:30:52 PM

DrPainMD: Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.


The "minus" column in a spreadsheet is always counterbalanced by a "plus" one somewhere else.

HOPE THIS HELPS.
 
2014-05-08 04:31:46 PM

DrPainMD: impaler: DrPainMD: Preventing loss has value

And a lot of the jobs you said "produce nothing" do just that.

So which is it?

Your original assertion wasn't that the DO produce value, but because the law of diminishing returns, we have far too many employed, and we could get a much higher ROI by reducing their size (of course you're going to show your work, with citations for all the data you analyzed). Which is where you now seem to be moving the goalpost.

There's a reason for this:
DrPainMD
(favorite: economic moron http://www.fark.com/comments/8128743)

You keep posting that you've farkied me as "economic moron." And I keep saying, "thank you." Move on.


BTW, have you started reading those two books that I posted the links to?

Here are two more free epub books, written by Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek (who actually won his prize for monetary theory, unlike Krugman, who merely provided an explanation for why a country would import and export the same item... not really worth a Nobel Prize if you ask me).

Individualism and Economic Order

A Free-Market Monetary System and The Pretense of Knowledge
 
2014-05-08 04:32:13 PM

GoldSpider: udhq: Oh, I see.  You're arguing from a POV that exists outside of objective reality.

True, they don't actually cut the necessary services, they just threaten to do it.  Like when the Pentagon warns of the dire national security threats that will go unanswered if they don't get their $600 billion this year.


Or when mean ol' Barack shuts down the park just because we want him to repeal his signature reform even though we don't have the votes?
 
2014-05-08 04:33:26 PM

msqualia: DrPainMD: Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.

The "minus" column in a spreadsheet is always counterbalanced by a "plus" one somewhere else.

HOPE THIS HELPS.


stenglelaw.com

Ummm... no, there is no "plus" somewhere else. Just a minus.
 
2014-05-08 04:33:47 PM

Fenstery: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: beakerxf: Yet the sequester has not done much to affect the War of Drugs or the military.   It has, however, put pressure on those same agencies that help public safety and that are a "small" part of the government spending.   That's what happens when spending is cut across the board and not carefully targeted.

When faced with cuts, the government will always cut the most needed and the most productive jobs first. It's called extortion. That's not an economic issue.

Show your work.

Extortion.

During the budget battles, do you think the cost of putting up barriers at the Lincoln memorial outweighed the savings? And where exactly were the savings since you can walk up to it at 3am and there is no one there?


Because even though its guarded and maintained 24/7, it should've stayed open so the GOP didn't look bad during the sequester.
 
2014-05-08 04:35:47 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


Ya and people without jobs costs taxpayers even more:unemployment benefits, food stamps, lost gov't tax revenue and tax benefits for dependent care etc that kick in at very low income levels.  You have no farking clue how the economy works and you're an asshole.
 
2014-05-08 04:36:57 PM
The Sequester = The exact opposite of what you should be doing when the economy is not doing well.
 
2014-05-08 04:37:15 PM

Isitoveryet: are you somehow neglecting the whole services concept? services aren't goods? or are you suggesting that only physical goods are real goods? ever paid for any legal advise?


Where did I say that?

Why is everybody arguing what I didn't say, and acting as if they're arguing what I did say.

I shouldn't expect anything more from fark.

You can all take my lack of further posts to mean that you won the argument. I have a life to get to, and watching the monkeys throw poo isn't as fun as it used to be.
 
2014-05-08 04:37:59 PM

DrPainMD: DrPainMD: impaler: DrPainMD: Preventing loss has value

And a lot of the jobs you said "produce nothing" do just that.

So which is it?

Your original assertion wasn't that the DO produce value, but because the law of diminishing returns, we have far too many employed, and we could get a much higher ROI by reducing their size (of course you're going to show your work, with citations for all the data you analyzed). Which is where you now seem to be moving the goalpost.

There's a reason for this:
DrPainMD
(favorite: economic moron http://www.fark.com/comments/8128743)

You keep posting that you've farkied me as "economic moron." And I keep saying, "thank you." Move on.

BTW, have you started reading those two books that I posted the links to?

Here are two more free epub books, written by Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek (who actually won his prize for monetary theory, unlike Krugman, who merely provided an explanation for why a country would import and export the same item... not really worth a Nobel Prize if you ask me).

Individualism and Economic Order

A Free-Market Monetary System and The Pretense of Knowledge


Hayek's prize was for something loftier that in retrospect he was wrong about. Do you recomment people read Fibiger for mental health issues? He won a Nobel Prize!
 
2014-05-08 04:38:41 PM
DrPainMD:Ummm... no, there is no "plus" somewhere else. Just a minus.

I'm not sure you'd cut it in the glamorous world of accounting.
 
2014-05-08 04:38:59 PM
Fenstery:

Extortion.

During the budget battles, do you think the cost of putting up barriers at the Lincoln memorial outweighed the savings? And where exactly were the savings since you can walk up to it at 3am and there is no one there?


Stupid following the Antideficiency Act when there were more efficient, if illegal, ways to go about things!
 
2014-05-08 04:39:05 PM

DrPainMD: Corvus: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

But they are being productive. You are lying. Making infrastructure contributes,  making a safe drugs and food contributes to making a safe market for those items. Federal law enforcement keeps down corruption which helps commerce.

Just because you are too simple minded to understand what they do doesn't mean they do nothing.

What I've written and what you've read seem to be two totally different things.

Where did I say that infrastructure shouldn't be built, or that assuring safe food and drugs isn't valuable (altho both of those jobs could be done MUCH more efficiently)? Half of all law enforcement is taken up with drugs (and now an increasing share is being taken up "fighting" non-existent terrorism). I don't think you realize just how little of your tax dollars go to anything that provides a return on the investment.


No, I think you are.

Tell us how much of the total federal budget is fighting drugs? 80%? 70%? 60%?

Guess what Not even close.
 
2014-05-08 04:39:50 PM

SuburbanCowboy: The Sequester = The exact opposite of what you should be doing when the economy is not doing well.


Bingo.
 
2014-05-08 04:40:12 PM

impaler: DrPainMD: Preventing loss has value

And a lot of the jobs you said "produce nothing" do just that.

So which is it?

Your original assertion wasn't that the DO produce value, but because the law of diminishing returns, we have far too many employed, and we could get a much higher ROI by reducing their size (of course you're going to show your work, with citations for all the data you analyzed). Which is where you now seem to be moving the goalpost.

There's a reason for this:
DrPainMD
(favorite: economic moron http://www.fark.com/comments/8128743)


I had him labeled as a 9/11 Truther. It's nice to see he's expanded the routine.
 
2014-05-08 04:42:28 PM

DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

I'm keeping up. I think you don't have much of a grasp of what you're arguing. The DEA combats crime associated with drug smuggling in America. There is, in fact, quite a lot of crime associated with drug smuggling. Including theft, murder, and enabling criminal organizations by funding them with drug money. Crime is bad for the economy generally. Since we don't want cartels running roughshod over civilians a la Mexico we have the DEA and other law enforcement agencies to deal with that crime.

Yes, it would be silly to have an agency combating drug crime if we ended the drug war. That's obvious. But you didn't say that. You said the job the DEA was doing was hurting the economy which is incorrect. There are a lot of problems with drug-related crime and that crime can be a major detriment to the economy. So as our drug laws stand now the DEA adds positively to the economy. The drug war itself is a separate matter.

If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be the associated crime (notice how the alcohol industry was very violent during prohibition, but not so much any more). Almost every argument for outlawing drugs would disappear if drugs were legal.

And, no, there is absolutely no economic benefit to having the DEA. Every penny spent on it is wasted and hurts the economy.


So buying $500,000 of drugs from Mexico adds how much exactly to the US government economy?

So are you saying there is zero economic costs for people being hooked on heroin?
 
2014-05-08 04:42:42 PM

DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

I'm keeping up. I think you don't have much of a grasp of what you're arguing. The DEA combats crime associated with drug smuggling in America. There is, in fact, quite a lot of crime associated with drug smuggling. Including theft, murder, and enabling criminal organizations by funding them with drug money. Crime is bad for the economy generally. Since we don't want cartels running roughshod over civilians a la Mexico we have the DEA and other law enforcement agencies to deal with that crime.

Yes, it would be silly to have an agency combating drug crime if we ended the drug war. That's obvious. But you didn't say that. You said the job the DEA was doing was hurting the economy which is incorrect. There are a lot of problems with drug-related crime and that crime can be a major detriment to the economy. So as our drug laws stand now the DEA adds positively to the economy. The drug war itself is a separate matter.

If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be the associated crime (notice how the alcohol industry was very violent during prohibition, but not so much any more). Almost every argument for outlawing drugs would disappear if drugs were legal.

And, no, there is absolutely no economic benefit to having the DEA. Every penny spent on it is wasted and hurts the economy.


I'm not going to jump into the legalize drug argument because I haven't read up on it much.   I saw the logic of legalizing marijuana and had no issue with it.   I'm reserving judgement on harder drugs.

However, the DEA is not just about enforcing the drug war.   They do regulate doctors and their ability to prescribe.   Trust me, this adds value to our society.   You don't any regular Joe Q Public to have easy access to prescription drugs.   I'd much rather that doctors, who have been trained in drug interaction and safe dosing, to be the gateway to drugs.   And I also want doctors who misuse their prescriptive authority, to have that privilege taken away.   So the DEA is not completely without value.
 
2014-05-08 04:42:48 PM

DrPainMD: Where did I say that?


Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.

that's like your 4th comment in this thread & you've pretty much stayed the course with the "they produce nothing" stance.

again, i will just accept your idea that services (that produce no tangible goods) are not real goods & stop asking you your opinion on economics, jobs & supply and demand.
 
2014-05-08 04:51:23 PM

Isitoveryet: that's like your 4th comment in this thread & you've pretty much stayed the course with the "they produce nothing" stance.

again, i will just accept your idea that services (that produce no tangible goods) are not real goods & stop asking you your opinion on economics, jobs & supply and demand.


I wonder what his thoughts are on Endogenous Money Theory

http://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/bank-of-england- en dorses-post-keynesian-endogenous-money-theory/

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulle ti n/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf
 
2014-05-08 04:55:34 PM

DrPainMD: Individualism and Economic Order

A Free-Market Monetary System and The Pretense of Knowledge


Today the Austrian tradition is kept alive by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a think tank financed entirely by wealthy business donors. It is part of a broader phenomenon, the explosion of far-right think tanks in the last 20 years, funded by such conservative and libertarian donors as the Bradley, Coors and Koch family foundations. These foundations have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the creation of an "alternate academia" of right-wing think tanks, after the failure of mainstream academia to support right-wing dogma. This alternate academia comes complete with extensive media ties to publicize their research, which is why Austrians are so frequently found on conservative talk radio. Austrian economist Israel Kirzner describes the critical role that their primary backer, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), has played in the "revival" of Austrian economics:

"It was their vision which brought Ludwig von Mises to FEE at a time when he was, to put it mildly, all but ignored on the academic scene. It was through the resources of FEE, its skilled use of the tools of communication and public education, which ensured that Mises' message would survive." (6)

Link
 
2014-05-08 04:58:14 PM

Flargan: Isitoveryet: that's like your 4th comment in this thread & you've pretty much stayed the course with the "they produce nothing" stance.

again, i will just accept your idea that services (that produce no tangible goods) are not real goods & stop asking you your opinion on economics, jobs & supply and demand.

I wonder what his thoughts are on Endogenous Money Theory

http://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/bank-of-england- en dorses-post-keynesian-endogenous-money-theory/

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulle ti n/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf


will read those in a few, i actually have some work to do here, producing nothing of value and being a drag on our economy.
 
2014-05-08 05:03:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.

Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.

Do you think those ten DEA agents did that work for free? Or that they don't spend the money they earned doing that job?

Fark, do you even know how money works? It's clear that you think that all money earned by federal employees is rounded up and burned at the end of the day, never to be seen in the economy again.


The money to pay the federal
Employees comes from somewhere. Do you think it was saved from a fire and spent on DEA agents or other useless govt spending?

Or was it pulled (via taxation or borrowing) from more efficient purposes?

Do you think the money the govt spends is free? Do you even know how money works?
 
2014-05-08 05:03:23 PM

Fenstery: odinsposse: DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

Because you're assuming that government workers don't provide a service. Most businesses rely upon the infrastructure and regulation of the government to stay in business. It is vital to have working roads, environmental protections, a justice system, a well-regulated financial system etc. etc. The free market can't exist without a functional government.

Meh

The government is still working, right?

We fired one person, didn't hire some replacements and cut back on hours for some other workers.

Sounds like any other responsible organization that is not dealing with an unlimited budget.


Not all issues will be immediately apparent.  Think of budget cuts as cutting back on upkeep on a building.   It saves money in the short term and the building will still be usuable for a while, but eventually it will fall into disrepair and will cost even more to fix than if you had done preventable maintenance along the way.

But some issues are starting to show themselves.   We're having increased food poisoning outbreaks because of reduce USDA oversight and Congress didn't properly budget for VA medical care and we're seeing our Veterans suffer for it now.
 
2014-05-08 05:12:55 PM

Fenstery: Btw. IIRC there were more guards looking to make sure people didn't go past the barrier than there were ever hanging out at the memorial.

It certainly seemed it was done to make a point, not to save money.

I am not arguing whether or not they should have done it or why they did it.


That's just what happens. Memorial and park shutdowns also happened in the 95 and '96 shutdown, which are the most recent ones.
 
2014-05-08 05:12:57 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Or was it pulled (via taxation or borrowing) from more efficient purposes?


But it isn't possible to borrow your own currency you can only borrow the productive capacity of another entity.

//"Borrowing" is a weird term when it comes to a nation's monetary system.
 
2014-05-08 05:16:57 PM

impaler: DrPainMD: Do you think that the money paid to federal employees is imported from some alternate universe. It's coming out of YOUR pocket. It's lowering YOUR standard of living. You seem to think that if you work all day for a buck, and the government takes that buck and gives it to someone else, who then gives it back to you ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU WORK ANOTHER DAY, that you're better off. Well, you're not... you've just been conned into feeling good about working two days and only getting paid for one.

Actually it mostly comes from rich people who horde it AND PRODUCE NOTHING WITH IT. Rent seeking PARASITES.

By taxing them, we reduce speculative bubbles, and parasitic rent seeking, while giving it to people whose jobs keep an economy running on track, we further increase economic yield.


Utter bullshiat. That is terrible Marxist rhetoric- I'm surprised.

If anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market. People on public assistance (not SS for the most part as they've paid for that), receiving rent subsidies, EITC, etc. Also those earning lower amounts who pay disproportionately little in tax to pay for govt due to our very progressive tax code.

These people enjoy a benefit from society that they haven't earned or paid for. It might not be their fault (it's not necessarily their fault if they were born stupid), but if the term "parasite" applies to anyone its them.
 
2014-05-08 05:21:07 PM

Flargan: Debeo Summa Credo: Or was it pulled (via taxation or borrowing) from more efficient purposes?

But it isn't possible to borrow your own currency you can only borrow the productive capacity of another entity.

//"Borrowing" is a weird term when it comes to a nation's monetary system.


What? The treasury borrows dollars all day long. It's how we finance our outrageous spending habits.

"Sure, let's extend unemployment for another 6 months and undo the very modest sequester cuts or permanently extend 7/8ths of the Bush tax cuts. We'll just put it on the grand kids tab."
 
2014-05-08 05:22:22 PM

DrPainMD: Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.


Ah, the Bobby Jindal volcano monitoring school of thought.

The government is around to do things "the market" can't or won't. We ask them to.
 
2014-05-08 05:22:34 PM

beakerxf: Fenstery: odinsposse: DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

Because you're assuming that government workers don't provide a service. Most businesses rely upon the infrastructure and regulation of the government to stay in business. It is vital to have working roads, environmental protections, a justice system, a well-regulated financial system etc. etc. The free market can't exist without a functional government.

Meh

The government is still working, right?

We fired one person, didn't hire some replacements and cut back on hours for some other workers.

Sounds like any other responsible organization that is not dealing with an unlimited budget.

Not all issues will be immediately apparent.  Think of budget cuts as cutting back on upkeep on a building.   It saves money in the short term and the building will still be usuable for a while, but eventually it will fall into disrepair and will cost even more to fix than if you had done preventable maintenance along the way.

But some issues are starting to show themselves.   We're having increased food poisoning outbreaks because of reduce USDA oversight and Congress didn't properly budget for VA medical care and we're seeing our Veterans suffer for it now.


Anybody who's worked at an underfunded museum can tell you that. Take away collections funding an eventually the carpet beetles will take over. Take away educational funding and the local schools will lose interest. Take away facilities funding and mold will move in.
 
2014-05-08 05:24:34 PM
I want to know how many state and local government jobs were lost, and will be in the coming years. We are just now starting to feel the effects of this. Many of our grants are getting cut to the bone or eliminated. The 2 fed grants that I worked on which were axed: The feds kept all their program staff, and only eliminated funding to the states and locals. The feds also expressed some surprise that state and local folks wouldn't be picking up that funding, and the feds were going to lose their data sources.
 
2014-05-08 05:24:52 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.


Right, investors.
 
2014-05-08 05:27:36 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.


Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?
 
2014-05-08 05:32:59 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.

Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?


One thing we really skimp on is dealing with the inherent corruption and inside ball going on in our totally free and fair market.
 
2014-05-08 05:33:06 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.

Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?


are you suggesting that investors do so to better society?
 
2014-05-08 05:35:22 PM

Fenstery: rebelyell2006: beakerxf: Fenstery: odinsposse: DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

Because you're assuming that government workers don't provide a service. Most businesses rely upon the infrastructure and regulation of the government to stay in business. It is vital to have working roads, environmental protections, a justice system, a well-regulated financial system etc. etc. The free market can't exist without a functional government.

Meh

The government is still working, right?

We fired one person, didn't hire some replacements and cut back on hours for some other workers.

Sounds like any other responsible organization that is not dealing with an unlimited budget.

Not all issues will be immediately apparent.  Think of budget cuts as cutting back on upkeep on a building.   It saves money in the short term and the building will still be usuable for a while, but eventually it will fall into disrepair and will cost even more to fix than if you had done preventable maintenance along the way.

But some issues are starting to show themselves.   We're having increased food poisoning outbreaks because of reduce USDA oversight and Congress didn't properly budget for VA medical care and we're seeing our Veterans suffer for it now.

Anybody who's worked at an underfunded museum can tell you that. Take away collections funding an eventually the carpet beetles will take over. Take away educational funding and the local schools will lose interest. Take away facilities funding and mold will move in.

Yes. The key word you used is "eventually"

Is that one month? One year? One decade?

Besides it isn't the take everything away, it is do with less. And when times are flush again you can do with more.

I rather feed more kids than clean more museum carpets.


Unfortunately the "carpet" in carpet beetles does not mean they limit themselves to carpets. They eat just about everything, reproduce quickly, and will rapidly skeletonize mounted animals and completely shred everything else in collections storage and on exhibit. That leaves out clothes moths that are also fast eaters. If neglected for a month, they will completely destroy a few objects. If neglected for a year, say goodbye to everything. But you seem knowledgeable, so I do not know why I am reminding you about something you already understand.

The loss in prestige for a museum from budget cuts takes time, perhaps a decade to undo everything the original founders started.
 
2014-05-08 05:37:18 PM

Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.

Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?

are you suggesting that investors do so to better society?


I'm saying the return they get on their investment is a fair market return, and therefore not "parasitic".

If Burlington northern issues bonds to expand/refurbish their railway lines, the return is based on supply and demand. I'll lend to them for 10 years at 3.7%, but others will lend for less. The railway gets use of the funds, the investors get a return on their investment.

They aren't doing it for the betterment of society (although obviously in aggregate investing absolutely benefits society), much like the average joe going to his job isn't doing it for society but for the pay.
 
2014-05-08 05:39:32 PM

Fenstery: odinsposse: Fenstery: Btw. IIRC there were more guards looking to make sure people didn't go past the barrier than there were ever hanging out at the memorial.

It certainly seemed it was done to make a point, not to save money.

I am not arguing whether or not they should have done it or why they did it.

That's just what happens. Memorial and park shutdowns also happened in the 95 and '96 shutdown, which are the most recent ones.

Did they spend the money and people time to put up barriers and patrol them in 95 and 96?

And even if they did, it doesn't mean it was right or economically sound.


Yes, they did. And no, it isn't economically sound. Even if they put up no guards or roadblocks they still lose a significant amount of revenue. But government shutdowns don't really seem to be about doing the economically smart thing.
 
2014-05-08 05:43:02 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: I'm saying the return they get on their investment is a fair market return, and therefore not "parasitic".


Mmhmm, mmhmm.

How about asset managers like Bain Capital? Put a business in to hock and pay themselves with the proceeds, fire everyone on account of the debt they created and dump the money offshore to further their parasitic tendencies.
 
2014-05-08 05:49:39 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: I'm saying the return they get on their investment is a fair market return, and therefore not "parasitic".

Mmhmm, mmhmm.

How about asset managers like Bain Capital? Put a business in to hock and pay themselves with the proceeds, fire everyone on account of the debt they created and dump the money offshore to further their parasitic tendencies.


I see you get your investment knowledge from the "Robert Reich Upstairs Economic College".

Just ask yourself: if the business model of Bain Capital was to leverage up the companies, dividend the proceeds to themselves, then default on the debt leaving a worthless carcass of a company, why would anyone lend to them?

PE firms have losers from time to time but the vast majority of LBO debt is paid back in full.
 
2014-05-08 05:51:20 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.

Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?

are you suggesting that investors do so to better society?

I'm saying the return they get on their investment is a fair market return, and therefore not "parasitic".

If Burlington northern issues bonds to expand/refurbish their railway lines, the return is based on supply and demand. I'll lend to them for 10 years at 3.7%, but others will lend for less. The railway gets use of the funds, the investors get a return on their investment.

They aren't doing it for the betterment of society (although obviously in aggregate investing absolutely benefits society), much like the average joe going to his job isn't doing it for society but for the pay.


you're right.

it's unfortunate, we've become this great society not from striving for it but as a byproduct of self interest. imagine what we could accomplish if we let profit be the byproduct and instead focused on the welfare of our society & the betterment (I like that word) of the human race.
 
2014-05-08 05:51:38 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Clent: No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.

Also, the headline implies that jobs = employees, but the chart shows that job positions were left unfilled through retirement and leaving positions vacant.


Correct.  In our 20 person group we have had 3 people retire in the last 18 months and none are getting backfilled any time soon.
 
2014-05-08 05:54:39 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Just ask yourself: if the business model of Bain Capital was to leverage up the companies, dividend the proceeds to themselves, then default on the debt leaving a worthless carcass of a company, why would anyone lend to them?


Are you contending that this doesn't happen?
 
2014-05-08 05:58:02 PM

rebelyell2006: beakerxf: Fenstery: odinsposse: DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

Because you're assuming that government workers don't provide a service. Most businesses rely upon the infrastructure and regulation of the government to stay in business. It is vital to have working roads, environmental protections, a justice system, a well-regulated financial system etc. etc. The free market can't exist without a functional government.

Meh

The government is still working, right?

We fired one person, didn't hire some replacements and cut back on hours for some other workers.

Sounds like any other responsible organization that is not dealing with an unlimited budget.

Not all issues will be immediately apparent.  Think of budget cuts as cutting back on upkeep on a building.   It saves money in the short term and the building will still be usuable for a while, but eventually it will fall into disrepair and will cost even more to fix than if you had done preventable maintenance along the way.

But some issues are starting to show themselves.   We're having increased food poisoning outbreaks because of reduce USDA oversight and Congress didn't properly budget for VA medical care and we're seeing our Veterans suffer for it now.

Anybody who's worked at an underfunded museum can tell you that. Take away collections funding an eventually the carpet beetles will take over. Take away educational funding and the local schools will lose interest. Take away facilities funding and mold will move in.


And we've seen in in our infrastructure.   We have a vulnerable power grid and crumbling bridges.

Though, Colorado is doing a good job of tackling the bridge issue.  Had to add an annual $25 fee to vehicle registration to do it though.   But I consider my $25 a year well spent.
 
2014-05-08 05:59:36 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: DrPainMD: If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy?

Now try it with 10 fire fighters who spend all day putting out a fire, preventing it from spreading across an entire city. Or 10 FDA inspectors who observe unsanitary practices at a factory and save a couple hundred thousand people from getting sick and dying. Or 10 CDC scientists who notice a trend early and stop an outbreak of infectious disease, saving tens of thousands of lives.

If you only choose scenarios that fit your view that the government and its workers are useless, you'll only ever end up thinking government and its workers are useless. It's a self-fulfilling mindset that reaffirms your world view. Safe. Unchangeable. Juvenile.


If you fire the 10 DEA agents, you can hire 7 more CDC scientists.

// The only reason not to fire 90% of the DEA is that I don't want a bunch of disgruntled, violent, unemployed guys running around.
 
2014-05-08 06:00:57 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: why would anyone lend to them?


I don't think they need or care for lenders, they've acquired hired enough capital.
 
2014-05-08 06:08:41 PM

BMFPitt: If you fire the 10 DEA agents, you can hire 7 more CDC scientists.


No resistance here.
 
2014-05-08 06:24:58 PM

msqualia: I know for a fact that some hiring was cancelled or pushed back for a year at at least one agency.


And as the shut down was done at beginning of the fiscal years, which naturally coincides with a lot of contracts, it did in fact affect contractors. I know personally of a number of privately employed airplane mechanics that were furloughed.  I was about 3 days from getting furloughed because one of my contracts ended on the 7th of October, and another contract forbade me even entering the facility when no government employees were on site.  There was work to do, I couldn't do it.
 
2014-05-08 06:28:50 PM
Sequestration was never about federal employees being fired/furloughed/what have you, it was about billions of dollars in actual money (grants, credits, etc.) and services that were no longer going to people whose jobs and survival depended on them.

The  Shutdown of the Federal Government was about federal employees and their employement status. These wackos are getting their fiscal crises mixed up.
 
2014-05-08 06:31:46 PM

Fart_Machine: I had him labeled as a 9/11 Truther. It's nice to see he's expanded the routine.


Well, shiat, that would have been nice to know before I read the first word he typed in this thread.
 
2014-05-08 06:44:59 PM

SuburbanCowboy: The Sequester = The exact opposite of what you should be doing when the economy is not doing well.


Exactly.
 
2014-05-08 07:12:23 PM

fenianfark: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.

Where do you think the money goes? Down some sort of sinkhole? Do you think people with jobs never spend the money they earn?

That seems to be the GOP's perception of government spending; it has no impact on the economy and is tantamount to being put in a pile and set on fire.


Unless it goes to their district, then it is sacrosanct.
 
2014-05-08 07:33:21 PM

Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.

Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?

are you suggesting that investors do so to better society?

I'm saying the return they get on their investment is a fair market return, and therefore not "parasitic".

If Burlington northern issues bonds to expand/refurbish their railway lines, the return is based on supply and demand. I'll lend to them for 10 years at 3.7%, but others will lend for less. The railway gets use of the funds, the investors get a return on their investment.

They aren't doing it for the betterment of society (although obviously in aggregate investing absolutely benefits society), much like the average joe going to his job isn't doing it for society but for the pay.

you're right.

it's unfortunate, we've become this great society not from striving for it but as a byproduct of self interest. imagine what we could accomplish if we let profit be the byproduct and instead focused on the welfare of our society & the betterment (I like that word) of the human race.


Regulated self interest has led to the greatness of our current society. Believing that a society where community interest completely replaces self interest is possible is the error the communists made.
 
2014-05-08 07:35:17 PM

Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: why would anyone lend to them?

I don't think they need or care for lenders, they've acquired hired enough capital.


What? If they don't need lenders, how would they leverage up their target companies.
 
2014-05-08 07:47:03 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: Just ask yourself: if the business model of Bain Capital was to leverage up the companies, dividend the proceeds to themselves, then default on the debt leaving a worthless carcass of a company, why would anyone lend to them?

Are you contending that this doesn't happen?


No, like I said PE has some losers that might cause losses to lenders but it's not the business model or plan, or nobody would farking lend to them.
 
2014-05-08 07:52:08 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: why would anyone lend to them?

I don't think they need or care for lenders, they've acquired hired enough capital.

What? If they don't need lenders, how would they leverage up their target companies.


by limiting borrowing to affiliate groups & using existing capital.
this also allows them to disregard or minimize profit lost to interest AND funnels profit into fewer hands.

I think.
 
2014-05-08 09:27:57 PM
LOL WUT on DoD not implementing a Reduction in Force?  Uhhh
 
2014-05-08 09:39:26 PM

Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: why would anyone lend to them?

I don't think they need or care for lenders, they've acquired hired enough capital.

What? If they don't need lenders, how would they leverage up their target companies.

by limiting borrowing to affiliate groups & using existing capital.
this also allows them to disregard or minimize profit lost to interest AND funnels profit into fewer hands.

I think.


Using existing capital is not leverage. Leverage is borrowing funds to amplify the returns on existing capital. Like buying a stock on margin - if a stock doubles and you've invested your own $100 and $100 you borrowed from your broker, your gain is $200 (less interest on your margin loan). If you only invested existing capital, you would
 
2014-05-08 09:45:40 PM
Only make $100.
 
2014-05-08 09:56:15 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Regulated self interest has led to the greatness of our current society.


Remember how great the 40s 50s and 60s were? With little government regulation. No unions. And low tax rates. Those were the days.
 
2014-05-08 10:18:06 PM

Rapmaster2000: Yes, but it caused UNCERTAINTY.


And they fired a gazillion contractors, many of whom will no longer work for the gov because they are shifty bastards.
 
2014-05-08 10:36:05 PM

impaler: Debeo Summa Credo: Regulated self interest has led to the greatness of our current society.

Remember how great the 40s 50s and 60s were? With little government regulation. No unions. And low tax rates. Those were the days.


And fewer immigrants as a percentage of the population. And those silly brownish/yellow people stayed in the rice paddies where they belonged before they got all uppity and decided they could take part in the industrial revolution too.
 
2014-05-09 02:13:46 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: Just ask yourself: if the business model of Bain Capital was to leverage up the companies, dividend the proceeds to themselves, then default on the debt leaving a worthless carcass of a company, why would anyone lend to them?

Are you contending that this doesn't happen?

No, like I said PE has some losers that might cause losses to lenders but it's not the business model or plan, or nobody would farking lend to them.


Whether the company sinks or swims isn't what makes money with PE.  It's whether the PE firm made money on the deal.  That they sucked the company dry and discarded it is irrelevant.
 
2014-05-09 03:20:31 AM

DamnYankees: DrPainMD: Really, this is freshman-level economics.

Serious question - do you believe charity is an economically worthless activity, and should only be engaged in for purely moral reasons?


I wouldn't bother engaging him. I don't know where he learned economics, but apparently wherever it was, they have an extremely superficial grasp of the subject.
 
2014-05-09 04:00:34 AM

lennavan: DrPainMD: You can verify it for yourself. Hire a guy to spend all morning digging a hole in your yard, and all afternoon filling the hole back in. Pay him a living wage. See where it gets you.

Tomorrow, hire a guy to build you a table. Pay him a living wage and put the table in your dining room, to use for years to come. Which job added to the economy and which job didn't.

If you think that both jobs added to the economy evenly, show your logic.

So uh, which job in the economy is equivalent to hiring a guy spending all morning digging a hole and then all afternoon filling the hole back in?

It's teachers isn't it?


I actually just witnessed that exact scenario, only worse. The digger sat around doing nothing for a couple of hours or so between making the hole and filling it in. AND got paid. Now, mind you, a bunch of other guys installed a new septic tank in the hole, but HE didn't! Parasite!
 
2014-05-09 07:20:03 AM

Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: Just ask yourself: if the business model of Bain Capital was to leverage up the companies, dividend the proceeds to themselves, then default on the debt leaving a worthless carcass of a company, why would anyone lend to them?

Are you contending that this doesn't happen?

No, like I said PE has some losers that might cause losses to lenders but it's not the business model or plan, or nobody would farking lend to them.

Whether the company sinks or swims isn't what makes money with PE.  It's whether the PE firm made money on the deal.  That they sucked the company dry and discarded it is irrelevant.


"Sucking the company dry" isn't a valid business model for a PE firm.

They try to buy undervalued assets using leverage, improve profitability, and sell a now more highly valued company. Then the PE firm takes a portion of profits (as well as a management fee).

There are bad deals, where lenders took losses, but those aren't the norm otherwise lenders wouldn't do business with the PE firms and the industry would go away.

You guys' simplistic view of PE firms is inaccurate. You've been lied to.
 
2014-05-09 10:13:03 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: Just ask yourself: if the business model of Bain Capital was to leverage up the companies, dividend the proceeds to themselves, then default on the debt leaving a worthless carcass of a company, why would anyone lend to them?

Are you contending that this doesn't happen?

No, like I said PE has some losers that might cause losses to lenders but it's not the business model or plan, or nobody would farking lend to them.

Whether the company sinks or swims isn't what makes money with PE.  It's whether the PE firm made money on the deal.  That they sucked the company dry and discarded it is irrelevant.

"Sucking the company dry" isn't a valid business model for a PE firm.

They try to buy undervalued assets using leverage, improve profitability, and sell a now more highly valued company. Then the PE firm takes a portion of profits (as well as a management fee).

There are bad deals, where lenders took losses, but those aren't the norm otherwise lenders wouldn't do business with the PE firms and the industry would go away.

You guys' simplistic view of PE firms is inaccurate. You've been lied to.


Then you're hopelessly naive then. It's why many of these companies went bankrupt after Bain took them over.
 
2014-05-09 11:37:49 AM
Pain tagged out, Debea tagged in, naysayers still whargarbll. Yawn.
 
2014-05-09 12:21:07 PM

DrPainMD: Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.

Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.


DEA agents are paid to enforce our laws. You don't like the law? Then petition the government to change it. Don't blame the law enforcers. The people we pay to enforce our laws are "parasites?" REALLY?

You sound like a pot-smoking anarchist.
 
Displayed 255 of 255 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report