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  
•       •       •

1073 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2014 at 3:17 PM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report