Mrtraveler01: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014Oh 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.
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.
impaler: DrPainMD: Preventing loss has valueAnd 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)
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.
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.
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).
DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant.
DrPainMD: People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs)
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.
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.
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.
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?
dr_blasto: Why doesn't Reason employ people who aren't either liars or completely stupid or some combination of the two.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 29 2017 03:46:30
Runtime: 0.310 sec (309 ms)