Augie Chiausa
04-04-2005, 12:43 AM
"tanda" <anonymous@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3f1ef8a2$0$39678$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> On Jul 23 2003 1:00PM, Augie Chiausa wrote:
>
> > "tanda" <anonymous@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3f1ea6ac$0$39718$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > > Andrew,
> > >
> > > You appear to believe that any employment by the government (an
probably
> > > in the private sector as well) is good since it creates a job.
> > >
> > > If your position is correct, then the government should give everybody
a
> > > job. Full employment. The fact that 98% of the jobs would be
non-essential
> > > would not matter, at least according to you.
> > >
> > > But of course it would matter. Where would the tax revenue come from
to
> > > pay those people? Where would the goods and services come from which
are
> > > currently produced by the private economy? According to you, the fact
that
> > > these people perform non-essential jobs (I believe a better term is
> > > unnecessary or unneeded) is irrelevant. How exactly could a country of
280
> > > million plus people survive if everybody was performing unneeded jobs?
> > >
> >
> > Again, you use the term "essential" as if it were, or should be, the
only
> > criteria to determine its right to exist. I think this is a false
argument.
> > Very few jobs, public or private, could be considered essential. The
> > private sector uses profit as its criteria, while the public sector uses
> > greater good as its. Hell, we don't need public libraries, but they
sure
> > have a very positive impact on the quality of life. We don't need
National
> > Parks, but I don't mind paying for them. We don't need a coordinated
fight
> > against cancer, but ask the survivors how they feel about subsidized
> > clinical trials.
> >
> >
> > > The money to pay people performing unneeded jobs (whether in the
private
> > > or public sector) comes from capital that could otherwise be used for
more
> > > productive activity.
> >
> > Very shallow view of macroeconomics. The money does not leave the
economy
> > by magic. Instead it provides yet another consumer who purchases goods
and
> > services.
>
> No. It is completely accurate. Every dollar taken from me in taxes is a
> dollar less that I have available to consume and invest, both of which
> sustain and increase growth. I never stated the capital disappears. My
> point is that government spending is less efficient. The same amount of
> capital is invested, but at lower rates of productivity.
How good is your productivity? OK, we cut the government in half. Put
another 2 million people on unemployment. The economy goes further south
because demand decreases. Your employer isn't selling as much so he lays
people off. No meat inspectors, so more contaminated meat goes to market.
No HUD, so shanty towns start popping up again. Crime goes up, because
people will do whatever it takes for them and their family to survive. Your
investment goes in the shitter because society begins to fall apart. Then
deflation sets in. Your boss either fires you or reduces your salary.
National parks go to hell. No disaster insurance so farmers start going to
California.
Hey, that's starting to sound like the '30s. No thanks. Do you understand
how close we came to becoming a socialist society in the '30s? Fortunately,
liberalism stopped that from happening.
>
> >
> > > Thus, all such payments must reduce productivity.
> > > Taken to extreme, as in my example, productivity would be completely
> > > eliminated. Taken to the current degree, productivity is reduced by
some
> > > amount.
> >
> > If you believe that federal agencies don't prioritize their budgets,
invest
> > in productivity, and drop functions that are redundant and unnecessary,
I
> > suggest you don't know what your talking about. Every agency, if they
were
> > to meet their mission, would need significantly more funds. I suggest
you
> > look at by-pass budgets, which are wish lists. I worked on parts of the
> > National Cancer Institutes, and promise that those were not capricious
> > programs being proposed.
> >
> I don't agree with this but both of us citing antecdotes of government
> waste or efficiency will not convince the other.
You've yet to name specific programs so it can be objectively analysed the
impact of doing without their services.
> > >
> > > Less productive economic activities must be allowed to die so that
> > > resources can be released for more productive economic activities.
> > >
> > > Afte all, some of the capital that could have been used to sustain the
> > > horse and buggy industry was instead available for the auto industry,
etc.
> > > I think that was a good thing, even though some people in the horse
and
> > > buggy industry would have preferred otherwise.
> > >
> > > So it is with governmental activities that are less productive than
> > > others. They should be allowed to die so that the resources can flow
to
> > > more productive activites, although, once again, those in the less
> > > productive governmental jobs would prefer otherwise.
> > >
> > > Also, there are some of us nuts who actually like to see our tax
dollars
> > > used for a needed function and not merely as a make work program.
After
> > > all, some of us might be able to find better uses for that money. And
some
> > > of those uses would create jobs in their own way, but jobs that are
more
> > > needed.
> >
> > Since you seem to feel so strongly about "make work" programs, why not
> > provide some examples.
> >
> The original poster said he had no problem with people given jobs to
> perform unneeded services. Those would be one example.
That's an opinion, not an example. Be clear about "unneeded"? There's a
lot of jobs, probably most, that provide unneeded services. Are you saying
that "greater good" should not be part of the equation? When I visit
Antietem or Gettysburg, some GS-7 ranger shows me around, and gives me a bit
of history about what happened when and where. I didn't need that, but it
made the experience more enjoyable. So what if he's making 40K of public
money, plus good benefits. Yeah, he's unneeded, but provides value added
benefit that IMHO, is cost effective.
> > >
> > > Capital is a scarce resource. It must be prioritized. I believe it
should
> > > be prioritized based on productivity. You believe in another form of
> > > prioritization. You have no problem with allocating capital to
> > > unproductive activity. Your allocation must lead to reduced
productivity
> > > and less growth. Since you must not have a problem with this outcome,
it
> > > is undrestandable why you would not care about capital being diverted
to
> > > less productive uses. But some of us do and that is why we care.
> >
> > Do you factor quality of life issues in your eqaution?
> >
> Yes. I believe that increased productivity will benefit all in the long
> run. Thus, I want our resources utilized in the most efficient maner
> possible.
You assume that only the private sector can improve productivity. I'd
suggest that DARPA's funding of the original internet, and Al Gore's
legislation making it available to universities and super computer centers
provided an infrastructure that gave us the greatest leap in productivity
since the industrial revolution. I personally worked on cancer clinical
trials as a govie for many years (I was a contractor before that). We
developed standards that were required of any hospital, cooperative group,
or major cancer center, if they wanted our money. Prior to that, there were
20 different ways to describe certain toxicities. The efficiencies that we
achieved will not only get clinical trials completed faster, but will also
reduce the cost of drug development. BTW, the pharmacuetical industry loved
it. They used to have to back trucks up to the loading docks at FDA, where
senior medical officers (read MDs) would have to spend hours normalizing up
to 10 different time/date formats. There are hundreds, if not thousands of
other examples where the public sector provided infrastructure imporovements
to better enable private sector productivity gains.
>
> Part of the problem with this deabte is the lack of imagination by many.
> We can all see the examples of government spending. The people have names
> and faces. Thus, when I criticize a program, the retorts include
> references to these concrete examples.
What you might call a "lack of imagination", I'd call reasoned pragmatism.
I've read Ayn Rand, Hayek, and other libertarians. I just don't find their
arguments very compelling. I've also read Marx, and other socialists. I
don't find them very compelling either. Don't start thinking that because I
don't agree with your opinion, I'm lacking in knowledge or imagination.
>
> But what about the unseen jobs and growth? The jobs and growth that would
> exist with more productive investment. What about the jobs that but for
> 2.5 trillion dollars in confiscation, debt and monetization would now be
> created? Many ignore this because it is unseen. So, I am at a
> disadvantage. But, I know that I have had tens of thousands of dollars
> less, through taxation, inflation and costs of regulation, to spend and
> invest. Wouldn't this have created jobs and growth? Where is your concern
> for those people who do not have a job or increased standard of living
> because of this?
>
Again, I believe that without public investment, the private sector would
not be able to flourish as it has. Public education provides a high caliber
work force. Roads, public transportation, harbors, airports, railroad right
of ways (an old government program), and other basic infrastructure
facilitates private sector prosperity. Where is your concern that if we
followed a lassez faire route, our society would be worse off?
> If a person is underutilized (whether their job is unneeded, unnecessary,
> etc., however you want to use those terms), then it is better for society
> and the individual if they become optimally utilized. They become worth
> more and earn more and the economy grows. Sometimes that process involves
> job loss as resources are reallocated.
If you believe that IBM, GE, or any large industry is entropy free, I'll
privatize the Brooklyn Bridge which you can buy very cheaply.
>
> Milton Freidman discussed four ways to spend money.
>
> 1) Your money on yourself,
> 2) Other people'e money on yourself (i.e. expense accounts)
> 3) Your money on other people (i.e. gifts)
> 4) Other people's money on other people (government spending)
>
> He believed, as do I, that one method is clearly most efficient and one
> clearly least efficient and that there is a clear hierarchy in between.
Considering that he's on the public dole, why would that make sense. Do we
need the Federal Reserve? Or is that just make work for overpriced
economists? Just to be clear, I'm not a socialist. I believe in free
enterprise. But I'm not naive enough to believe we can do without a public
sector. Northern Europe is more or less 50% socialist and 50% capitalist.
They have a better standard of living than we do, less social problems,
better public health, longer life expectancey, more leisure time, and a
better overall quality of life. The US is more 1/3 socialist. I don't see
how we could reduce this without an overall deterioration of society.
>
> I'll leave it to each individual to reach their own conclusions. But if
> you decide that the fourth option is the least efficient, then consider
> the following.
I don't believe that. I do believe that it is a critical factor in the
current standard of living enjoyed by advanced civilizations. I've yet to
see a lassez faire society that hasn't imploded, became totalitarian, and
stayed third world.
>
> How can confiscating 2.5 trillion dollars a year from the most efficient
> method of spending and redistributing it to the least efficient method of
> spending not lead to less efficiency and, hence, less productivity?
Because without that confiscation, our civilization would not be as
prosperous as it is. Our quality of life would be less than it is.
>
> > > On Jul 23 2003 10:04AM, A. Prock wrote:
> > >
> > > > According to The Baron <x012358@icqmail.com>:
> > > > > It's not necessarily "bad". It's frequently unnecessary. The
whole
> > > > >idea of the,"government shut down", where they had to lay off the
non-
> > > > >essential federal workers. Pardon?
> > > > > If they're not essential, why in hell are they being paid with
tax
> > > > >dollars?
> > > >
> > > > I'm still confused. Is it a bad thing that the government
> > > > would pay people to perform non-essential tasks? Who cares
> > > > whether it's necessary or not?
> > > >
> > > > - Andrew
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.pokerstove.com
> > >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
>
>
news:3f1ef8a2$0$39678$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> On Jul 23 2003 1:00PM, Augie Chiausa wrote:
>
> > "tanda" <anonymous@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3f1ea6ac$0$39718$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > > Andrew,
> > >
> > > You appear to believe that any employment by the government (an
probably
> > > in the private sector as well) is good since it creates a job.
> > >
> > > If your position is correct, then the government should give everybody
a
> > > job. Full employment. The fact that 98% of the jobs would be
non-essential
> > > would not matter, at least according to you.
> > >
> > > But of course it would matter. Where would the tax revenue come from
to
> > > pay those people? Where would the goods and services come from which
are
> > > currently produced by the private economy? According to you, the fact
that
> > > these people perform non-essential jobs (I believe a better term is
> > > unnecessary or unneeded) is irrelevant. How exactly could a country of
280
> > > million plus people survive if everybody was performing unneeded jobs?
> > >
> >
> > Again, you use the term "essential" as if it were, or should be, the
only
> > criteria to determine its right to exist. I think this is a false
argument.
> > Very few jobs, public or private, could be considered essential. The
> > private sector uses profit as its criteria, while the public sector uses
> > greater good as its. Hell, we don't need public libraries, but they
sure
> > have a very positive impact on the quality of life. We don't need
National
> > Parks, but I don't mind paying for them. We don't need a coordinated
fight
> > against cancer, but ask the survivors how they feel about subsidized
> > clinical trials.
> >
> >
> > > The money to pay people performing unneeded jobs (whether in the
private
> > > or public sector) comes from capital that could otherwise be used for
more
> > > productive activity.
> >
> > Very shallow view of macroeconomics. The money does not leave the
economy
> > by magic. Instead it provides yet another consumer who purchases goods
and
> > services.
>
> No. It is completely accurate. Every dollar taken from me in taxes is a
> dollar less that I have available to consume and invest, both of which
> sustain and increase growth. I never stated the capital disappears. My
> point is that government spending is less efficient. The same amount of
> capital is invested, but at lower rates of productivity.
How good is your productivity? OK, we cut the government in half. Put
another 2 million people on unemployment. The economy goes further south
because demand decreases. Your employer isn't selling as much so he lays
people off. No meat inspectors, so more contaminated meat goes to market.
No HUD, so shanty towns start popping up again. Crime goes up, because
people will do whatever it takes for them and their family to survive. Your
investment goes in the shitter because society begins to fall apart. Then
deflation sets in. Your boss either fires you or reduces your salary.
National parks go to hell. No disaster insurance so farmers start going to
California.
Hey, that's starting to sound like the '30s. No thanks. Do you understand
how close we came to becoming a socialist society in the '30s? Fortunately,
liberalism stopped that from happening.
>
> >
> > > Thus, all such payments must reduce productivity.
> > > Taken to extreme, as in my example, productivity would be completely
> > > eliminated. Taken to the current degree, productivity is reduced by
some
> > > amount.
> >
> > If you believe that federal agencies don't prioritize their budgets,
invest
> > in productivity, and drop functions that are redundant and unnecessary,
I
> > suggest you don't know what your talking about. Every agency, if they
were
> > to meet their mission, would need significantly more funds. I suggest
you
> > look at by-pass budgets, which are wish lists. I worked on parts of the
> > National Cancer Institutes, and promise that those were not capricious
> > programs being proposed.
> >
> I don't agree with this but both of us citing antecdotes of government
> waste or efficiency will not convince the other.
You've yet to name specific programs so it can be objectively analysed the
impact of doing without their services.
> > >
> > > Less productive economic activities must be allowed to die so that
> > > resources can be released for more productive economic activities.
> > >
> > > Afte all, some of the capital that could have been used to sustain the
> > > horse and buggy industry was instead available for the auto industry,
etc.
> > > I think that was a good thing, even though some people in the horse
and
> > > buggy industry would have preferred otherwise.
> > >
> > > So it is with governmental activities that are less productive than
> > > others. They should be allowed to die so that the resources can flow
to
> > > more productive activites, although, once again, those in the less
> > > productive governmental jobs would prefer otherwise.
> > >
> > > Also, there are some of us nuts who actually like to see our tax
dollars
> > > used for a needed function and not merely as a make work program.
After
> > > all, some of us might be able to find better uses for that money. And
some
> > > of those uses would create jobs in their own way, but jobs that are
more
> > > needed.
> >
> > Since you seem to feel so strongly about "make work" programs, why not
> > provide some examples.
> >
> The original poster said he had no problem with people given jobs to
> perform unneeded services. Those would be one example.
That's an opinion, not an example. Be clear about "unneeded"? There's a
lot of jobs, probably most, that provide unneeded services. Are you saying
that "greater good" should not be part of the equation? When I visit
Antietem or Gettysburg, some GS-7 ranger shows me around, and gives me a bit
of history about what happened when and where. I didn't need that, but it
made the experience more enjoyable. So what if he's making 40K of public
money, plus good benefits. Yeah, he's unneeded, but provides value added
benefit that IMHO, is cost effective.
> > >
> > > Capital is a scarce resource. It must be prioritized. I believe it
should
> > > be prioritized based on productivity. You believe in another form of
> > > prioritization. You have no problem with allocating capital to
> > > unproductive activity. Your allocation must lead to reduced
productivity
> > > and less growth. Since you must not have a problem with this outcome,
it
> > > is undrestandable why you would not care about capital being diverted
to
> > > less productive uses. But some of us do and that is why we care.
> >
> > Do you factor quality of life issues in your eqaution?
> >
> Yes. I believe that increased productivity will benefit all in the long
> run. Thus, I want our resources utilized in the most efficient maner
> possible.
You assume that only the private sector can improve productivity. I'd
suggest that DARPA's funding of the original internet, and Al Gore's
legislation making it available to universities and super computer centers
provided an infrastructure that gave us the greatest leap in productivity
since the industrial revolution. I personally worked on cancer clinical
trials as a govie for many years (I was a contractor before that). We
developed standards that were required of any hospital, cooperative group,
or major cancer center, if they wanted our money. Prior to that, there were
20 different ways to describe certain toxicities. The efficiencies that we
achieved will not only get clinical trials completed faster, but will also
reduce the cost of drug development. BTW, the pharmacuetical industry loved
it. They used to have to back trucks up to the loading docks at FDA, where
senior medical officers (read MDs) would have to spend hours normalizing up
to 10 different time/date formats. There are hundreds, if not thousands of
other examples where the public sector provided infrastructure imporovements
to better enable private sector productivity gains.
>
> Part of the problem with this deabte is the lack of imagination by many.
> We can all see the examples of government spending. The people have names
> and faces. Thus, when I criticize a program, the retorts include
> references to these concrete examples.
What you might call a "lack of imagination", I'd call reasoned pragmatism.
I've read Ayn Rand, Hayek, and other libertarians. I just don't find their
arguments very compelling. I've also read Marx, and other socialists. I
don't find them very compelling either. Don't start thinking that because I
don't agree with your opinion, I'm lacking in knowledge or imagination.
>
> But what about the unseen jobs and growth? The jobs and growth that would
> exist with more productive investment. What about the jobs that but for
> 2.5 trillion dollars in confiscation, debt and monetization would now be
> created? Many ignore this because it is unseen. So, I am at a
> disadvantage. But, I know that I have had tens of thousands of dollars
> less, through taxation, inflation and costs of regulation, to spend and
> invest. Wouldn't this have created jobs and growth? Where is your concern
> for those people who do not have a job or increased standard of living
> because of this?
>
Again, I believe that without public investment, the private sector would
not be able to flourish as it has. Public education provides a high caliber
work force. Roads, public transportation, harbors, airports, railroad right
of ways (an old government program), and other basic infrastructure
facilitates private sector prosperity. Where is your concern that if we
followed a lassez faire route, our society would be worse off?
> If a person is underutilized (whether their job is unneeded, unnecessary,
> etc., however you want to use those terms), then it is better for society
> and the individual if they become optimally utilized. They become worth
> more and earn more and the economy grows. Sometimes that process involves
> job loss as resources are reallocated.
If you believe that IBM, GE, or any large industry is entropy free, I'll
privatize the Brooklyn Bridge which you can buy very cheaply.
>
> Milton Freidman discussed four ways to spend money.
>
> 1) Your money on yourself,
> 2) Other people'e money on yourself (i.e. expense accounts)
> 3) Your money on other people (i.e. gifts)
> 4) Other people's money on other people (government spending)
>
> He believed, as do I, that one method is clearly most efficient and one
> clearly least efficient and that there is a clear hierarchy in between.
Considering that he's on the public dole, why would that make sense. Do we
need the Federal Reserve? Or is that just make work for overpriced
economists? Just to be clear, I'm not a socialist. I believe in free
enterprise. But I'm not naive enough to believe we can do without a public
sector. Northern Europe is more or less 50% socialist and 50% capitalist.
They have a better standard of living than we do, less social problems,
better public health, longer life expectancey, more leisure time, and a
better overall quality of life. The US is more 1/3 socialist. I don't see
how we could reduce this without an overall deterioration of society.
>
> I'll leave it to each individual to reach their own conclusions. But if
> you decide that the fourth option is the least efficient, then consider
> the following.
I don't believe that. I do believe that it is a critical factor in the
current standard of living enjoyed by advanced civilizations. I've yet to
see a lassez faire society that hasn't imploded, became totalitarian, and
stayed third world.
>
> How can confiscating 2.5 trillion dollars a year from the most efficient
> method of spending and redistributing it to the least efficient method of
> spending not lead to less efficiency and, hence, less productivity?
Because without that confiscation, our civilization would not be as
prosperous as it is. Our quality of life would be less than it is.
>
> > > On Jul 23 2003 10:04AM, A. Prock wrote:
> > >
> > > > According to The Baron <x012358@icqmail.com>:
> > > > > It's not necessarily "bad". It's frequently unnecessary. The
whole
> > > > >idea of the,"government shut down", where they had to lay off the
non-
> > > > >essential federal workers. Pardon?
> > > > > If they're not essential, why in hell are they being paid with
tax
> > > > >dollars?
> > > >
> > > > I'm still confused. Is it a bad thing that the government
> > > > would pay people to perform non-essential tasks? Who cares
> > > > whether it's necessary or not?
> > > >
> > > > - Andrew
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.pokerstove.com
> > >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
>
>