Joe Liberty wrote:The money for their salaries is still taken out of the economy
Ghengis Khan wrote:There wouldn't be an economy without them, so it's good that they're taken out of the economy. That's where they should be taken out of.
Again, that doesn't really address the point: the money for gov't salaires
must be taken from the economy (or printed from thin air), since their jobs produce no profit. It is a parasitical relationship, by definition.
I've often heard people make the claim that there would be no economy without the government. That's patently absurd. People will trade with each other, that's simply human nature and the result of scarcity of resources. No government is needed for that to occur. Where government adds value (IMO) is the enforcement of property rights. But as the anarchists here will tell you, it can be argued that you don't even need a government
per se for that. The statement that "there wouldn't be an economy without government" is just flat-out wrong.
Back to the point: Money removed from an economy, skimmed by bureaucrats, and then redistributed according to some elite's central planning scheme (more likely, doled out to political cronies) is not a recipe for real growth. It will give you the illusion of growth and it will be very very temporary, since by defintion a "bailout" is intended to counter (hide) market forces. It's crony capitalism, it's regulatory capture...it's a lot of things, but it's not "good".
Joe Liberty wrote:and if you don't produce anything, there is no profit.
Ghengis Khan wrote:I measure benefit for society in more ways than mere monetary profit.
That's awesome, but (again) that's irrelevant to the discussion. We're not talking about how you value benefit to "society", it's about the fact that a government job isn't the same creature as a private-sector job, which cannot exist without profit. Government jobs must subsist on somebody else's profit.
Joe Liberty wrote:government isn't earning it.
Ghengis Khan wrote: Government isn't a business, so whether or not they produce wealth is not a relevant question.
It is in the context of this discussion. It's the entire point.
Joe Liberty wrote:and redistribute the rest to pay for jobs that produce no wealth
Ghengis Khan wrote: Government, at all levels, provides services to those who produce wealth, and in many ways enables them to do so.
For which they are already paying handsomely. For which they receive fewer government "benefits" than those who pay fewer taxes.
I'm not arguing against all taxation (although I am arguing against the income tax). I'm arguing that growing government is not the same thing as growing the economy. Government may attempt to control and steer an economy, but it's not really part of it.
Joe Liberty wrote: That kind of "stimulus" stimulates government, and that's it.
Ghengis Khan wrote: Tell that to the auto workers in Michigan. The auto bailouts were so successful that Romney is now pitifully trying to take credit for them.
I'll tell anybody who will listen. Of course union members will refuse to see it that way because they got pantloads of everybody else's money.
As far as Romney goes, I'm not responsible for him and I don't support him, so I don't give a shit what he says.
Joe Liberty wrote:IRS employees
Ghengis Khan wrote: Why do you want to talk about them? You'll just tell me that they're basically criminals for stealing money from productive people, I'll tell you that's bullshit because taxation is necessary for a functioning economy, and we'll be in an impasse.
I mentioend them as an example of government employees who don't produce anything. We're already at an impasse because you keep moving the goalposts.
Joe Liberty wrote:Let's talk about TSA employees.
Ghengis Khan wrote: Without which blowing up a plane would become far less of a challenge.
Oh please. It's security theater. It's an excuse to grow government power. It's an excuse to infringe upon constitutional rights. It's an excuse for perpetual warfare.
Joe Liberty wrote:Police don't protect you from anything, they mop up after the fact.
Ghengis Khan wrote: Tell that to Newark police. Their presence on the street since Mayor Booker took over has made crime decline very sharply, to the point where Newark had a murder-free month. In Newark!!
So again - You have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh good grief. This is not rocket science. Unless you have a cop stationed at your side 24x7, the police cannot protect you. It's ridiculous and dangerous to assume they do. Further, they have no constitutional duty to do so:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... .html?_r=1It's impractical, nay physically impossible, to expect the police to protect you.
Joe Liberty wrote: The same with firefighters. No home I've ever lived in has ever burned down (and even if it had); no firefighter is responsible for anything that I've produced.
Ghengis Khan wrote: So because it hasn't happened to you it hasn't happened to anyone? What is that? Libertarian logic?
You claimed that they enabled my prosperity, when they clearly haven't. You twisted my words and ran with them.
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics." - Thomas Sowell