The economy is not a machine - it's an ecosystem.

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Yeah, IF you assume the entire private sector is one huge place and the money is evenly spread over it you may have a valid point. But reality intrudes on that rosy assumption. Tax dollars are spent in accordance with a federal budget which is created via a huge political/bureaucratic process where Representatives and Senators trade their vote for spending in their state or district or for pet ideological causes; in addition the administrative cost of the bureaucracy comes out of that. The pathological case is the half-trillion we dropped on Solyndra. Economic decision makers in the private sector allocate resources to best serve their economic goals.

"Asministrative costs" still end up in the domestic private sector. My wife gets a government paycheck, and believe me, it ALL ends up in the private sector.

Money spent on Solyndra, whatever the amount, was spent domestically; people earned that money, spent it on rent, food, etc. How much money, on the other hand, is sent to the Middle East and lost there?

 

[jaeger19]

Yeah, IF you assume the entire private sector is one huge place and the money is evenly spread over it you may have a valid point. But reality intrudes on that rosy assumption. Tax dollars are spent in accordance with a federal budget which is created via a huge political/bureaucratic process where Representatives and Senators trade their vote for spending in their state or district or for pet ideological causes; in addition the administrative cost of the bureaucracy comes out of that. The pathological case is the half-trillion we dropped on Solyndra. Economic decision makers in the private sector allocate resources to best serve their economic goals.

Well that is pretty much what the "private sector" is. It is a huge place. And no you don't have to "assume that its evenly spread".. for the fact that it ends up in the private sector to be true. Solyndra is in the private sector.. so are tons of other companies, and people. So again government spending goes into the private sector. Now a portion of it end up in the private sector of other countries.. but its still a fact that it ends up in the private sector.

 

[Bullseye]

"Asministrative costs" still end up in the domestic private sector. My wife gets a government paycheck, and believe me, it ALL ends up in the private sector.

Money spent on Solyndra, whatever the amount, was spent domestically; people earned that money, spent it on rent, food, etc. How much money, on the other hand, is sent to the Middle East and lost there?

Yeah, I get it that government has to buy stuff from the private sector and its employees spend their wages. Not really the point. With all due respect to you wife, her salary and benefits came from some other productive person who could have used it to build his business or create one, or give his employees a raise or invest it into other businesses - any of which would have been his decision.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Yeah, I get it that government has to buy stuff from the private sector and its employees spend their wages. Not really the point. With all due respect to you wife, her salary and benefits came from some other productive person who could have used it to build his business or create one, or give his employees a raise or invest it into other businesses - any of which would have been his decision.

Government workers are productive as well, often more productive than private sector workers, or even entrepreneurs.

You think that there is something magically useful about private sector jobs, just because somebody chooses to spend money on them? Here are some private sector jobs/businesses that should make you think twice about that:

Tanning salons
Palm readers
Casinos
Massage parlors
Bathroom attendant
WalMart greeter
Art critic
Food critic
Waterboy
Batboy
Professional athlete
Anybody in the entertainment industry
Anybody in the high-end restaurant industry
Barista
Bartender
Valet
Elevator operator
Doorman...

Not even close to an exhaustive list. The point is, much of what we spend our money on, once the necessities are taken care of, is simply entertainment. It's absolutely unnecessary stuff. There's nothing terribly "productive," or necessary, or important, about these jobs just because they are private sector jobs, is there?

While you might not like the way the government spends every cent that they spend, pretty much everything in the government has a rational reason to exist.

Why Capitalism Creates Pointless Jobs - Evonomics

 

[Bullseye]

Government workers are productive as well, often more productive than private sector workers, or even entrepreneurs.

You think that there is something magically useful about private sector jobs, just because somebody chooses to spend money on them? Here are some private sector jobs/businesses that should make you think twice about that:

Tanning salons
Palm readers
Casinos
Massage parlors
Bathroom attendant
WalMart greeter
Art critic
Food critic
Waterboy
Batboy
Professional athlete
Anybody in the entertainment industry
Anybody in the high-end restaurant industry
Barista
Bartender
Valet
Elevator operator
Doorman...

Not even close to an exhaustive list. The point is, much of what we spend our money on, once the necessities are taken care of, is simply entertainment. It's absolutely unnecessary stuff. There's nothing terribly "productive," or necessary, or important, about these jobs just because they are private sector jobs, is there?

While you might not like the way the government spends every cent that they spend, pretty much everything in the government has a rational reason to exist.

Why Capitalism Creates Pointless Jobs - Evonomics

Entertainment or "unnecessary" the
funny thing is that all those jobs exist because someone is willing to pay for them with their own money; unlike government jobs that we're forced to pay for.

 

[Bullseye]

Well that is pretty much what the "private sector" is. It is a huge place. And no you don't have to "assume that its evenly spread".. for the fact that it ends up in the private sector to be true. Solyndra is in the private sector.. so are tons of other companies, and people. So again government spending goes into the private sector. Now a portion of it end up in the private sector of other countries.. but its still a fact that it ends up in the private sector.

It's not a place nor doe it have a structure in the way the government does. The private sector competes for business the government is a monopoly. We control the private sector by how we choose to buy or invest.

 

[iliveonramen]

That a wild exaggeration/misleading claim. You assume that money distributed by politicians and bureaucrats is as effective as money spent by the people that earn it. First off - federal bureaucracy sucks part of it away to pay for the bureaucracy. Second the money is spent according to political policies not economic principles. Bottom line: saying "it all goes to the same place" is patently ridiculous.
]
Not sure what you're getting at - of course we're deficit spending - you seem to think that's a good thing. I don't.

The first major recorded bubble were people spending more on Dutch Tulips than they spent on a house. The idea that free markets are these end all be all of efficiency is just false.

True fact, capital during the housing bubble was channeled by well compensated financial professionals to Sub Prime mortgages that were highly rated by third party private sector rating agencies .

True fact, with less oversight and active government anti-monopoly regulation we've seen competition stifled and shrink in almost every sector. In fact, economic dynamism which is a metric on how the economic is creating new companies and changing is at all time lows. A libertarian think tank believed it was tied to regulation. Nope, they found it had nothing to do with regulation and believes it has everything to do with the huge concentration into large super firms.

I can provide a long list of failures in free markets. I'm not arguing that the government is always the answer. I think that would be ridiculous. I also think the opposite argument that government should stay our of markets is just as ridiculous.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Entertainment or "unnecessary" the
funny thing is that all those jobs exist because someone is willing to pay for them with their own money; unlike government jobs that we're forced to pay for.

If the government didn't pay for teachers, cops, firemen, courts, regulatory agencies, the armed forces, etc., face it, you would pony up some money to protect yourself and restore order. But instead of real cops, you would get mall cops. The private sector gives you as little as it can get away with, and charges as much as it can get.

 

[Bullseye]

If the government didn't pay for teachers, cops, firemen, courts, regulatory agencies, the armed forces, etc., face it, you would pony up some money to protect yourself and restore order. But instead of real cops, you would get mall cops.

wasn't arguing that there aren't essential services that government should provide. And it has a place in providing a level playing field. Beyond that they should be neutral.

The private sector gives you as little as it can get away with, and charges as much as it can get.

Nonsense. Unlike government the private sector competes to stay in business.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

wasn't arguing that there aren't essential services that government should provide. And it has a place in providing a level playing field. Beyond that they should be neutral.

But you were arguing that private sector spending was somehow better. My point was that it isn't, especially when it comes to your last dollars, which aren't spent on essentials. We are all better off when we pay taxes, as opposed to wasting that money on nonessential fluff.

Kansas is the perfect example. Taxes were lowered, and money basically pulled from public education (to its detriment), so that the private sector could "better use" that money and grow the economy. Didn't happen.

Nonsense. Unlike government the private sector competes to stay in business.

And you think they do this by giving people more than they pay for? Or by paying their employees more than they have to?

 

[Bullseye]

But you were arguing that private sector spending was somehow better. My point was that it isn't, especially when it comes to your last dollars, which aren't spent on essentials. We are all better off when we pay taxes, as opposed to wasting that money on nonessential fluff.

It's own money, not the government's. We know far better how it should be spent. Being elected or appointed doesn't endow the individual with prescience or special powers.

Kansas is the perfect example. Taxes were lowered, and money basically pulled from public education (to its detriment), so that the private sector could "better use" that money and grow the economy. Didn't happen.

What Kansas did or didn't do only shows they didn't do it correctly.

And you think they do this by giving people more than they pay for? Or by paying their employees more than they have to?

Why would they do either? bair product for a fair price. Pay more than the have to? Can you be more nebulous. Legally all they "have to" is minimum wage. If a person had particular rare skills they "have to pay" much more.

 

[danielpalos]

Tax cut economics is Worthless, if the policy doesn't pay for any spending.

 

[jaeger19]

It's not a place nor doe it have a structure in the way the government does. The private sector competes for business the government is a monopoly. We control the private sector by how we choose to buy or invest.

Yawn.. all irrelevant to the conversation.

The point that all government spending ends up in the private sector still stands. And your floundering so far hasn;t changed that fact.

 

[late]

What Kansas did or didn't do only shows they didn't do it correctly.

That's a triumph of delusion over reality.

 

[Bullseye]

Yawn.. all irrelevant to the conversation.

The point that all government spending ends up in the private sector still stands. And your floundering so far hasn;t changed that fact.

Ok, I apologize for offering complex economic concepts to the simple minded. Have a good day.

 

[Bullseye]

That's a triumph of delusion over reality.

Nope.

 

[late]

Nope.

What you have there is a fantasy, not economics.

The Austrian school is fake political science try to fake economics.


https://www.pragcap.com/understanding-why-austrian-economics-is-flawed/

The Secret Consensus Among Economists - Freakonomics Freakonomics

 

[danielpalos]

Ok, I apologize for offering complex economic concepts to the simple minded. Have a good day.

we simply need a better, "taxation orbit" using the law of large numbers, "for propulsion". A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage may not be optimum, but it is a start.

We could be raising more revenue; and the right wing could be mollified that the poor are paying more taxes.

 

[jaeger19]

But you were arguing that private sector spending was somehow better. My point was that it isn't, especially when it comes to your last dollars, which aren't spent on essentials. We are all better off when we pay taxes, as opposed to wasting that money on nonessential fluff.

?

And that assumption is false.. are you really going to argue that its better for one defense contractor to get 10 million dollars into his bank account while contracting foreign workers.

Or 10 million being spread out among my employees all going out and buying t.v's , cars, food, houses etc?

The assumption that government spending is inherently "better" for the economy than "private" spending.. is just as erroneous as claiming that private spending is "better".

 

[jaeger19]

Ok, I apologize for offering complex economic concepts to the simple minded. Have a good day.

Right.. well I would suggest that before you "offer complex economic concepts", you understand simple concepts like "private sector" vs Government sector".. and how government spending ends up in the private sector. eace

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

And that assumption is false.. are you really going to argue that its better for one defense contractor to get 10 million dollars into his bank account while contracting foreign workers.

Or 10 million being spread out among my employees all going out and buying t.v's , cars, food, houses etc?

The assumption that government spending is inherently "better" for the economy than "private" spending.. is just as erroneous as claiming that private spending is "better".

I specifically referred to the last dollars in one's budget. For those who got a tax cut, they aren't going to be spending much of that money on necessities.

So given that the VAST majority of government spending is spent domestically, that 100% of tax receipts (and more) are spent, and that the vast majority of government spending goes to the not-so-rich, I stand by my statement.

 

[jaeger19]

I specifically referred to the last dollars in one's budget. For those who got a tax cut, they aren't going to be spending much of that money on necessities.

So given that the VAST majority of government spending is spent domestically, that 100% of tax receipts (and more) are spent, and that the vast majority of government spending goes to the not-so-rich, I stand by my statement.

"last dollars in ones budget"???? whatever.

And actually the vast majority of government spending actually goes to the rich. Whether primary.. through contracts for infrastructure, or military contracts, .. or secondarily when people buy things. it all ends up in a rich persons bank account.

 

[danielpalos]

And that assumption is false.. are you really going to argue that its better for one defense contractor to get 10 million dollars into his bank account while contracting foreign workers.

Or 10 million being spread out among my employees all going out and buying t.v's , cars, food, houses etc?

The assumption that government spending is inherently "better" for the economy than "private" spending.. is just as erroneous as claiming that private spending is "better".

You are making assumptions that are not true in many circumstances.

Government spending currently means spending on our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[DaveFagan]

Came across this this morning and found its premise very interesting.

Modern computers keep track of every dollar spent all over the Globe in real time. Since this money is based upon "Faith," it operates more like a religion or a Mafia trust. Maintaining the confidence like a Confidence Game becomes the significant reality. It's seems to be about rolling debt and describing the attempted fire sale of Treasuries as "winding down" the balance sheet. You know, selling loans that you lack confidence in to someone who still has confidence or had their confidence boosted by a primo sales pitch. Just like a used car dealer selling and a used car buyer buying. Debtor economies. Debt based monies. A genuine hot potato game in the making. Ecosystems demonstrate balance and economic systems demonstrate imbalance. in our current reality.
/

 

[jaeger19]

You are making assumptions that are not true in many circumstances.

Government spending currently means spending on our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

I am not making any assumptions. Government spending means spending from homeland security and anti terrorism.. to Medicaid for long term care for the elderly.