Is the gov't an economy?

[bwolinsky]

Quote from vicirek:

Such division into "productive" and "non-productive" parts of society has its roots in communist/socialist ideology and those abstract concepts has been tried in practice in the past and were proven wrong. This abstraction does not exist in real life and in real society.

Government is an economy as local policeman, teacher, social worker, doctor and bureaucrat are also the economy. If you properly structure it and measure all its parts then you will discover that there is such think as productivity there.

The productivity is from G when there is perfect monetary and fiscal balance, which is impossible.

None of those occupations produce economic profit, or could ever.

Those positions, especially the bureaucrat, exist to sustain the private economy, and only to the extent that they are paid a wage that allows them to compete with the private citizens for the purchasing of consumer goods. They are government employees and do not produce profit, therefore, they are not part of the economy.

For there to be growth, there has to be production, and at least in those examples, (don't know why doctor's there but for the most part all of them), cannot produce anything that can be consumed or used to prosper since their salaries and whatever compensation they might receive is completely dependent mostly on the regional socieconomic background, and not as to whether they are making something to sell.

People who work for government add efficiency to society, ideally, but not production.

 

[Fractals 'R Us]

uhhh.. All I need to know is that the public sector has half the GNP going through it's hands, hosts an atheistic school system, has inner city reservations with multi-generations on welfare, provides regulators that are in bed with business, tends to get out of depressions by cornering somebody into a war and can call a drone strike on it's own citizens.

I'll be seeing you guys, thinking "southern hemisphere" since all the pollution is in the other one...

 

[vicirek]

Quote from bwolinsky:


People who work for government add efficiency to society, ideally, but not production.

These are superficial and naïve arguments based on common sense and are deeply rooted in communist ideologies that have been proven wrong.

Communists "figured out" that production is when worker is digging ditch because you can see it and profit can be easily measured by the depth and length of the ditch. On the contrary sitting behind the desk must be non-productive because you can see nothing done that can be touched.

So they were digging and digging for almost century and the other parts of the world were sitting and thinking seemingly doing no production. And who produced more? Who made more total profit?

You can find out production value for any bureaucrat and measure their input positive and negative but they would prefer to hide behind this abstract concept of non-productive but adding "efficiency" to the system. This efficiency or lack of it can be valued and measured in monetary terms.

 

[DayTrader10]

The government is an integral part to the United State's current economic system. The equation C+I+G=Y shows how government involvement contributes to the economy and its output, subtracting out the taxes of course.

C=Consumption
I=Capital Investments
G=Government Spending
Y=Output

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from DayTrader10:

The government is an integral part to the United State's current economic system. The equation C+I+G=Y shows how government involvement contributes to the economy and its output, subtracting out the taxes of course.

C=Consumption
I=Capital Investments
G=Government Spending
Y=Output

There are other parts to that equation, but I forget the format, thinkin I has the fiscal deficit offset created by wasteful government spending, which offsets any "output" you want to attribute to government.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from vicirek:

These are superficial and naïve arguments based on common sense and are deeply rooted in communist ideologies that have been proven wrong.

Communists "figured out" that production is when worker is digging ditch because you can see it and profit can be easily measured by the depth and length of the ditch. On the contrary sitting behind the desk must be non-productive because you can see nothing done that can be touched.

So they were digging and digging for almost century and the other parts of the world were sitting and thinking seemingly doing no production. And who produced more? Who made more total profit?

You can find out production value for any bureaucrat and measure their input positive and negative but they would prefer to hide behind this abstract concept of non-productive but adding "efficiency" to the system. This efficiency or lack of it can be valued and measured in monetary terms.

I don't see where it is communist to know that your government is not part of the private citizens' economy. Any and all "efficiency" regardless is still eliminated collectively through overspending, so whatever monetary 'gain' or 'loss' there might be from one individual is completely thwarted by the economic damage the deficits do to our economic production capacity.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from JamesVU2000:

There is no longterm plan to fix any if the structural problems that are causing things to stagnate

On the contrary.

Odumbo's policies of higher taxes, increased regulation and incentives for deadbeats to collect excessive unemployment rather than work + other government subsidies is ENCOURAGING stagnation.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from Scataphagos:

On the contrary.

Odumbo's policies of higher taxes, increased regulation and incentives for deadbeats to collect excessive unemployment rather than work + other government subsidies is ENCOURAGING stagnation.

Really, is it so unusual to have Labor Economics in your Senior Coursework?

Of course it is, but just because unemployment benefits are there should not immediately discredit the individual as a 'deadbeat.' Their service obviously did not work out for the employer, and so now they need new employment.

The encouragement to re-enter the workforce is guaranteed to be prolonged for as long as possible as being paid simply to find work is a lot more profitable than doing something 'productive' for someone.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from bwolinsky:

Really, is it so unusual to have Labor Economics in your Senior Coursework?

Of course it is, but just because unemployment benefits are there should not immediately discredit the individual as a 'deadbeat.' Their service obviously did not work out for the employer, and so now they need new employment.

The encouragement to re-enter the workforce is guaranteed to be prolonged for as long as possible as being paid simply to find work is a lot more profitable than doing something 'productive' for someone.

I'm referring to the tendency of those collecting unemployment to (1) not seriously look for work until their unemployment payments are about to run out + government's ever extending benefits to now, what, 2 1/2 YEARS! (2) The unemployment benefits and other subsidies are lavish enough that unemployeds would rather turn down productive employment than take a well-paying job.

That's "deadbeat" in my eyes.

Wouldn't be surprised for US to soon have a "permanently unemployed and drawing benefits" occupation.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Scataphagos:

... (2) The unemployment benefits and other subsidies are lavish enough that unemployeds would rather turn down productive employment than take a well-paying job.

Scat, I'd be surprised if there is reliable evidence of this.

If you changed your statement to read "...then take a low paying job" I'd be far more inclined to agree with you.

The problem is, Scat, that at less than $8 an hour there is no incentive to work if you're qualified for unemployment. It would be very bad for the economy if too many people were actually willing to turn down unemployment compensation to work for such demeaning wages. Capital loves low wages, but if they are too low it is not good for capital in the long run, and eight dollars per hour is too low; despite "America having been built on cheap labor."

The way to get people off the unemployment roles is to force wages to rise! If that isn't done, then your concern about the potential for a "permanently unemployed and drawing benefits occupation" may become a reality.