mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/12/86)
David Olson writes: >>But to say the government provides no jobs is absolutely ridiculous! >I never said it doesn't provide jobs; just that they must come at the >expense of other jobs. Do you think they are free? Dammit Tim, where >the hell do you think wealth/jobs come from? Do you think they fall out >of the sky? Well, this is strange way of talking. If you look at this purely from the cash flow point of view, there's no difference between a government job and a supposedly private one. Moreover, the "cost a job" way of looking at things works to some extent in private industry too. THis simply isn't a good way of looking at employment. The Feds employ air traffic controllers. Can anyone deny that they help to facilitate the making of wealth? C. Wingate
elg@usl.UUCP (Eric Lee Green) (09/17/86)
In article <3384@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP writes: >David Olson writes: > >>>But to say the government provides no jobs is absolutely ridiculous! > >Well, this is strange way of talking. If you look at this purely from the >cash flow point of view, there's no difference between a government job and >a supposedly private one. > >THis simply isn't a good way of looking at employment. The Feds employ air >traffic controllers. Can anyone deny that they help to facilitate the >making of wealth? Wealth is produced by factories and farms, not by people sitting behind desks. Their job is the management and redistribution of wealth, not the production of wealth. As such, they are useful. But if we start having more people shuffling papers behind government (and industry) desks than there are producing wealth for the economy, the U.S. shall truly become a third-world nation. -- Eric Green {akgua,ut-sally}!usl!elg (Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509) -- Tengo lo mismo que doy y solo sirve al presente.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/18/86)
>/* Written 8:44 am Sep 12, 1986 by mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "When is a Job Not Employment?" ---------- */ >David Olson writes: > >>>But to say the government provides no jobs is absolutely ridiculous! > >>I never said it doesn't provide jobs; just that they must come at the >>expense of other jobs. Do you think they are free? Dammit Tim, where >>the hell do you think wealth/jobs come from? Do you think they fall out >>of the sky? > >Well, this is strange way of talking. If you look at this purely from the >cash flow point of view, there's no difference between a government job and >a supposedly private one. Moreover, the "cost a job" way of looking at >things works to some extent in private industry too. > >THis simply isn't a good way of looking at employment. The Feds employ air >traffic controllers. Can anyone deny that they help to facilitate the >making of wealth? > >C. Wingate >/* End of text from inmet:talk.pol.misc */ > Hey! The feds employ air traffic controllers because they have a state supported monopoly on this stuff. No feds -- and you STILL get air traffic controllers, and THEY still add to wealth. The difference between a government job and a private one is this: nobody had to threaten anybody with jail to divert the funds for the private job. Or to put it in a more bald fashion yet: the private job struck the employer as worthwhile, and the public one struck somebody as politically desirable.
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (09/20/86)
In article <925@usl.UUCP> elg@usl.UUCP (Eric Lee Green) writes: > . . . > Wealth is produced by factories and farms, not by people sitting > behind desks. Their job is the management and redistribution of > wealth, not the production of wealth. As such, they are useful. But if > we start having more people shuffling papers behind government (and > industry) desks than there are producing wealth for the economy, the > U.S. shall truly become a third-world nation. The concept that only tangible commodities constitute wealth is not useful. There's a lot of paper-shuffling going on behind desks, but there's also a lot of contribution to wealth -- research and development on production techniques, technologies increasing productivity of labor, etc., not to mention non-tangible commodities -- information, the arts, and so forth. I agree that the ratio of paper-pushers to producers is presently unfortunate, but Mr. Green unfairly represents mental vs. physical labor. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
melissa@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Melissa Silvestre) (09/24/86)
In article <3384@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP writes: > >THis simply isn't a good way of looking at employment. The Feds employ air >traffic controllers. Can anyone deny that they help to facilitate the >making of wealth? I think you missed the original point. The Feds "make" wealth only in the sense that the "steal" the wealthmaking tools from the private sector. The point, which I think still stands, is that the Fed doesn't make any wealth that would not have been made by the private sector anyway. So it doesn't ADD anything, merely moves it around (and removes in most cases due to the added expenditures necessary for doing that moving - eg. beaurocracy). For example, the Fed pays those traffic controllers with money it "stole" via taxes from the private sector. The private sector, had it been allowed to keep that money, would have generated the same number of jobs with it (and if the need (read: demand) is there, maybe even the same jobs). This will of course bring us back to the same argument of will the private sector meet all the needs of society that govt currently does (in the way of services - we're talking jobs here, not welfare). -- Melissa Silvestre (melissa@athena.mit.edu)
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) (09/26/86)
In article <1194@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>, melissa@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Melissa Silvestre) writes: > In article <3384@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP writes: > > > >THis simply isn't a good way of looking at employment. The Feds employ air > >traffic controllers. Can anyone deny that they help to facilitate the > >making of wealth? > > I think you missed the original point. The Feds "make" wealth only in the > sense that the "steal" the wealthmaking tools from the private sector. > > [paragraph of typical 'libertarian' they're stealing from us crap deleted] > > For example, the Fed pays those traffic controllers with money it > "stole" via taxes from the private sector. The private sector, had it > been allowed to keep that money, would have generated the same number > of jobs with it (and if the need (read: demand) is there, maybe even the > same jobs) Oh? What evidence can you cite to support this view? In point of fact, air traffic controllers, food and drug inspectors, etc., etc., were *NOT* being hired by private businesses, who were benefitting through reduced costs, even though they were supplying dangerous services and tainted food to the consumer. Attempts to encourage the private sector to voluntarily police themselves failed miserably throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s. The government was finally forced to implement the current bureaucracies in order to protect the public from dishonest and opportunistic business people. Here we have another case of the 'libertarians' carefully ignoring the facts of history which led up to the current system, in order to argue that their theoretical utopia is better. The dishonesty here is that they continue to argue the point as if everything they say is an obvious and foregone conclusion, and thet the facts clearly support their views. The problem is that they have *NO* facts. > This will of course bring us back to the same argument > of will the private sector meet all the needs of society that govt > currently does (in the way of services - we're talking jobs here, not > welfare). There is *NO* reason to believe that the private sector can or will do so, Ms. Silvestre. They never have in the past, and they aren't bloody likely to in the future. You 'libertarians' wish to change the way things are done in a drastic and potentially dangerous fashion. It is upon you to provide not merely adequate evidence, but rather *OVERWHELMING* evidence that your system can and will meet the needs of society. So far, no 'libertarian' I have seen, heard or read has offered me anything but supposition, and that based on an incomplete and naieve grasp of human history and social behaviour. I repeat my view: 'libertarian' is a euphemism for 'self-centered, self- satisfied, self-serving, inconsiderate, greedy lout." -- Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!! tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
melissa@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Melissa Silvestre) (09/27/86)
In article <1035@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: >In article <1194@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>, (Melissa Silvestre) writes: >> In article <3384@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP writes: >> > >> For example, the Fed pays those traffic controllers with money it >> "stole" via taxes from the private sector. The private sector, had it >> been allowed to keep that money, would have generated the same number >> of jobs with it (and if the need (read: demand) is there, maybe even the >> same jobs) > > Oh? What evidence can you cite to support this view? In point of fact, > air traffic controllers, food and drug inspectors, etc., etc., were *NOT* > being hired by private businesses, who were benefitting through reduced > costs, even though they were supplying dangerous services and tainted > food to the consumer. You missed the point of my parenthetical. If they weren't hired, then they weren't needed, or at least not needed enough for consumers to be willing to pay for them, which is the same thing when you come right down to it. The consumers through their choice of consumption indicated that they were willing to take their chances. Anyway, this is off the subject of job-creation. > > Here we have another case of the 'libertarians' carefully ignoring the > facts of history which led up to the current system, in order to argue > that their theoretical utopia is better. The dishonesty here is that > they continue to argue the point as if everything they say is an obvious > and foregone conclusion, and thet the facts clearly support their views. > The problem is that they have *NO* facts. No the problem is that you insist on defining key concepts like "demand" by arbitrary rules (like what YOU think should be provided) rather than accepting that the only TRUE demand is the "put your money where your mouth is" kind. Anything else is a load of useless talk that won't help an economy run smoothly. > > You 'libertarians' wish to change the way things are done in a drastic > and potentially dangerous fashion. It is upon you to provide not merely > adequate evidence, but rather *OVERWHELMING* evidence that your system can > and will meet the needs of society. We are far more radical than that! We don't wish to "meet the needs of society". We wish to redefine how those needs are judged so that it's economically impossible NOT to meet those needs. Of course, such redefinitions are based on a completely different idea of what it means to be a responsible adult than proponents of the current paternalistic system have. And at this point, this discussion should probably move to talk.politics.theory. > > I repeat my view: 'libertarian' is a euphemism for 'self-centered, self- > satisfied, self-serving, inconsiderate, greedy lout." Libertarian is a maltheism for "a responsible adult who wishes to make others responsible adults as well." I don't suppose you would care to define "lout" without using any of the above adjectives you already used, would you? Some libertarians are undoubtably "self-centered...louts", but then again, some liberals are hypocritical power-seeking louts who use the poor downtrodden to gain wealth and acclaim. But I'll give a liberal the benefit of the doubt until I know him better. You, and UN-self-centered, UN-self-serving, considerate UN-greedy non-lout should be able to manage to do the same. >tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" >{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 -- Melissa Silvestre (melissa@athena.mit.edu)