Time to fire 30% of public employees

[CA renter]

Wasn’t the govt paying that private civilian work force? Isn’t the govt still paying those private employers (defense companies) even now? What would happen to those private companies if there were no government money?

Would you rather have a low-paid rent-a-cop respond to your 911 call or a real cop? Would you rather have an insurance company’s fire dept (however limited it may be) respond when your house is on fire, or would you rather have the public fire dept show up (with all the resources that can be pulled from other depts if necessary)? Which do you think would be less expensive **for you** to be insured by? Which one most effective at what they do? Fire depts used to be private, and run by insurance companies. Why did they change? Do you know the history of these industries?

Would you rather have the govt build your roads and bridges — codes and all — or a private company whose sole purpose is to turn a profit?

Would you rather have govt regulation of pharmaceutical companies or should private industry be left to determine what is safe for you — without any public oversight?

Perhaps you think the private industry is full of benevolent types who favor safety/public well-being over profits, but many do not share your view.

[patientrenter]

CA Renter,

Money from the govt isn’t “extra” money that we would fail to have if the govt were not there. All govt money comes from taxpayers. The money is there with or without govt. It’s just a question of who gets to spend it.

No one doubts that the trillions of dollars spent on govt produces SOME value. All some of us are saying is that govt isn’t usually organized to be a competitive, lean provider. Consequently, we’re all economically better off to keep its role in the economy to a minimum (not zero), and to err on the side of less when there is doubt.

Yes, private companies create waste and are generally less than perfect. But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity. Or you could try central planning. Good luck with that!

[patientrenter]

CA Renter,

Money from the govt isn’t “extra” money that we would fail to have if the govt were not there. All govt money comes from taxpayers. The money is there with or without govt. It’s just a question of who gets to spend it.

No one doubts that the trillions of dollars spent on govt produces SOME value. All some of us are saying is that govt isn’t usually organized to be a competitive, lean provider. Consequently, we’re all economically better off to keep its role in the economy to a minimum (not zero), and to err on the side of less when there is doubt.

Yes, private companies create waste and are generally less than perfect. But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity. Or you could try central planning. Good luck with that!

[patientrenter]

CA Renter,

Money from the govt isn’t “extra” money that we would fail to have if the govt were not there. All govt money comes from taxpayers. The money is there with or without govt. It’s just a question of who gets to spend it.

No one doubts that the trillions of dollars spent on govt produces SOME value. All some of us are saying is that govt isn’t usually organized to be a competitive, lean provider. Consequently, we’re all economically better off to keep its role in the economy to a minimum (not zero), and to err on the side of less when there is doubt.

Yes, private companies create waste and are generally less than perfect. But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity. Or you could try central planning. Good luck with that!

[patientrenter]

CA Renter,

Money from the govt isn’t “extra” money that we would fail to have if the govt were not there. All govt money comes from taxpayers. The money is there with or without govt. It’s just a question of who gets to spend it.

No one doubts that the trillions of dollars spent on govt produces SOME value. All some of us are saying is that govt isn’t usually organized to be a competitive, lean provider. Consequently, we’re all economically better off to keep its role in the economy to a minimum (not zero), and to err on the side of less when there is doubt.

Yes, private companies create waste and are generally less than perfect. But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity. Or you could try central planning. Good luck with that!

[patientrenter]

CA Renter,

Money from the govt isn’t “extra” money that we would fail to have if the govt were not there. All govt money comes from taxpayers. The money is there with or without govt. It’s just a question of who gets to spend it.

No one doubts that the trillions of dollars spent on govt produces SOME value. All some of us are saying is that govt isn’t usually organized to be a competitive, lean provider. Consequently, we’re all economically better off to keep its role in the economy to a minimum (not zero), and to err on the side of less when there is doubt.

Yes, private companies create waste and are generally less than perfect. But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity. Or you could try central planning. Good luck with that!

[kewp]

But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity.

Somewhat ironic that you post this on a site devoted to the housing bubble; the greatest mal-investment in the history of the world.

[kewp]

But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity.

Somewhat ironic that you post this on a site devoted to the housing bubble; the greatest mal-investment in the history of the world.

[kewp]

But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity.

Somewhat ironic that you post this on a site devoted to the housing bubble; the greatest mal-investment in the history of the world.

[kewp]

But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity.

Somewhat ironic that you post this on a site devoted to the housing bubble; the greatest mal-investment in the history of the world.

[kewp]

But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity.

Somewhat ironic that you post this on a site devoted to the housing bubble; the greatest mal-investment in the history of the world.

[patientrenter]

[quote=kewp]But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity.

Somewhat ironic that you post this on a site devoted to the housing bubble; the greatest mal-investment in the history of the world.[/quote]

Ironic? Not really, kewp. The housing bubble would have been very mild had there been no government incentives to buy houses. Absent FNMA, Freddie, FHA, tax deduction for mortgage interest expenses, artificially low federal funds rates, congressional pressures to lend to poorer risks, and all the other govt measures funneling money into houses, and the bubble would never have got very far.

[patientrenter]

[quote=kewp]But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity.

Somewhat ironic that you post this on a site devoted to the housing bubble; the greatest mal-investment in the history of the world.[/quote]

Ironic? Not really, kewp. The housing bubble would have been very mild had there been no government incentives to buy houses. Absent FNMA, Freddie, FHA, tax deduction for mortgage interest expenses, artificially low federal funds rates, congressional pressures to lend to poorer risks, and all the other govt measures funneling money into houses, and the bubble would never have got very far.

[patientrenter]

[quote=kewp]But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity.

Somewhat ironic that you post this on a site devoted to the housing bubble; the greatest mal-investment in the history of the world.[/quote]

Ironic? Not really, kewp. The housing bubble would have been very mild had there been no government incentives to buy houses. Absent FNMA, Freddie, FHA, tax deduction for mortgage interest expenses, artificially low federal funds rates, congressional pressures to lend to poorer risks, and all the other govt measures funneling money into houses, and the bubble would never have got very far.

[patientrenter]

[quote=kewp]But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity.

Somewhat ironic that you post this on a site devoted to the housing bubble; the greatest mal-investment in the history of the world.[/quote]

Ironic? Not really, kewp. The housing bubble would have been very mild had there been no government incentives to buy houses. Absent FNMA, Freddie, FHA, tax deduction for mortgage interest expenses, artificially low federal funds rates, congressional pressures to lend to poorer risks, and all the other govt measures funneling money into houses, and the bubble would never have got very far.

[Author]

Posts