The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Ask a Mustachian => Topic started by: fallstoclimb on September 13, 2013, 11:30:50 AM
-
I'm a fed, and have been following the news with a sinking feeling:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/us/politics/at-meeting-with-treasury-secretary-boehner-pressed-for-debt-ceiling-deal.html?hpw
"Just five scheduled legislative days stand between the House and a government shutdown that has loomed for months. As of now, Republican leaders appear to have no idea how to stop it. House members are preparing for the worst. "
I just pulled together an extra paycheck's worth of savings out of our joint biweekly pay. DH is a teacher, so in the clear on this one. We *do* have an e-fund, but if there's a shutdown and I take money out of there, I'll just have to repay it, so I'd rather take the hit on the front end instead. I'm itching to dump the extra money on my student loan as per usual, though.
Here's hoping Congress gets it together at the last minute as always! And, if not, here's to being MMM. I suspect a lot of feds will be in trouble if this does happen, regardless of where policy lands on retroactive pay. So far at least, agencies are ignoring the issue. I don't think many are preparing financially. That might just be the fault of Congress for crying wolf so often.
-
Isn't this what emergency funds are for?
-
Well, when you can see it coming, is it really an emergency?
-
I view emergency funds as the sort of thing that you use when life throws you a curveball. A government shut down for a fed is similar to layoffs in the corporate world. If my company announces layoffs and I have an emergency fund why am I going to start stockpiling money when I have money saved up for just that situation if I end up being laid off?
Who cares whether you can see it coming? You've already saved for the eventuality of an time where you may need the money. It's money for when you truly need it when you either can't work (government shutdown/lay off) or when an "uh oh" happens.
-
Seems prudent to hold off on extra debt payments beyond minimums until you have a good idea what's going to happen. Then if the worst case scenario doesn't play out, you haven't really lost anything, as you can dump your extra savings onto the debt. Just a small bit of interest. The fed thing won't drag on too long. It's always a game of chicken and someone blinks and the uncertainty dissipates.
-
This is why a hefty emergency fund is an absolute necessity. You don't have to sweat paycheck interruption, sudden whoops large expense, the need to evacuate and possibly coming home to a damaged house, etc.
-
Sorry to revive an old-ish post, but i'm curious what you ended up doing and how it's shaping up?
The first thing that came to mind was "yes, and ammo" :D
-
My husband and I both work for gov't contractors. Last night (9/18/13) the husband was reading some newsfeeds and noted that the time was rapidly approaching when we'll be in this situation again.
This is one of the thing that pisses me off mightily about our elected reps. We elect them to do things like put together the budget, etc., but they are always bogged down in scoring points off "the other side" and nothing important gets done without pain.
Anyway, I agree with most of the commenters, this is where a healthy EF is invaluable.
-
I really don't feel sorry for govt workers. They make much more than any private sector worker by comparison. They are employed by an institution that is wildly in debt and financially inept. So you think the gravy train will last forever? Maybe it will...raise the debt ceiling and print more money. Whats the worst that could happen!?
I left my last job because of this pre 2007. Last I heard my boss was laid off. So if you see the writing on the wall, maybe its time to change direction? Instead of blaming Congress for not funding your sector, become a productive member of society and stop relying on other people's tax dollars and loans from the central bank to keep your life afloat.
-
I am guessing they will exempt military pay, as has been done in the past.
We aren't really stockpiling and we will be okay for quite a while if they don't. I may hold off on extra payments to our mortgage until we see what will happen, but that's really the only change for now.
-
Wow, Mr. Macinstache, would you like another glass of Hatorade?
I can't speak for the US government, but around here I make slightly less than my private sector peers (same skillset, same experience, different jobs). The pension is great, but I do pay into it, in what works out to be a 50% match (same as many private sector employers).
Next time you need a government service (teaching your children, policing your streets, picking up your garabage, fighting house and forrest fires), just remember it is performed by someone you've just described as a non productive member of society.
-
I really don't feel sorry for govt workers. They make much more than any private sector worker by comparison. They are employed by an institution that is wildly in debt and financially inept. So you think the gravy train will last forever? Maybe it will...raise the debt ceiling and print more money. Whats the worst that could happen!?
I left my last job because of this pre 2007. Last I heard my boss was laid off. So if you see the writing on the wall, maybe its time to change direction? Instead of blaming Congress for not funding your sector, become a productive member of society and stop relying on other people's tax dollars and loans from the central bank to keep your life afloat.
Troll.
-
Wow, Mr. Macinstache, would you like another glass of Hatorade?
Don't take the troll's bait. Everyone hates government workers until they want their nation defended, or their mail delivered, or their kid educated. Or a highway to drive on or clean water to drink or a functional internet or hamburger that's safe to eat.
For the record, I'm also a government employee who makes about 30% below market rates for my job, but government workers at the very low end (janitors, file clerks, manual labor) do get a better deal compared to equivalent minimum workers in the private sector. It's almost like government is trying to address income inequality or something.
Back on topic, I've already received notice to begin preparing for the shutdown. Every time it's even threatened, a million federal employees have to start making contingency plans for how to maintain continuity of operations while legally prohibited from working. I don't think most people appreciate the vast costs associated with even getting CLOSE to a shutdown deadline. Literally tens of millions of person-hours wasted preparing for a threatened maybe.
On a personal note, I'm not worried about my finances. We're far enough along our FI journey that even getting outright fired would be survivable.
-
My observations during too many years in government management are the same as Sol's. Lower level employees are paid as well as the private sector. Local governments often relied on the "prevailing wage" to set pay. Professional and management positions paid significantly less. Much harder to call the adjacent jurisdiction and survey the private employers to find out what an agricultural biologist or water chemist made than a clerk. Until recently, many government employees had much better pensions. With higher employee contributions and funding concerns, the pensions are not as big of a carrot today.
Folks I know at the fed employers are generally pretty conservative and have lots of savings. In all of the cases of couples I know, one is a fed, one is a private sector employee. They know it's coming, they are tired of the stupidity, but they are prepared.
-
Wow, love the name calling.
Wow, Mr. Macinstache, would you like another glass of Hatorade?
I can't speak for the US government, but around here I make slightly less than my private sector peers (same skillset, same experience, different jobs). The pension is great, but I do pay into it, in what works out to be a 50% match (same as many private sector employers).
Next time you need a government service (teaching your children, policing your streets, picking up your garabage, fighting house and forrest fires), just remember it is performed by someone you've just described as a non productive member of society.
Well it seems I'm getting some hate, but I'm not trying to hate on the public sector. When I referred to becoming a productive member I was speaking in terms of the unproductive, politicians, bureaucrats and the like. However, using threats of "safety" or "children" fodder gets pretty old. The problem is that a lot governments spend too much and have to ask for more. When they don't get it, they play games. Taxpayers are making do with a LOT less, I suggest cities, counties, school districts, etc do the same. Some how though I am berated when I suggest such a thing from the sacred cow.
I appreciate what individuals do, and I don't necessarily blame them as much as I do leadership. But the reality is the public sector are public servants and that's not meant to be harsh. There's nobility in serving the public but all that gets thrown out the window with the threats and demands.
-
Apple sucks. ;>)
-
Apple sucks. ;>)
Troll!
-
Wow, love the name calling.
...
Well it seems I'm getting some hate, but I'm not trying to hate on the public sector. When I referred to becoming a productive member I was speaking in terms of the unproductive, politicians, bureaucrats and the like.
This is false. What you said was
I really don't feel sorry for govt workers. They make much more than any private sector worker by comparison. They are employed by an institution that is wildly in debt and financially inept. So you think the gravy train will last forever? Maybe it will...raise the debt ceiling and print more money. Whats the worst that could happen!?
I left my last job because of this pre 2007. Last I heard my boss was laid off. So if you see the writing on the wall, maybe its time to change direction? Instead of blaming Congress for not funding your sector, become a productive member of society and stop relying on other people's tax dollars and loans from the central bank to keep your life afloat.
If you don't feel this way, fine, but don't pretend you were misunderstood.
-
MMM would be impressed with your biking skills on that backpedal, Mac.
Most federal government workers I know (admittedly all middle management or higher) make far, far less than their civilian counterparts. My BIL makes 50% less than he did in the private sector. He took the job for the security and the more reasonable hours, but it was a giant cut. Others I know have taken large (though <50%) cuts (or offers less than comparable civilian jobs) as well. So the notion that these people are suckling on the government teet and raking it in hand over fist is preposterous.
-
MMM would be impressed with your biking skills on that backpedal, Mac.
Most federal government workers I know (admittedly all middle management or higher) make far, far less than their civilian counterparts. My BIL makes 50% less than he did in the private sector. He took the job for the security and the more reasonable hours, but it was a giant cut. Others I know have taken large (though <50%) cuts (or offers less than comparable civilian jobs) as well. So the notion that these people are suckling on the government teet and raking it in hand over fist is preposterous.
I stand by what I said. No one is forcing anyone to take a public service job or stay in it, so spare the complainypants. There are advantages, if it's not the pay or bennies, its the job security, like you said. When the furlows come into play, what is expected when you work for the most unmustachian entity there is? We are mustachians, right? Does 17 Trillion in debt mean anything? Especially when Federal workers make more for the same job.
(http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46194863/ns/business-us_business/t/federal-workers-make-more-same-job/) No one is going to feel sorry for me when I complain about losing my job to company running itself into the ground.
Yes I support my garbage man, librarians, school teachers, water treatment workers and so on. We have to realize that no one group is more entitled than the other here, were all in this together.
And just here locally, 3 men, county commissioners, choose on their own to raise the property tax rates. The reason? Because property values saw their biggest drop in more than 50 years in our county. So right there is a classic example division of entitlement. Instead of being mustachian and cutting spending to accurately reflect the reality of the local economy, they just feel entitled to take more.
-
MMM would be impressed with your biking skills on that backpedal, Mac.
Most federal government workers I know (admittedly all middle management or higher) make far, far less than their civilian counterparts. My BIL makes 50% less than he did in the private sector. He took the job for the security and the more reasonable hours, but it was a giant cut. Others I know have taken large (though <50%) cuts (or offers less than comparable civilian jobs) as well. So the notion that these people are suckling on the government teet and raking it in hand over fist is preposterous.
I stand by what I said. No one is forcing anyone to take a public service job or stay in it, so spare the complainypants. There are advantages, if it's not the pay or bennies, its the job security, like you said. When the furlows come into play, what is expected when you work for the most unmustachian entity there is? We are mustachians, right? Does 17 Trillion in debt mean anything? Especially when Federal workers make more for the same job.
(http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46194863/ns/business-us_business/t/federal-workers-make-more-same-job/) No one is going to feel sorry for me when I complain about losing my job to company running itself into the ground.
Yes I support my garbage man, librarians, school teachers, water treatment workers and so on. We have to realize that no one group is more entitled than the other here, were all in this together.
And just here locally, 3 men, county commissioners, choose on their own to raise the property tax rates. The reason? Because property values saw their biggest drop in more than 50 years in our county. So right there is a classic example division of entitlement. Instead of being mustachian and cutting spending to accurately reflect the reality of the local economy, they just feel entitled to take more.
So then you stand by saying government workers are not productive members of society?
Interestingly, those county commissioners you mention aren't even part of the potential shutdown since it doesn't sound like they are federal workers.
-
Sounds like Mac has a beef with politicians who run government, not the lowly workers who implement government. It's an easy thing to confuse.
The property tax example is an interesting one and tangentially relevant to this thread's purpose. Stockpiling funds in preparation for a government shutdown is something that individuals can do much more easily than a government can. When the local economy tanks and the tax base collapses, a city/county/state still has the same bills to pay for things like law enforcement, schools, and roads. Without a stockpile or available debt, they have to cut back on operations.
So I kind of understand the bind his County Commissioners are in. People demand government services but don't want to pay "extra" for them. They don't have a big rainy day fund to weather rough stretches. So when the economy falters and people's tax bills decline, the Commissioners have little choice but to pull shenanigans like raising property tax rates. We've seen the same thing around here, and nobody is happy about it.
-
MMM would be impressed with your biking skills on that backpedal, Mac.
Most federal government workers I know (admittedly all middle management or higher) make far, far less than their civilian counterparts. My BIL makes 50% less than he did in the private sector. He took the job for the security and the more reasonable hours, but it was a giant cut. Others I know have taken large (though <50%) cuts (or offers less than comparable civilian jobs) as well. So the notion that these people are suckling on the government teet and raking it in hand over fist is preposterous.
I stand by what I said. No one is forcing anyone to take a public service job or stay in it, so spare the complainypants. There are advantages, if it's not the pay or bennies, its the job security, like you said. When the furlows come into play, what is expected when you work for the most unmustachian entity there is? We are mustachians, right? Does 17 Trillion in debt mean anything? Especially when Federal workers make more for the same job.
(http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46194863/ns/business-us_business/t/federal-workers-make-more-same-job/) No one is going to feel sorry for me when I complain about losing my job to company running itself into the ground.
Yes I support my garbage man, librarians, school teachers, water treatment workers and so on. We have to realize that no one group is more entitled than the other here, were all in this together.
And just here locally, 3 men, county commissioners, choose on their own to raise the property tax rates. The reason? Because property values saw their biggest drop in more than 50 years in our county. So right there is a classic example division of entitlement. Instead of being mustachian and cutting spending to accurately reflect the reality of the local economy, they just feel entitled to take more.
So then you stand by saying government workers are not productive members of society?
Interestingly, those county commissioners you mention aren't even part of the potential shutdown since it doesn't sound like they are federal workers.
It depends on the position, some I consider vital or productive, some I don't.
-
Sounds like Mac has a beef with politicians who run government, not the lowly workers who implement government. It's an easy thing to confuse.
I think your first interpretation is better; that he is a troll. There's no way to reconcile his statement that government workers should, "Instead of blaming Congress for not funding your sector, become a productive member of society," with "Yes I support my garbage man, librarians, school teachers, water treatment workers and so on. We have to realize that no one group is more entitled than the other here, were all in this together."
He's either saying government workers are unproductive members of society, in which case I choose to believe that he's a troll instead of a deeply offensive person. Or he misspoke the first time -- except he's doubled down to say "I stand by what I said. No one is forcing anyone to take a public service job or stay in it, so spare the complainypants."
-
MMM would be impressed with your biking skills on that backpedal, Mac.
Most federal government workers I know (admittedly all middle management or higher) make far, far less than their civilian counterparts. My BIL makes 50% less than he did in the private sector. He took the job for the security and the more reasonable hours, but it was a giant cut. Others I know have taken large (though <50%) cuts (or offers less than comparable civilian jobs) as well. So the notion that these people are suckling on the government teet and raking it in hand over fist is preposterous.
To play devil's advocate, government workers making less than the private sector may already be making a lot more than the US average salary. In other words, if someone goes from making $110K to $100K or even $300K to $200K to take a job in the private sector, that is not so bad. Likewise if someone goes from making $80K to $70K.
You mention the security of the government. Very good point! Since it's almost impossible to get fired from the government, I bet (no, I don't have proof of this) a Fed worker has far fewer months of unemployment than a person in the private sector. Over time, that consistent employment adds up to a larger nest egg.
-
Thoughtful response beltim. Free free to call names as much as you like.
Sounds like Mac has a beef with politicians who run government, not the lowly workers who implement government. It's an easy thing to confuse.
The property tax example is an interesting one and tangentially relevant to this thread's purpose. Stockpiling funds in preparation for a government shutdown is something that individuals can do much more easily than a government can. When the local economy tanks and the tax base collapses, a city/county/state still has the same bills to pay for things like law enforcement, schools, and roads. Without a stockpile or available debt, they have to cut back on operations.
So I kind of understand the bind his County Commissioners are in. People demand government services but don't want to pay "extra" for them. They don't have a big rainy day fund to weather rough stretches. So when the economy falters and people's tax bills decline, the Commissioners have little choice but to pull shenanigans like raising property tax rates. We've seen the same thing around here, and nobody is happy about it.
There's the fail. In my case if the county isn't prudent enough to make up for a 4% reduction in property tax revenue, they have no business running the county. It's absolutely financially irresponsible when people rely on their services. It becomes an issue of people paying for their waste or ineptitude.
At the same time they're setting up their own kangaroo court to generate revenue as well... it's admitted in the paper and they aren't shy about it. It's the good ol boy club running roughshod over the people and just demanding more inspite of the current economic reality. Very unmustachian.
-
MMM would be impressed with your biking skills on that backpedal, Mac.
Most federal government workers I know (admittedly all middle management or higher) make far, far less than their civilian counterparts. My BIL makes 50% less than he did in the private sector. He took the job for the security and the more reasonable hours, but it was a giant cut. Others I know have taken large (though <50%) cuts (or offers less than comparable civilian jobs) as well. So the notion that these people are suckling on the government teet and raking it in hand over fist is preposterous.
To play devil's advocate, government workers making less than the private sector may already be making a lot more than the US average salary. In other words, if someone goes from making $110K to $100K or even $300K to $200K to take a job in the private sector, that is not so bad. Likewise if someone goes from making $80K to $70K.
You mention the security of the government. Very good point! Since it's almost impossible to get fired from the government, I bet (no, I don't have proof of this) a Fed worker has far fewer months of unemployment than a person in the private sector. Over time, that consistent employment adds up to a larger nest egg.
It's pretty widely known that workers with less education are better compensated than those in the private sector, while those with more education are not as well compensated as the private sector (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42636.pdf). However, the government workforce as a whole is much better educated than the private sector, and so overall government compensation is lower, even after including all benefits (http://slge.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/BC-brief_Comparing-Compensation_12-082.pdf).
-
I think your first interpretation is better; that he is a troll.
I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. We now operate in a totalitarian forum state in which niceness is enforced on penalty of death.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/
I thought that if I maybe charitably overlooked Mac personally insulting me and all other government employees that maybe I could avoid further censorship from the mods for calling him a troll.
Let's tone it down, people.
-
Thoughtful response beltim. Free free to call names as much as you like.
I find it interesting that those only post here of mine you've responded to is the one where I give you the benefit of the doubt over a deeply offensive statement that you made.
-
I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. We now operate in a totalitarian forum state in which niceness is enforced on penalty of death.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/
I thought that if I maybe charitably overlooked Mac personally insulting me and all other government employees that maybe I could avoid further censorship from the mods for calling him a troll.
Let's tone it down, people.
I considered reporting his original comment to the moderators because of its offensiveness, but thought I'd let him clarify. There is substantial opportunity for a productive discussion here.
-
Benefit of the what? I'm not going to waste time with name callers.
I think your first interpretation is better; that he is a troll.
-
Benefit of the what? I'm not going to waste time with name callers.
the benefit of the doubt over a deeply offensive statement that you made.
-
Dude, you called me a troll. That's not giving me the benefit of anything. Last response to you, good day.
-
Dude, you called me a troll. That's not giving me the benefit of anything. Last response to you, good day.
I was thinking that you didn't really mean it when you said:
Instead of blaming Congress for not funding your sector, become a productive member of society and stop relying on other people's tax dollars and loans from the central bank to keep your life afloat.
Maybe you were being hyperbolic to make a point or had a bad day. Maybe you personally know the OP and think he or she in completely useless and unproductive at their job. Or maybe you just wrote off an entire group of people with a deeply offensive comment. I don't know the real reason you said that, and I was curious. That's why I said:
If you don't feel this way, fine
and
Or he misspoke the first time
and
I considered reporting his original comment to the moderators because of its offensiveness, but thought I'd let him clarify. There is substantial opportunity for a productive discussion here.
I am genuinely interested in your clarifications.
-
I think your first interpretation is better; that he is a troll.
I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. We now operate in a totalitarian forum state in which niceness is enforced on penalty of death.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/
I thought that if I maybe charitably overlooked Mac personally insulting me and all other government employees that maybe I could avoid further censorship from the mods for calling him a troll.
Let's tone it down, people.
Nah, he's a troll. Do yourself a favor and make with the ignore list. I enjoy this forum a lot more since I did so.
-
Dude, you called me a troll. That's not giving me the benefit of anything. Last response to you, good day.
I called you that too, because you posted an insulting, off topic rant in response to someone who came with a legit question trying to do the right thing. You were itching to tee off on bad government but chose a bad place to do it.
-
Laughing at 750,000+ people suddenly losing their income is totally reasonable.
Mr.Macinstache is so misunderstood he can't even understand his own posts and why they might be a little insulting
-
Nah, he's a troll. Do yourself a favor and make with the ignore list. I enjoy this forum a lot more since I did so.
Coming in to pile on while you yourself arrogantly troll in other threads about therapy and call it bullshit? Put me on your ignore list and enjoy yourself.
Laughing at 750,000+ people suddenly losing their income is totally reasonable.
Mr.Macinstache is so misunderstood he can't even understand his own posts and why they might be a little insulting
Tell me where I 'laughed' at anyone's misfortune?
-
Good, I hope it shuts down forever. The waste of our lives in the form of tax-dollars is in fathomable. There is an unending list of largess and an orgy of theft perpetrated against the productive American people aided by the bureaucracy.
A mere drop in the flood of waste can be found on the Columbia river where tens of men are full time employees and provided boats and gas to motor the river shooting blanks at one protected species (sea lions) in hopes of distracting them from eating another protected species (salmon). It's like trying to keep fat chicks away from ice cream.
Is that program under threat of budget cuts? I doubt it.
As there is no pity for the tens of thousands of dollars, hours of our lives spent toiling anually taken from the silent majority, to include the readers here, there shall be none for you state leach.
-
Good, I hope it shuts down forever. The waste of our lives in the form of tax-dollars is in fathomable. There is an unending list of largess and an orgy of theft perpetrated against the productive American people aided by the bureaucracy.
A mere drop in the flood of waste can be found on the Columbia river where tens of men are full time employees and provided boats and gas to motor the river shooting blanks at one protected species (sea lions) in hopes of distracting them from eating another protected species (salmon). It's like trying to keep fat chicks away from ice cream.
Is that program under threat of budget cuts? I doubt it.
As there is no pity for the tens of thousands of dollars, hours of our lives spent toiling anually taken from the silent majority, to include the readers here, there shall be none for you state leach.
Well are you a peach!
It seems some people are unable to comprehend that when they see a useless job or an example of waste, that can't be extrapolated to deduce that every government jobs is useless. There's a ton of waste in government programs, but does that means we should ditch ever single one of them? Our government is dysfunctional, so I suppose the solution is anarchy, right?
-
I think the value of the government might be a subject we want to avoid here. No one is going to convince anyone else of their point of view.
What about sticking to responding to the original question.
-
Back to the original question - Yes, I am a federal employee and I am stockpiling money. As a beginner mustacian I only have a small emergency fund. I am delaying a major purchase (new-to-me car) so that the car fund could be used for expenses if needed. Last time we went until 10pm pending a midnight shutdown. At which point I'd already been notified that as 'emergency essential' I'd have to report at 6am as usual, but possibly without pay. grrrr. I don't claim the government doesn't have waste, but I sure do hate being a political pawn. If they need to cut my job, fine- but cut it and let me go find another one.
As a side note the Federal government employs 40% of my industry so it's a bit hard to compare salary. Private sector has the extremes (really well paid and really poorly paid) and gov has the middle ground.
-
If a private company is wasteful, they go out of business.
If the government is wasteful, they increase taxes, higher commissions to justify the spending, or blame the previous party.
That said, the fear of being out of work is real whether you are public or private sector.
-
Seems like you need to create a viable third party in your country, stop the rhetoric and get people to actually balance a budget, etc.
The gravy train is hard to get off. Who amongst us would say to their boss, hey, you want to pay me $100k, but I only need $75 and that is STILL really generous. I know I wouldn't.
In the UK, a friend told me a story that when he was a subcontractor to a subcontractor doing motorway maintenance, that he had to do 'make work' for a couple of days just so the first subcontractor could bill 'on budget' not 'under budget' because if they came in at lower, next year the budget would be cut.
'Someone' needs to go through government with a common-sense broom. Oh but the backs you'd get up!
Benevolent dictatorship? Yup... better than democracy. Shame nobody'll vote for it ;)
-
I am guessing they will exempt military pay, as has been done in the past.
We aren't really stockpiling and we will be okay for quite a while if they don't. I may hold off on extra payments to our mortgage until we see what will happen, but that's really the only change for now.
If it is a government shutdown military pay will be impacted (not pension pay, just active duty). Mil pay was exempted from the furlough, not shutdown.
-
I am guessing they will exempt military pay, as has been done in the past.
We aren't really stockpiling and we will be okay for quite a while if they don't. I may hold off on extra payments to our mortgage until we see what will happen, but that's really the only change for now.
If it is a government shutdown military pay will be impacted (not pension pay, just active duty). Mil pay was exempted from the furlough, not shutdown.
Not necessarily, and if history is any indicator, not likely. Military pay was exempted from all 10 government shutdowns that have occurred 1980-1996. While it would take an exemption and that isn't a sure thing (which is why I said I am "guessing" they will exempt military pay), I am hopeful that they would do as has been done in the past, which is to exempt military pay. This is different from the furlough, but historically, military pay has continued almost seamlessly during shutdowns.
-
I am guessing they will exempt military pay, as has been done in the past.
We aren't really stockpiling and we will be okay for quite a while if they don't. I may hold off on extra payments to our mortgage until we see what will happen, but that's really the only change for now.
If it is a government shutdown military pay will be impacted (not pension pay, just active duty). Mil pay was exempted from the furlough, not shutdown.
Not necessarily, and if history is any indicator, not likely. Military pay was exempted from all 10 government shutdowns that have occurred 1980-1996. While it would take an exemption and that isn't a sure thing (which is why I said I am "guessing" they will exempt military pay), I am hopeful that they would do as has been done in the past, which is to exempt military pay. This is different from the furlough, but historically, military pay has continued almost seamlessly during shutdowns.
Word around the office is that if the shutdown goes we will get back pay (I am required to work through a shutdown) .... eventually. I don't think they can get away with making us work and not paying us, but payroll processing *will* be shutdown so getting the money could take a while. Here's hoping someone blinks first. As one of the prior posters said- public or private potential job loss/ cut is not good :/
-
I am guessing they will exempt military pay, as has been done in the past.
We aren't really stockpiling and we will be okay for quite a while if they don't. I may hold off on extra payments to our mortgage until we see what will happen, but that's really the only change for now.
If it is a government shutdown military pay will be impacted (not pension pay, just active duty). Mil pay was exempted from the furlough, not shutdown.
Not necessarily, and if history is any indicator, not likely. Military pay was exempted from all 10 government shutdowns that have occurred 1980-1996. While it would take an exemption and that isn't a sure thing (which is why I said I am "guessing" they will exempt military pay), I am hopeful that they would do as has been done in the past, which is to exempt military pay. This is different from the furlough, but historically, military pay has continued almost seamlessly during shutdowns.
Word around the office is that if the shutdown goes we will get back pay (I am required to work through a shutdown) .... eventually. I don't think they can get away with making us work and not paying us, but payroll processing *will* be shutdown so getting the money could take a while. Here's hoping someone blinks first. As one of the prior posters said- public or private potential job loss/ cut is not good :/
I'm curious how this works on the civilian side. When you say you are required to work through a shutdown, does that just mean you get fired if you stop showing up?
-
Anyone who thinks there may be anther shutdown might do very well to hoard cash for the stock market tank which will result from this combined with the tapering of the QE at the same time.
-
Anyone who thinks there may be anther shutdown might do very well to hoard cash for the stock market tank which will result from this combined with the tapering of the QE at the same time.
I've thought about selling some stocks now and then rebuying, but my policy is to avoid attempts at market timing, so I am resisting the urge.
-
Word around the office is that if the shutdown goes we will get back pay (I am required to work through a shutdown) .... eventually. I don't think they can get away with making us work and not paying us, but payroll processing *will* be shutdown so getting the money could take a while. Here's hoping someone blinks first. As one of the prior posters said- public or private potential job loss/ cut is not good :/
I'm curious how this works on the civilian side. When you say you are required to work through a shutdown, does that just mean you get fired if you stop showing up?
I'm not sure exactly, but I'm not really that interested in finding out. My position falls under 'public safety' - hence the working during a shutdown requirement.
-
I am guessing they will exempt military pay, as has been done in the past.
We aren't really stockpiling and we will be okay for quite a while if they don't. I may hold off on extra payments to our mortgage until we see what will happen, but that's really the only change for now.
If it is a government shutdown military pay will be impacted (not pension pay, just active duty). Mil pay was exempted from the furlough, not shutdown.
The last potential shutdown in 2011, the military was not to be exempted. My old boss got in an argument with one of our worthless congressmen in Nova at a town hall about the issue.
Not necessarily, and if history is any indicator, not likely. Military pay was exempted from all 10 government shutdowns that have occurred 1980-1996. While it would take an exemption and that isn't a sure thing (which is why I said I am "guessing" they will exempt military pay), I am hopeful that they would do as has been done in the past, which is to exempt military pay. This is different from the furlough, but historically, military pay has continued almost seamlessly during shutdowns.
-
Oh geez. I did not mean to start a political discussion. At the time when I first posted, the shutdown seemed likely to me but agencies weren't yet taking steps to prepare for it, so I didn't know if I was overreacting. By now, we've all gotten the dreaded time-to-prepare emails. I held back my extra student loan payment this month, and I'm glad I did so that I don't have to pull from the EF (this was a psychological decision rather than a mathematical one). We'll be fine but a lot of people won't be.
But, you know, for the record: Congress has substantially reduced the retirement benefits of newer feds, pay has been frozen for what - three years now? - my agency cancelled all bonuses last year (tiny to begin with), and, most upsetting to me, since the OPM conference scandal we now have to fight tooth and nail to attend scientific conferences, which is a real shame because we have valuable data and research information to share with other scientists. I would probably get paid a little more in the private sector. Not really sure where all the hate is coming from.
-
Oh geez. I did not mean to start a political discussion. At the time when I first posted, the shutdown seemed likely to me but agencies weren't yet taking steps to prepare for it, so I didn't know if I was overreacting. By now, we've all gotten the dreaded time-to-prepare emails. I held back my extra student loan payment this month, and I'm glad I did so that I don't have to pull from the EF (this was a psychological decision rather than a mathematical one). We'll be fine but a lot of people won't be.
But, you know, for the record: Congress has substantially reduced the retirement benefits of newer feds, pay has been frozen for what - three years now? - my agency cancelled all bonuses last year (tiny to begin with), and, most upsetting to me, since the OPM conference scandal we now have to fight tooth and nail to attend scientific conferences, which is a real shame because we have valuable data and research information to share with other scientists. I would probably get paid a little more in the private sector. Not really sure where all the hate is coming from.
I guess it's because the government is like a huge oil tanker - takes lots of time to turn around. There are no quick fixes, but the voters wanting them leads to knee-jerk reactions that don't solve the problems.
The anger is against the people who are getting all the benefits and just won't die. Not their fault! But not your fault either, and someone has to pay...
Ho hum.
Bakari's 25 hour work week, or whatever it was, would make life better, if it could be made to work. But some people get 'into' it just through pressure and being there. I know I work best when under pressure.
-
The "Government Shutdown" is a media charade not even worth paying attention to.
Much ado about nothing.
-
The "Government Shutdown" is a media charade not even worth paying attention to.
Much ado about nothing.
Can you elaborate? Do you say this because you think it isn't going to happen, or because you don't think it's a big deal if it does happen?
-
The "Government Shutdown" is a media charade not even worth paying attention to.
My household income immediately goes to zero if the charade plays out. I recognize that it's all political theater, but it's political theater that has a very real impact on my family.
But, you know, for the record: Congress has substantially reduced the retirement benefits of newer feds, pay has been frozen for what - three years now? - my agency cancelled all bonuses last year (tiny to begin with)
I don't even so much mind the ongoing pay freeze and retirement benefit reductions so much as I mind the underlying message that motivates them: your service is not valued. It's difficult for managers to motivate a workforce that has so clearly been told that what they do doesn't matter, that no matter how hard they work or how they good they are at their jobs, they will never get a raise and worse yet, people including their elected representatives will spit on them for doing their jobs.
have to fight tooth and nail to attend scientific conferences, which is a real shame
As a federal scientist, this part really peeves me. Sharing the results of our research is one of the prime functions of a scientist, how can you forbid that? Do you tell firefighters that the budget is tight, so they aren't allowed to put water on fires anymore? Isn't there a more cost effective way to reduce budgets, say an across the board cut to all operations? (oh wait we already have that too.)
As if federal travel had ANY bearing on the federal budget. NASA spends more money on PR in a year than my entire agency spends for all costs together, travel included, and NASA isn't even very big. The travel restrictions are also pure political theater, motivated by highly publicized scandals that have nothing to do with the people actually being punished. It's the worst sort of bureaucractic bullshit.
-
The "Government Shutdown" is a media charade not even worth paying attention to.
My household income immediately goes to zero if the charade plays out. I recognize that it's all political theater, but it's political theater that has a very real impact on my family.
But, you know, for the record: Congress has substantially reduced the retirement benefits of newer feds, pay has been frozen for what - three years now? - my agency cancelled all bonuses last year (tiny to begin with)
I don't even so much mind the ongoing pay freeze and retirement benefit reductions so much as I mind the underlying message that motivates them: your service is not valued. It's difficult for managers to motivate a workforce that has so clearly been told that what they do doesn't matter, that no matter how hard they work or how they good they are at their jobs, they will never get a raise and worse yet, people including their elected representatives will spit on them for doing their jobs.
have to fight tooth and nail to attend scientific conferences, which is a real shame
As a federal scientist, this part really peeves me. Sharing the results of our research is one of the prime functions of a scientist, how can you forbid that? Do you tell firefighters that the budget is tight, so they aren't allowed to put water on fires anymore? Isn't there a more cost effective way to reduce budgets, say an across the board cut to all operations? (oh wait we already have that too.)
As if federal travel had ANY bearing on the federal budget. NASA spends more money on PR in a year than my entire agency spends for all costs together, travel included, and NASA isn't even very big. The travel restrictions are also pure political theater, motivated by highly publicized scandals that have nothing to do with the people actually being punished. It's the worst sort of bureaucractic bullshit.
+1000
-
Unless the filibusters are cancelled, we're already down to the wire. There's no such thing as filibuster-proof when the Senate is on a tight enough deadline. This one is still doable, but not by much:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/23/theres-much-less-time-to-avoid-a-government-shutdown-than-you-think/
It's brewing up to be another white-knuckler.
-
The "Government Shutdown" is a media charade not even worth paying attention to.
My household income immediately goes to zero if the charade plays out. I recognize that it's all political theater, but it's political theater that has a very real impact on my family.
But, you know, for the record: Congress has substantially reduced the retirement benefits of newer feds, pay has been frozen for what - three years now? - my agency cancelled all bonuses last year (tiny to begin with)
I don't even so much mind the ongoing pay freeze and retirement benefit reductions so much as I mind the underlying message that motivates them: your service is not valued. It's difficult for managers to motivate a workforce that has so clearly been told that what they do doesn't matter, that no matter how hard they work or how they good they are at their jobs, they will never get a raise and worse yet, people including their elected representatives will spit on them for doing their jobs.
have to fight tooth and nail to attend scientific conferences, which is a real shame
As a federal scientist, this part really peeves me. Sharing the results of our research is one of the prime functions of a scientist, how can you forbid that? Do you tell firefighters that the budget is tight, so they aren't allowed to put water on fires anymore? Isn't there a more cost effective way to reduce budgets, say an across the board cut to all operations? (oh wait we already have that too.)
As if federal travel had ANY bearing on the federal budget. NASA spends more money on PR in a year than my entire agency spends for all costs together, travel included, and NASA isn't even very big. The travel restrictions are also pure political theater, motivated by highly publicized scandals that have nothing to do with the people actually being punished. It's the worst sort of bureaucractic bullshit.
No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.
-
The "Government Shutdown" is a media charade not even worth paying attention to.
My household income immediately goes to zero if the charade plays out. I recognize that it's all political theater, but it's political theater that has a very real impact on my family.
But, you know, for the record: Congress has substantially reduced the retirement benefits of newer feds, pay has been frozen for what - three years now? - my agency cancelled all bonuses last year (tiny to begin with)
I don't even so much mind the ongoing pay freeze and retirement benefit reductions so much as I mind the underlying message that motivates them: your service is not valued. It's difficult for managers to motivate a workforce that has so clearly been told that what they do doesn't matter, that no matter how hard they work or how they good they are at their jobs, they will never get a raise and worse yet, people including their elected representatives will spit on them for doing their jobs.
have to fight tooth and nail to attend scientific conferences, which is a real shame
As a federal scientist, this part really peeves me. Sharing the results of our research is one of the prime functions of a scientist, how can you forbid that? Do you tell firefighters that the budget is tight, so they aren't allowed to put water on fires anymore? Isn't there a more cost effective way to reduce budgets, say an across the board cut to all operations? (oh wait we already have that too.)
As if federal travel had ANY bearing on the federal budget. NASA spends more money on PR in a year than my entire agency spends for all costs together, travel included, and NASA isn't even very big. The travel restrictions are also pure political theater, motivated by highly publicized scandals that have nothing to do with the people actually being punished. It's the worst sort of bureaucractic bullshit.
No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.
Pareto principle. We actually have numbers and data to support Sol's point rather than seemingly meaningful sayings which add nothing to the any point.
-
Pareto principle. We actually have numbers and data to support Sol's point rather than seemingly meaningful sayings which add nothing to the any point.
Agreed.
sol, johnjm22, and all of the other federal employees: thanks so much for all of the work that you do!
Thanks especially to the scientists! Advancement cannot come without increased knowledge. I hope that sharing your discoveries will be encouraged soon.
-
It's the worst sort of bureaucractic bullshit.
I would think that is par for the course within almost any area of the public sector.
How do you think the taxpayer feels when they read stories about the Feds spending $2.2 million dollars to study lesbians obesity (http://freebeacon.com/feds-spending-2-2-million-to-study-lesbian-obesity/)?
If a private company is wasteful, they go out of business.
If the government is wasteful, they increase taxes, higher commissions to justify the spending, or blame the previous party.
That said, the fear of being out of work is real whether you are public or private sector.
+1001
-
It's the worst sort of bureaucractic bullshit.
I would think that is par for the course within almost any area of the public sector.
Generally speaking, I find working within the federal bureaucracy to be annoying and sometimes cumbersome, but usually manageable. There's a lot of extra paperwork and documentation, and congressionally-mandated but otherwise useless online training courses to take, but usually you're allowed to do your job as long as you meet your timelines and stay under budget.
But the travel restrictions are just dumb. There were some bad apples in one agency who totally defrauded the government, and I support firing those people and even recouping the lost funds from their personal accounts. But to then turn around and punish 2 million other federal employees, who had nothing to do with those few bad apples, is obviously a political ploy to appease the angry mobs and not in any way related to the problem at hand.
Imagine some punk kid from your town steals a car. Rather than put him in jail and return the car, the city council decides that everyone in town is henceforth limited to 1.5 miles of driving per week. You have to continue paying for your car insurance and maintenance, you're just limited in how much you can drive. That's about the closest analogy I can think of to the way they've handled the federal travel scandals. It doesn't address the problem and it hurts people who haven't done anything wrong, but oh boy does it play well in the headlines.
How do you think the taxpayer feels when they read stories about the Feds spending $2.2 million dollars to study lesbians obesity (http://freebeacon.com/feds-spending-2-2-million-to-study-lesbian-obesity/)?
I imagine that people who have no interest in obesity research are pretty pissed off about it. I bet some folks are also annoyed that the government is trying to cure cancer, is conducting a war, is monitoring citizen's emails, is regulating pollution limits, is reforming schools, and is building space probes. The US government is like the most diversified company in the world, and there's always going to be something to hate in their business plan.
Personally, I really hate that the government is giving 40 billion dollars per year to the oil and gas industry, consistently the most profitable industry on the planet and simultaneously the largest recipient of government tax breaks and benefits. I think that's straight up fraud, stealing from the American taxpayer to line the pockets or corporate titans. And it pisses me off way more than any little 2 million dollar obesity study ever could. Just to help you out with the math, that's 20,000 times the amount you're upset about, taken from taxpayers and given to Chevron and Exxon and Shell. Twenty thousand times as much. Per year.
And even that 40 billion is small change in the grand scheme of things. We spend roughly seven hundred billion dollars on national defense, another seven hundred billion on medicare, and another 700 billion on social security. As ridiculous as the 40 billion oil and gas industry subsidy is, we could double it by only cutting those three programs by less than 2%.
And that 2 million dollar obesity study? Suddenly it's a rounding error. Your calculator doesn't have enough decimal places for it to even show up. Government is huge, and punishing workers with pay freezes or restricting employee travel is not the way to balance the budget. We need significant structural reforms to the things we actually spend money on, not headline-making publicity stunts (like a shutdown) to trim a few million here and there.
-
Personally, I really hate that the government is giving 40 billion dollars per year to the oil and gas industry, consistently the most profitable industry on the planet and simultaneously the largest recipient of government tax breaks and benefits. I think that's straight up fraud, stealing from the American taxpayer to line the pockets or corporate titans. And it pisses me off way more than any little 2 million dollar obesity study ever could. Just to help you out with the math, that's 20,000 times the amount you're upset about, taken from taxpayers and given to Chevron and Exxon and Shell. Twenty thousand times as much. Per year.
What? Any reference? Mind you that stealing less in taxes is NOT "giving" money. Also at least 90% of the population is alive due to oil/gas.
-
Personally, I really hate that the government is giving 40 billion dollars per year to the oil and gas industry, consistently the most profitable industry on the planet and simultaneously the largest recipient of government tax breaks and benefits. I think that's straight up fraud, stealing from the American taxpayer to line the pockets or corporate titans. And it pisses me off way more than any little 2 million dollar obesity study ever could. Just to help you out with the math, that's 20,000 times the amount you're upset about, taken from taxpayers and given to Chevron and Exxon and Shell. Twenty thousand times as much. Per year.
What? Any reference? Mind you that stealing less in taxes is NOT "giving" money. Also at least 90% of the population is alive due to oil/gas.
Your claim may also need a citation. :)
One note before I continue, when you approach taxes as stealing we may already have a bad conversation starter as you may not be able to move far enough away from that position to keep an open mind. Of course I may also have that problem so pot black and glass house hoopla.
That being said, subsidies are indeed giving money. Since government budgets are frequently analogized to a household budget I'll use that (poor) analogy to demonstrate why. Taxes are always demonstrated as part of the income equation to that household budget analogy. If I decide to let someone else keep my money instead of letting them pay me I am indeed giving them that money.
Outside of that I did find a study which, although can't support 40 billion per year to those industries, does show 18.3 billion from 2002 to 2008 direct payments to those industries. That's an average of 2.6 billion a year of direct payments which go into the pockets of the oil, gas, and coal companies. http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf page 13. Fun little nuggets in that, did you know coal companies are supposed to have an excise tax on them to help pay for coal miners who get black lung disease? And if that excise tax isn't large enough to cover that amount that instead of the coal companies being on the hook we pay for it through taxes? But that's cool. At least my coal is cheap and the company doesn't have to have the direct burden of caring for that which they've been a cause of.
-
My household income immediately goes to zero if the charade plays out. I recognize that it's all political theater, but it's political theater that has a very real impact on my family.
Can you elaborate? Do you say this because you think it isn't going to happen, or because you don't think it's a big deal if it does happen?
I agree that a Federal Government shutdown would have an economic impact, I just don't believe it will happen (at least not on a significant scale).
Despite what they say, Republicans are profligate spenders just like Democrats. At the end of the day, both parties have interest groups in their pockets riding the government gravy train (I happen to work for one).
-
No. I'm paid by a federal grant... but I can't see any government shutdown lasting longer than my "emergency fund" of clean credit cards with low/no interest advances. Meaning, I can't see it lasting for more than a week, if even.
Too many congressman have too many constituents with government jobs. I can't believe the sequester even went through though, so what do I know.
-
It's the worst sort of bureaucractic bullshit.
I would think that is par for the course within almost any area of the public sector.
Generally speaking, I find working within the federal bureaucracy to be annoying and sometimes cumbersome, but usually manageable. There's a lot of extra paperwork and documentation, and congressionally-mandated but otherwise useless online training courses to take, but usually you're allowed to do your job as long as you meet your timelines and stay under budget.
But the travel restrictions are just dumb. There were some bad apples in one agency who totally defrauded the government, and I support firing those people and even recouping the lost funds from their personal accounts. But to then turn around and punish 2 million other federal employees, who had nothing to do with those few bad apples, is obviously a political ploy to appease the angry mobs and not in any way related to the problem at hand.
Imagine some punk kid from your town steals a car. Rather than put him in jail and return the car, the city council decides that everyone in town is henceforth limited to 1.5 miles of driving per week. You have to continue paying for your car insurance and maintenance, you're just limited in how much you can drive. That's about the closest analogy I can think of to the way they've handled the federal travel scandals. It doesn't address the problem and it hurts people who haven't done anything wrong, but oh boy does it play well in the headlines.
How do you think the taxpayer feels when they read stories about the Feds spending $2.2 million dollars to study lesbians obesity (http://freebeacon.com/feds-spending-2-2-million-to-study-lesbian-obesity/)?
I imagine that people who have no interest in obesity research are pretty pissed off about it. I bet some folks are also annoyed that the government is trying to cure cancer, is conducting a war, is monitoring citizen's emails, is regulating pollution limits, is reforming schools, and is building space probes. The US government is like the most diversified company in the world, and there's always going to be something to hate in their business plan.
Personally, I really hate that the government is giving 40 billion dollars per year to the oil and gas industry, consistently the most profitable industry on the planet and simultaneously the largest recipient of government tax breaks and benefits. I think that's straight up fraud, stealing from the American taxpayer to line the pockets or corporate titans. And it pisses me off way more than any little 2 million dollar obesity study ever could. Just to help you out with the math, that's 20,000 times the amount you're upset about, taken from taxpayers and given to Chevron and Exxon and Shell. Twenty thousand times as much. Per year.
And even that 40 billion is small change in the grand scheme of things. We spend roughly seven hundred billion dollars on national defense, another seven hundred billion on medicare, and another 700 billion on social security. As ridiculous as the 40 billion oil and gas industry subsidy is, we could double it by only cutting those three programs by less than 2%.
And that 2 million dollar obesity study? Suddenly it's a rounding error. Your calculator doesn't have enough decimal places for it to even show up. Government is huge, and punishing workers with pay freezes or restricting employee travel is not the way to balance the budget. We need significant structural reforms to the things we actually spend money on, not headline-making publicity stunts (like a shutdown) to trim a few million here and there.
So would you be upset if there was a 2 million govt study on eating habits of straight males?
All I'm hearing is you ranting about the govt not picking the winners you want it to.
-
Okay, I am making a disclaimer. I know that I am probably biased in my opinion. My husband is a software engineer who left his corporate job 5 years ago and took a steep pay cut (he's making much less than sol) in order to work at a university. He wanted to feel that his career was doing something good for society, and by taking this job, he was able to help with advancing scientific research. He works mostly with astronomers and nuclear physicists (had a tiny role to play in the confirmation of the Higgs particle, for which I am so proud of him). He will not be affected by the possible shut down coming up, but much of his work is paid for by grants from the DOE and NSF.
If people are afraid that research projects are ridiculous and the government significantly cuts the funding for them, so much potential will be lost. Just look at what the investment in NASA has made possible for everyday life. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/50-years-50-giant-leaps-how-nasa-rocked-our-world-879377.html
sol's point was that everyone has a beef with some sort of expense that the federal government makes. And the extreme examples touted in the media are most likely not the source of our biggest financial waste. If the oil industry is able to make huge profits, why give them so many breaks? Just like if your adult child has a well-paying job, why continue to pay his rent? Departments like the EPA get vilified regularly thanks to interest groups, but I can't imagine how worse the quality of my life (and the future quality of my grandchildren's lives) would be without it. We really do live in a bit of an oligarchy, and we have to compare the information we are given by biased sources with the bigger picture.
-
So would you be upset if there was a 2 million govt study on eating habits of straight males?
All I'm hearing is you ranting about the govt not picking the winners you want it to.
Isn't that exactly what you were doing when you said -
It's the worst sort of bureaucractic bullshit.
I would think that is par for the course within almost any area of the public sector.
How do you think the taxpayer feels when they read stories about the Feds spending $2.2 million dollars to study lesbians obesity (http://freebeacon.com/feds-spending-2-2-million-to-study-lesbian-obesity/)?
-
So would you be upset if there was a 2 million govt study on eating habits of straight males?
All I'm hearing is you ranting about the govt not picking the winners you want it to.
Isn't that exactly what you were doing when you said -
It's the worst sort of bureaucractic bullshit.
I would think that is par for the course within almost any area of the public sector.
How do you think the taxpayer feels when they read stories about the Feds spending $2.2 million dollars to study lesbians obesity (http://freebeacon.com/feds-spending-2-2-million-to-study-lesbian-obesity/)?
Not at all. I citing one example of waste.
I don't believe that a small group of politicians or unelected bureaucrats picking any winners is an accurate way to represent everyone. That market intervention is pure distortion, often based on special interests.
-
Similar to the OP, I will not pay additional principle on my mortgage this month to free up a little extra capital. I doubt it will last long, but there is no harm in waiting a few weeks to send in that payment...
My organization has probably spent more time developing shutdown contingency plans than the total time that will elapse if a shutdown occurs... a very inefficient way to run a government or a business, but an exercise that occurs more and more frequently under these times of political brinkmanship. Then again, the last time we actually passed a federal budget on time was 1996, so I don't think efficiency is the primary goal of government spending.
-
A couple of comments.
1 - Be careful what you call waste in science. Many great discoveries were made while someone was trying to do something else. See microwave ovens, penicillin, etc.
2 -Many other great technologies are an indirect result of government spending. See atomic energy, the internet, GPS navigation, etc.
3 - Finally, many great things are a direct result of wasteful goverment spending, when viewed from a historical perspective. For example, building a massive road based interstate transit system, when almost no one owns a car / no transport trucks, seems like a giant waste of money (building roads through the desert). Now, how could we live life without it.
Realistically, the government is one of the few organizations that can spend money on things with very long term payback horizon. Or even something without any obvious benefit at all.
Alternatively, the way I have heard it put is "Taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilized society".
_______
Regarding the original topic, I am stockpiling cash in the hope that the government shutdown has a major impact on stock prices. I know it won't, but one can hope.
-
So would you be upset if there was a 2 million govt study on eating habits of straight males?
All I'm hearing is you ranting about the govt not picking the winners you want it to.
Isn't that exactly what you were doing when you said -
It's the worst sort of bureaucractic bullshit.
I would think that is par for the course within almost any area of the public sector.
How do you think the taxpayer feels when they read stories about the Feds spending $2.2 million dollars to study lesbians obesity (http://freebeacon.com/feds-spending-2-2-million-to-study-lesbian-obesity/)?
Not at all. I citing one example of waste.
I don't believe that a small group of politicians or unelected bureaucrats picking any winners is an accurate way to represent everyone. That market intervention is pure distortion, often based on special interests.
What you're calling waste is just an example of what the government has chosen to study that you consider a "loser", to use you winner/loser analogy.
So why is your view of what is a loser (or waste) any more valid than Sol's view? Sol feels it is a waste to spend money on oil/coal/gas industries and you feel it is a waste to spend money on researching obese lesbians. I personally feel that if you're going to complain about the latter and say the spending of 2 million is wasteful then the fact that the government does direct payouts of 2.6 billion must really get your goat. Yet that's not what you choose to get upset about. I just find it humorous that 2 million on scientific research is wasteful but objection to 2.6 billion in payouts to a profitable market is a rant.
-
For anyone military, Navy Fed and Marine Fed will be covering the Oct 15 deposit for anyone who uses direct deposit. It's unclear whether that will be base pay or full pay. USAA will be offering 0% payday loans, though it is something you have to apply for (via "My accounts" on USAA's website) and it is *not* automatic. The option isn't up yet, but keep checking back if you need it, and get in early if you can because I suspect they'll be swamped.
I'm not applying as we have plenty of other failsafes we can turn to, but for those who need it, the military banks look to be providing a lot of help.
-
We do not enjoy the quality of life and wealth in America due to federal grants, sorry. Value is earned on the market, not by arbitrary bureaucracy.
-
Value is earned on the market, not by arbitrary bureaucracy.
If there is one place where "value" is created in our world, I'm pretty sure it's not on Wall Street. I might vote for within the family, in music halls and art studios, at construction sites and manufacturing zones, in successful schools and hospitals, or even in banks. Note that ALL of these places can exist and have existed without Wall Street or a stock market.
-
Value is earned on the market, not by arbitrary bureaucracy.
If there is one place where "value" is created in our world, I'm pretty sure it's not on Wall Street. I might vote for within the family, in music halls and art studios, at construction sites and manufacturing zones, in successful schools and hospitals, or even in banks. Note that ALL of these places can exist and have existed without Wall Street or a stock market.
Those wonderful things also exist without government. At least the market is voluntary.
-
Those wonderful things also exist without government. At least the market is voluntary.
I didn't claim value was created in government. You did claim it is only created in the market.
Way to forcefully rebutt a point that no one made, though. Props.
Is anyone here really claiming that scientific research has no value? I'd love to hear that argument articulated in a way that doesn't induce laughter.
-
I'm keeping some powder dry, yes.
-
Value is earned on the market, not by arbitrary bureaucracy.
If there is one place where "value" is created in our world, I'm pretty sure it's not on Wall Street. I might vote for within the family, in music halls and art studios, at construction sites and manufacturing zones, in successful schools and hospitals, or even in banks. Note that ALL of these places can exist and have existed without Wall Street or a stock market.
Those wonderful things also exist without government. At least the market is voluntary.
No actually, that's quite incorrect.
You don't have a safe place to gather and produce value without police, fire fighters (and inspectors), building codes and mechanical engineers, architects, etc. Without education, you get fewer people able to produce as much value. You can't create much value without the ability to move your goods via roads, rail, sea and air. All of these things require good governance to function well.
Removing the government is a nice romantic notion, but effectively what you're advocating is anarchy. This is why all groups of people living together throughout history have ended up setting up some form of government. It's essential to life in any form of functioning society.
-
So would you be upset if there was a 2 million govt study on eating habits of straight males?
All I'm hearing is you ranting about the govt not picking the winners you want it to.
Isn't that exactly what you were doing when you said -
It's the worst sort of bureaucractic bullshit.
I would think that is par for the course within almost any area of the public sector.
How do you think the taxpayer feels when they read stories about the Feds spending $2.2 million dollars to study lesbians obesity (http://freebeacon.com/feds-spending-2-2-million-to-study-lesbian-obesity/)?
Not at all. I citing one example of waste.
I don't believe that a small group of politicians or unelected bureaucrats picking any winners is an accurate way to represent everyone. That market intervention is pure distortion, often based on special interests.
What you're calling waste is just an example of what the government has chosen to study that you consider a "loser", to use you winner/loser analogy.
So why is your view of what is a loser (or waste) any more valid than Sol's view? Sol feels it is a waste to spend money on oil/coal/gas industries and you feel it is a waste to spend money on researching obese lesbians. I personally feel that if you're going to complain about the latter and say the spending of 2 million is wasteful then the fact that the government does direct payouts of 2.6 billion must really get your goat. Yet that's not what you choose to get upset about. I just find it humorous that 2 million on scientific research is wasteful but objection to 2.6 billion in payouts to a profitable market is a rant.
Read what I bolded again, it appears you either missed or don't understand the point. I said I do not endorse ANY govt subsidies in the market. From big oil to big lesbians, its all waste because it was not chosen by the free market.
So I agree with Sol on that, it is wrongful waste to subsidize the oil industry, or any industry as well.
I find it humorous how people have these preset formed partisan profiles in their minds and are so flippantly applied without much thought.
-
So would you be upset if there was a 2 million govt study on eating habits of straight males?
All I'm hearing is you ranting about the govt not picking the winners you want it to.
Isn't that exactly what you were doing when you said -
It's the worst sort of bureaucractic bullshit.
I would think that is par for the course within almost any area of the public sector.
How do you think the taxpayer feels when they read stories about the Feds spending $2.2 million dollars to study lesbians obesity (http://freebeacon.com/feds-spending-2-2-million-to-study-lesbian-obesity/)?
Not at all. I citing one example of waste.
I don't believe that a small group of politicians or unelected bureaucrats picking any winners is an accurate way to represent everyone. That market intervention is pure distortion, often based on special interests.
What you're calling waste is just an example of what the government has chosen to study that you consider a "loser", to use you winner/loser analogy.
So why is your view of what is a loser (or waste) any more valid than Sol's view? Sol feels it is a waste to spend money on oil/coal/gas industries and you feel it is a waste to spend money on researching obese lesbians. I personally feel that if you're going to complain about the latter and say the spending of 2 million is wasteful then the fact that the government does direct payouts of 2.6 billion must really get your goat. Yet that's not what you choose to get upset about. I just find it humorous that 2 million on scientific research is wasteful but objection to 2.6 billion in payouts to a profitable market is a rant.
Read what I bolded again, it appears you either missed or don't understand the point. I said I do not endorse ANY govt subsidies in the market. From big oil to big lesbians, its all waste because it was not chosen by the free market.
So I agree with Sol on that, it is wrongful waste to subsidize the oil industry, or any industry as well.
I find it humorous how people have these preset formed partisan profiles in their minds and are so flippantly applied without much thought.
So why pick on a 2 million dollar study as the source of waste? Why is a scientific study your source of consternation when you are saying you do not like government subsidies to markets?
From what you categorize as waste I may draw some conclusions, sure those conclusions could be wrong but we're characterized by what we write and the points we make.
-
So why pick on a 2 million dollar study as the source of waste? Why is a scientific study your source of consternation when you are saying you do not like government subsidies to markets?
If you support spending 2 million dollars on studying why some lesbians are obese, please explain the value to me.
However, that is still besides the point. I support a free market driving scientific research.
-
So why pick on a 2 million dollar study as the source of waste? Why is a scientific study your source of consternation when you are saying you do not like government subsidies to markets?
If you support spending 2 million dollars on studying why some lesbians are obese, please explain the value to me.
However, that is still besides the point. I support a free market driving scientific research.
Have you actually checked what the study is looking into? It is trying to determine why homosexual women have obesity rates at nearly three quarters of the population compared to heterosexual women who are closer to half. The study has also been looking at heterosexual and homosexual males as well as they have just the opposite problem (with different specific numbers).
If we're able to determine some causes then courses of action can be developed to prevent or address those causes. Assuming you agree that obesity correlates with poor health then if we address obesity we reduce costs associated with healthcare. Given that minority populations (including sexual orientation minorities) are the most likely to need to rely on government assistance for whatever reason you want to come up with, reducing the amount of money they need to use from the government may be a good thing. That may be one of many values that these studies have.
That's just super that you support free market. It's a meaningless concept that only exists in the mind. There is no such thing as a free market, as all markets will have influence.
Also we wouldn't be here today with our scientific discoveries without government. Between DARPA, military research, NASA...etc. we have been able to have the modern life we enjoy today. Yes private industry had a significant hand in our modern life as well but anyone who takes a position that only one side or the other is the ideal situation is ignoring that private industry and government have worked together to make the world we live in.
-
I support a free market driving scientific research.
The "market" driving research is why we have a half dozen varieties of erectile dysfunction drugs, at least a few dozen kinds of antacids and headache medicines, but no drugs for significant, debilitating and deadly diseases that are not as widespread and therefore not profitable. I'd be excited if one day I could watch the evening news and instead of seeing ten Cialis and Viagra ads, we see cures for horrible "orphan" diseases. What private, profit-driven enterprise is going to invest money in research for afflictions that strike only a few thousand people? Or for any other area in science that does not have immediate profit appeal?
One of the basic lessons I remember from Econ 101: Good markets do not equal good policy. The two are completely separate, and sometimes we decide to sacrifice pure market efficiency for sound public policy reasons. As an example, letting the market go its own way will inevitably lead to monopolies, but we put policy restrictions (i.e., government) in place to prevent it, for the public good.
I guess if I ever have trouble getting a b*ner I'll be all set ten different ways thanks to the $billions of market research put there, but may God bless those parents whose hearts are breaking every day for their children suffering and dying from uncured/unprofitable diseases.
-
So why pick on a 2 million dollar study as the source of waste? Why is a scientific study your source of consternation when you are saying you do not like government subsidies to markets?
If you support spending 2 million dollars on studying why some lesbians are obese, please explain the value to me.
However, that is still besides the point. I support a free market driving scientific research.
Have you actually checked what the study is looking into? It is trying to determine why homosexual women have obesity rates at nearly three quarters of the population compared to heterosexual women who are closer to half. The study has also been looking at heterosexual and homosexual males as well as they have just the opposite problem (with different specific numbers).
If we're able to determine some causes then courses of action can be developed to prevent or address those causes. Assuming you agree that obesity correlates with poor health then if we address obesity we reduce costs associated with healthcare. Given that minority populations (including sexual orientation minorities) are the most likely to need to rely on government assistance for whatever reason you want to come up with, reducing the amount of money they need to use from the government may be a good thing. That may be one of many values that these studies have.
That's just super that you support free market. It's a meaningless concept that only exists in the mind. There is no such thing as a free market, as all markets will have influence.
Also we wouldn't be here today with our scientific discoveries without government. Between DARPA, military research, NASA...etc. we have been able to have the modern life we enjoy today. Yes private industry had a significant hand in our modern life as well but anyone who takes a position that only one side or the other is the ideal situation is ignoring that private industry and government have worked together to make the world we live in.
The free market is only a meaningless concept to someone who supports a top down authoritarian directive.
It does actually exist. Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there? We have more advancements at cheaper prices in all areas of consumer technology. This is a result of direct consumer influence, picking the winners and losers, not government intervention.
Yes Google and the NSA have worked together, not sure if that's a good thing. Google on it's own sounds a lot better. As for DARPA, I'm pretty sure the majority of the population is not choosing to research, invest and build a multi-million bullet proof robotic Terminator dog (http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/boston-dynamics-gets-10-million-from-darpa-for-new-stealthy-bulletproof-ls3).
In your mind, if you want to accurately represent an entire population, do you sample a very small percentage of it, or the whole population?
-
I support a free market driving scientific research.
The "market" driving research is why we have a half dozen varieties of erectile dysfunction drugs, at least a few dozen kinds of antacids and headache medicines, but no drugs for significant, debilitating and deadly diseases that are not as widespread and therefore not profitable. I'd be excited if one day I could watch the evening news and instead of seeing ten Cialis and Viagra ads, we see cures for horrible "orphan" diseases. What private, profit-driven enterprise is going to invest money in research for afflictions that strike only a few thousand people? Or for any other area in science that does not have immediate profit appeal?
One of the basic lessons I remember from Econ 101: Good markets do not equal good policy. The two are completely separate, and sometimes we decide to sacrifice pure market efficiency for sound public policy reasons. As an example, letting the market go its own way will inevitably lead to monopolies, but we put policy restrictions (i.e., government) in place to prevent it, for the public good.
I guess if I ever have trouble getting a b*ner I'll be all set ten different ways thanks to the $billions of market research put there, but may God bless those parents whose hearts are breaking every day for their children suffering and dying from uncured/unprofitable diseases.
Saying there's no incentive to develop cures for a disease is sort of ridiculous. Imagine the profit from the company that develops a cancer curing drug?
Monopolies only arise with state protection. Think Monsanto.
In a true free market any true advantage was voluntarily chosen by the people because of the best product, like an iphone. Certainly Apple is not a monopoly. The field is wide open for other competition, which drives down price and increases technology. That benefits everyone.
-
So why pick on a 2 million dollar study as the source of waste? Why is a scientific study your source of consternation when you are saying you do not like government subsidies to markets?
If you support spending 2 million dollars on studying why some lesbians are obese, please explain the value to me.
However, that is still besides the point. I support a free market driving scientific research.
Have you actually checked what the study is looking into? It is trying to determine why homosexual women have obesity rates at nearly three quarters of the population compared to heterosexual women who are closer to half. The study has also been looking at heterosexual and homosexual males as well as they have just the opposite problem (with different specific numbers).
If we're able to determine some causes then courses of action can be developed to prevent or address those causes. Assuming you agree that obesity correlates with poor health then if we address obesity we reduce costs associated with healthcare. Given that minority populations (including sexual orientation minorities) are the most likely to need to rely on government assistance for whatever reason you want to come up with, reducing the amount of money they need to use from the government may be a good thing. That may be one of many values that these studies have.
That's just super that you support free market. It's a meaningless concept that only exists in the mind. There is no such thing as a free market, as all markets will have influence.
Also we wouldn't be here today with our scientific discoveries without government. Between DARPA, military research, NASA...etc. we have been able to have the modern life we enjoy today. Yes private industry had a significant hand in our modern life as well but anyone who takes a position that only one side or the other is the ideal situation is ignoring that private industry and government have worked together to make the world we live in.
The free market is only a meaningless concept to someone who supports a top down authoritarian directive.
Really? Why? And after you accuse me of not understanding you, you put that comment out? I don't believe in a top down authoritarian directive but that doesn't mean that I believe in a free market either, there is a grey area between those two extremes. And don't assume I support an authoritarian directive.
It does actually exist. Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there? We have more advancements at cheaper prices in all areas of consumer technology. This is a result of direct consumer influence, picking the winners and losers, not government intervention.
Yes Google and the NSA have worked together, not sure if that's a good thing. Google on it's own sounds a lot better. As for DARPA, I'm pretty sure the majority of the population is not choosing to research, invest and build a multi-million bullet proof robotic Terminator dog (http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/boston-dynamics-gets-10-million-from-darpa-for-new-stealthy-bulletproof-ls3).
Which consumer technology? Cell phones? Original history came from the German military, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone#History) probably not a free market. Computers? The Zuse Z3 one of the first modern programmable computers was funded by the German military (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3) (I'm seeing a German theme as well as a distinctly non free market one).
In your mind, if you want to accurately represent an entire population, do you sample a very small percentage of it, or the whole population?
I could ask you the same question, and to answer your question we have a field called statistics, you can sample a population and determine an accurate representation of it. We actually do it all the time in the real world.
-
That's not meant as put down, but market intervention from a central government is a top down authoritarian directive. It's certainly not a bottom up grassroots one.
"We do it all the time" is not a means that it is just (in my opinion) or accurate. Statistics are misused all the time. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" was his quote. I think the answer to my last question is obvious. If an entity is taking the moral high ground to govern, it should accurately represent, the only way to do that is to sample everyone on a voluntary basis, instead of system run by a handful of officials representing certain interests.
So did the military proliferate that technology it? No, a genuine free market did.
Whether you believe in it or not, the current success on an iPhone is a pure free market phenomenon. Now if there are billion dollar government contracts for millions of iphones, I can see where that market was distorted. But as it is, its a pure consumer driven market. And you can disagree, but there is more value in that approach, than a top down one.
-
That's not meant as put down, but market intervention from a central government is a top down authoritarian directive. It's certainly not a bottom up grassroots one.
"We do it all the time" is not a means that it is just (in my opinion) or accurate. Statistics are misused all the time. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" was his quote. I think the answer to my last question is obvious. If an entity is taking the moral high ground to govern, it should accurately represent, the only way to do that is to sample everyone on a voluntary basis, instead of system run by a handful of officials representing certain interests.
So did the military proliferate that technology it? No, a genuine free market did.
Whether you believe in it or not, the current success on an iPhone is a pure free market phenomenon. Now if there are billion dollar government contracts for millions of iphones, I can see where that market was distorted. But as it is, its a pure consumer driven market. And you can disagree, but there is more value in that approach, than a top down one.
You keep moving the goal posts. First you asked -
Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there?
I answer that we have plenty of government departments and agencies to thank (particularly military). Then you decide to move the goal posts to proliferation. Fine there wouldn't even be a market for the phones to proliferate within without the government helping with defining what infrastructure would be necessary to support a mobile phone using society. Laws to determine where towers can be, GPS satellites for maps, 3G came from the International Telecommunication Union. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G#History) You appear to think in absolutes here and refuse to accept any evidence that your free market concept is a fairy tale. Actual real life relies on both markets, private industry, and governments to function and prosper.
Whether you believe it or not you have no evidence that the iphone is a product of the pure free market. It is a product of tons of work both by individuals, private industry, and governments. To think otherwise is narrow-minded and disingenuous.
-
Saying there's no incentive to develop cures for a disease is sort of ridiculous. Imagine the profit from the company that develops a cancer curing drug?
You are reinforcing my point. Cancer is a disease that affects hundreds of millions of people, and therefore receives a great deal of research attention both privately and publicly. Which market-driven pharmaceutical companies are working on the cure for Abetalipoproteinemia? (I picked that disease out of a list, I had never heard of it before, and I imagine you have not either, though it sounds definitely like no fun). The fact I've never heard of it is likely a good indication it's getting little if any research attention, unlike cancer.
Monopolies only arise with state protection. Think Monsanto.
That is false.
In a true free market any true advantage was voluntarily chosen by the people because of the best product, like an iphone. Certainly Apple is not a monopoly. The field is wide open for other competition, which drives down price and increases technology. That benefits everyone.
I like capitalism and competition and Apple. I repeat that free markets do not necessarily equal good public policy. I'm not arguing against Apple (even though I recall they were very recently hit with antitrust actions for attempting to stifle competition -- i.e., behaving like a monopoly but being thwarted in its attempts). If you let only the "market" dictate what scientific research is performed, it's not going to equal good public policy. Hence, the many versions of Viagra and Tylenol, but nothing for rare conditions. And as pointed out above, the idea that markets are operating without standing on the shoulders of government, and vice versa, is fantasy.
-
That's not meant as put down, but market intervention from a central government is a top down authoritarian directive. It's certainly not a bottom up grassroots one.
"We do it all the time" is not a means that it is just (in my opinion) or accurate. Statistics are misused all the time. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" was his quote. I think the answer to my last question is obvious. If an entity is taking the moral high ground to govern, it should accurately represent, the only way to do that is to sample everyone on a voluntary basis, instead of system run by a handful of officials representing certain interests.
So did the military proliferate that technology it? No, a genuine free market did.
Whether you believe in it or not, the current success on an iPhone is a pure free market phenomenon. Now if there are billion dollar government contracts for millions of iphones, I can see where that market was distorted. But as it is, its a pure consumer driven market. And you can disagree, but there is more value in that approach, than a top down one.
You keep moving the goal posts. First you asked -
Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there?
I answer that we have plenty of government departments and agencies to thank (particularly military). Then you decide to move the goal posts to proliferation. Fine there wouldn't even be a market for the phones to proliferate within without the government helping with defining what infrastructure would be necessary to support a mobile phone using society. Laws to determine where towers can be, GPS satellites for maps, 3G came from the International Telecommunication Union. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G#History) You appear to think in absolutes here and refuse to accept any evidence that your free market concept is a fairy tale. Actual real life relies on both markets, private industry, and governments to function and prosper.
Whether you believe it or not you have no evidence that the iphone is a product of the pure free market. It is a product of tons of work both by individuals, private industry, and governments. To think otherwise is narrow-minded and disingenuous.
Can you spare the adjectives like narrow minded and disingenuous? If you have to use those, then maybe the argument you're laying out isn't all there.
I'm not moving the goal posts, you are focusing on a side issue based on assumption. You assume nothing would ever be invented without a government sponsorship.
Do you think government creates demand in the marketplace?
-
Saying there's no incentive to develop cures for a disease is sort of ridiculous. Imagine the profit from the company that develops a cancer curing drug?
You are reinforcing my point. Cancer is a disease that affects hundreds of millions of people, and therefore receives a great deal of research attention both privately and publicly. Which market-driven pharmaceutical companies are working on the cure for Abetalipoproteinemia? (I picked that disease out of a list, I had never heard of it before, and I imagine you have not either, though it sounds definitely like no fun). The fact I've never heard of it is likely a good indication it's getting little if any research attention, unlike cancer.
Monopolies only arise with state protection. Think Monsanto.
That is false.
In a true free market any true advantage was voluntarily chosen by the people because of the best product, like an iphone. Certainly Apple is not a monopoly. The field is wide open for other competition, which drives down price and increases technology. That benefits everyone.
I like capitalism and competition and Apple. I repeat that free markets do not necessarily equal good public policy. I'm not arguing against Apple (even though I recall they were very recently hit with antitrust actions for attempting to stifle competition -- i.e., behaving like a monopoly but being thwarted in its attempts). If you let only the "market" dictate what scientific research is performed, it's not going to equal good public policy. Hence, the many versions of Viagra and Tylenol, but nothing for rare conditions. And as pointed out above, the idea that markets are operating without standing on the shoulders of government, and vice versa, is fantasy.
I'm not reinforcing your point, I'm pointing out to you that there is great incentive to cure diseases because there is great demand for that product. The market can and will take care of that funding research. As for rare diseases, the demand is lacking, therefore so are products. We live in a world with a finite number of resources and demand will direct the use of those.
With Apple, I believe they were trying to use the courts enforce some domain of intellectual property they claimed..Yes I agree they tried to stifle the market, and I forget the outcome...but didn't the courts disagree? So they tried to abuse the free market system and lost. It's a case where courts and the rule of law protected a free market, and consumers won, giving us competition, choice and lower prices with advanced tech.
-
So because the consumer electronics market can pretty much stand on its own (we'll ignore the government's huge role in the creation of the Internet or the fact that GPS was and still is a taxpayer supported venture), that means a "free market" is the solution for everything?
Some things shouldn't have a profit.
-
That's not meant as put down, but market intervention from a central government is a top down authoritarian directive. It's certainly not a bottom up grassroots one.
"We do it all the time" is not a means that it is just (in my opinion) or accurate. Statistics are misused all the time. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" was his quote. I think the answer to my last question is obvious. If an entity is taking the moral high ground to govern, it should accurately represent, the only way to do that is to sample everyone on a voluntary basis, instead of system run by a handful of officials representing certain interests.
So did the military proliferate that technology it? No, a genuine free market did.
Whether you believe in it or not, the current success on an iPhone is a pure free market phenomenon. Now if there are billion dollar government contracts for millions of iphones, I can see where that market was distorted. But as it is, its a pure consumer driven market. And you can disagree, but there is more value in that approach, than a top down one.
You keep moving the goal posts. First you asked -
Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there?
I answer that we have plenty of government departments and agencies to thank (particularly military). Then you decide to move the goal posts to proliferation. Fine there wouldn't even be a market for the phones to proliferate within without the government helping with defining what infrastructure would be necessary to support a mobile phone using society. Laws to determine where towers can be, GPS satellites for maps, 3G came from the International Telecommunication Union. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G#History) You appear to think in absolutes here and refuse to accept any evidence that your free market concept is a fairy tale. Actual real life relies on both markets, private industry, and governments to function and prosper.
Whether you believe it or not you have no evidence that the iphone is a product of the pure free market. It is a product of tons of work both by individuals, private industry, and governments. To think otherwise is narrow-minded and disingenuous.
Can you spare the adjectives like narrow minded and disingenuous? If you have to use those, then maybe the argument you're laying out isn't all there.
I'm not moving the goal posts, you are focusing on a side issue based on assumption. You assume nothing would ever be invented without a government sponsorship.
Do you think government creates demand in the marketplace?
How are you not moving the goal posts? I've established that consumer technology products have the government to thank for the generation of the technology itself which in response to your first point. Then you change the point to be about the proliferation and I then established that the infrastructure supporting these devices (don't forget the roads these are shipped on) has been provided by the government therefore the proliferation is also supported by the government. Now I need to prove that the government creates demand in a marketplace? Fine. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-senates-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a) Don't like the joke, then how about this article? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-government-loosens-its-grip-on-the-blackberry/2011/05/27/AG7wW1EH_story_1.html)
How is that a side issue? You're stating that the success of the iPhone is based on a pure free market. I'm saying that there wouldn't even be an iPhone without the government. That's why I'm using an adjective like disingenuous. You know better than to believe that the iPhone originated from the free market given that its infrastructure and component technology came from government initiatives. That's distinctly not a side issue and is the direct issue I'm stating.
Don't put arguments in my mouth, I never said I assume the government as sponsored the invention of everything. You're the one assuming I'm saying that. I believe someone once said - I find it humorous how people have these preset formed partisan profiles in their minds and are so flippantly applied without much thought.
Yes I think the government can influence demand in a marketplace. Is there more to that than a yes or no question?
-
I'm saying that there wouldn't even be an iPhone without the government.
I'm sorry, but this all reminds me of the "You didn't build that" Obama quote.
All of the infrastructure exists because of the demand. Government doesn't lay down a superhighway or pave a road into the forest. No, they are made going directly to Wal-Mart and other stores only where there first exists a consumer demand. Which means that just because it has used something that was paid for by a federal grant does not mean it would not have existed, funded and created its own, privately.
So yes, we absolutely would have an iPhone today given the demand for it to be there. Where govt steps in, of course the market will use that to its advantage. That doesn't mean govt gets sole credit for all things existing because it was used in the process.
Yes I think the government can influence demand in a marketplace. Is there more to that than a yes or no question?
I didn't say "influence". I asked if you think a government could create genuine demand in the marketplace? Do you think the govt can somehow make millions of adults voluntarily purchase a product like the iPhone?
-
That's not meant as put down, but market intervention from a central government is a top down authoritarian directive. It's certainly not a bottom up grassroots one.
"We do it all the time" is not a means that it is just (in my opinion) or accurate. Statistics are misused all the time. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" was his quote. I think the answer to my last question is obvious. If an entity is taking the moral high ground to govern, it should accurately represent, the only way to do that is to sample everyone on a voluntary basis, instead of system run by a handful of officials representing certain interests.
So did the military proliferate that technology it? No, a genuine free market did.
Whether you believe in it or not, the current success on an iPhone is a pure free market phenomenon. Now if there are billion dollar government contracts for millions of iphones, I can see where that market was distorted. But as it is, its a pure consumer driven market. And you can disagree, but there is more value in that approach, than a top down one.
You keep moving the goal posts. First you asked -
Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there?
I answer that we have plenty of government departments and agencies to thank (particularly military). Then you decide to move the goal posts to proliferation. Fine there wouldn't even be a market for the phones to proliferate within without the government helping with defining what infrastructure would be necessary to support a mobile phone using society. Laws to determine where towers can be, GPS satellites for maps, 3G came from the International Telecommunication Union. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G#History) You appear to think in absolutes here and refuse to accept any evidence that your free market concept is a fairy tale. Actual real life relies on both markets, private industry, and governments to function and prosper.
Whether you believe it or not you have no evidence that the iphone is a product of the pure free market. It is a product of tons of work both by individuals, private industry, and governments. To think otherwise is narrow-minded and disingenuous.
Can you spare the adjectives like narrow minded and disingenuous? If you have to use those, then maybe the argument you're laying out isn't all there.
I'm not moving the goal posts, you are focusing on a side issue based on assumption. You assume nothing would ever be invented without a government sponsorship.
Do you think government creates demand in the marketplace?
How are you not moving the goal posts? I've established that consumer technology products have the government to thank for the generation of the technology itself which in response to your first point. Then you change the point to be about the proliferation and I then established that the infrastructure supporting these devices (don't forget the roads these are shipped on) has been provided by the government therefore the proliferation is also supported by the government. Now I need to prove that the government creates demand in a marketplace? Fine. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-senates-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a) Don't like the joke, then how about this article? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-government-loosens-its-grip-on-the-blackberry/2011/05/27/AG7wW1EH_story_1.html)
How is that a side issue? You're stating that the success of the iPhone is based on a pure free market. I'm saying that there wouldn't even be an iPhone without the government. That's why I'm using an adjective like disingenuous. You know better than to believe that the iPhone originated from the free market given that its infrastructure and component technology came from government initiatives. That's distinctly not a side issue and is the direct issue I'm stating.
Don't put arguments in my mouth, I never said I assume the government as sponsored the invention of everything. You're the one assuming I'm saying that. I believe someone once said - I find it humorous how people have these preset formed partisan profiles in their minds and are so flippantly applied without much thought.
Yes I think the government can influence demand in a marketplace. Is there more to that than a yes or no question?
What in the hell does this "teaching the pig to sing" exercise have to do with the practical implications or personal preparations required upon a gubmint shutdown?
-
I guess you can't ignore my comments brewer?
It's called having a discussion...if you don't like it, move on.
-
I'm saying that there wouldn't even be an iPhone without the government.
I'm sorry, but this all reminds me of the "You didn't build that" Obama quote.
All of the infrastructure exists because of the demand. Government doesn't lay down a superhighway or pave a road into the forest. No, they are made going directly to Wal-Mart and other stores only where there first exists a consumer demand. Which means that just because it has used something that was paid for by a federal grant does not mean it would not have existed, funded and created its own, privately.
So yes, we absolutely would have an iPhone today given the demand for it to be there. Where govt steps in, of course the market will use that to its advantage. That doesn't mean govt gets sole credit for all things existing because it was used in the process.
Yes I think the government can influence demand in a marketplace. Is there more to that than a yes or no question?
I didn't say "influence". I asked if you think a government could create genuine demand in the marketplace? Do you think the govt can somehow make millions of adults voluntarily purchase a product like the iPhone?
I don't care what quote it reminds you of.
You've ignored every single one of my points to call that out. Regardless of whether the demand exists you've been saying (wrongly)
Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there?
and
So did the military proliferate that technology it? No, a genuine free market did.
Whether you believe in it or not, the current success on an iPhone is a pure free market phenomenon.
Nowhere in there were you discussing demand. You were asking do we have any government department or agency to thank for consumer technology? The answer is yes. I gave examples.
Then you're asking about the proliferation of that technology and whether the military specifically (I assume you mean government in general) had anything to do with it as you stated it's a pure free market phenomenon. And the answer was again yes. Also examples.
Now the iPhone is a pure free market phenomenon because why? We've already established that the technology and the infrastructure to make it, sell it, and use it all depended on cooperation with government. You seem to just ignore that and jump straight to the demand. How would we even have an iPhone without government involvement? Can you lay that one out for me?
Yes the government can create demand. (http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch7en/conc7en/ch7c4en.html) Also see the market for things like atomic bombs, fighter jets, bullet proof robotic pack dogs...etc. It may very well be an artificial market but that wasn't part of what you were asking. Do I think the government can make people voluntarily purchase iPhones? No. But I don't see what that has to do with the government actually having a part in what has led to the iPhone even existing. No one sat there going "man I wish I had an iPhone." to Steve Jobs before it was invented either. The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.
-
[ Moderator Hat On ]
This thread has taken a turn fairly far off the original topic, and is starting to brood some personal attacks. Everyone simmah don nah. (Or, "Don't be a jerk" as the forum rules state).
[ Moderator Hat off ]
As a government contractor who is looking to get a government job, this whole situation has me uneasy, and congress seems like it has a "take no prisoners" approach to negotiating, which sets a terrible precedent. Not sure how they move away from this "negotiation".
-
As a government contractor who is looking to get a government job, this whole situation has me uneasy, and congress seems like it has a "take no prisoners" approach to negotiating, which sets a terrible precedent. Not sure how they move away from this "negotiation".
I think the idiotic wrangling over the budget is a sideshow. The need to increase the gubmint debt limit is potentially far more impactful to the economy, and coming to a TV screen near you very shortly. Presumably both these issues will get resolved eventually.
-
MODERATOR NOTE
Looks like everyone has had a chance to say what they'd like, and we're at the point of unproductive.
Locking thread.
As always, feel free to PM thread participants to continue the conversation, or me if you have an issue with the thread locking.
Cheers!
EDIT: I missed Bo Know's mod post two above mine (it was on pg. 2, which I missed).
Thread will remain open for now, please keep it civil and on topic. Thanks!
-
It doesn't appear to be locked.
Anyway, the question in the title is asking if I'm stockpiling money due to a government shutdown. Nope, I'm stockpiling money so I can retire early.
-
For anyone military, Navy Fed and Marine Fed will be covering the Oct 15 deposit for anyone who uses direct deposit. It's unclear whether that will be base pay or full pay. USAA will be offering 0% payday loans, though it is something you have to apply for (via "My accounts" on USAA's website) and it is *not* automatic. The option isn't up yet, but keep checking back if you need it, and get in early if you can because I suspect they'll be swamped.
I'm not applying as we have plenty of other failsafes we can turn to, but for those who need it, the military banks look to be providing a lot of help.
Thank you for this info!!!
-
My main beef with all of this is I know a lot of responsible, middle-classed people that are civilian government workers (I at one time working as a contractor), and they're going to have to pay a huge price for the mistakes and lack of maturity of a bunch of fat cats who are so disconnected from the public opinion and interest that they really don't care what happens to us. We're just a bunch of pawns paying into the debt-induced society that they've created for us. [/cynicism]
Aside from all that, it's a great thing all of us mustachians are more resistant to such naughtiness! With financial independence this kind of stuff can be kind of avoided, at least on a personal/nuclear family level.
-
Does the government waste money? Yes.
Does the private sector waste money? Yes.
Does the government fund research which benefits society? Yes.
Does the private sector fund research which benefits society? Yes.
-
My main beef with all of this is I know a lot of responsible, middle-classed people that are civilian government workers (I at one time working as a contractor), and they're going to have to pay a huge price for the mistakes and lack of maturity of a bunch of fat cats who are so disconnected from the public opinion and interest that they really don't care what happens to us. We're just a bunch of pawns paying into the debt-induced society that they've created for us. [/cynicism]
Aside from all that, it's a great thing all of us mustachians are more resistant to such naughtiness! With financial independence this kind of stuff can be kind of avoided, at least on a personal/nuclear family level.
From one of the middle-class pawns, thanks for the vote of confidence!
I am determined to put a positive spin in all this - not getting paid will be a great kick-in-the-pants for my spending which is not as tight as it could be. Maybe I'll come out with more savings when we finally get paid! Plus this is really driving home why I need to be FI. I can't just walk away from the $$ right now and it stresses me out. Lemons ---> lemonaid!
-
My bad for bringing up markets and getting us off-track here, but it does expose those who believe they have claim to the livelihood, freedom, and hard work of others by way of involuntary force (statists). I hope this is a good reminder to everyone that anything created by the state is by definition unwanted by the voluntary efforts of productive citizens (the market as I define it in a broad sense). A tax by definition is involuntary and the result of those subject to pay the ransom or be victims of violent confinement (see Wesley Snipes for a recent example of this crime).
It's amazing that on this very website trying to aid in the struggle for freedom there are statists, but they are to be found everywhere a govt paycheck is sent, for it is hard to bite the hand that feeds.
Regarding invention of electronics, no the government did not create what we know today because it took entrepreneurs following yes (gasp!) the profit motive and risking capital to bring it to market. Did Nokia invent the iPhone because they made a plastic brick first? No.
-
Does the government waste money? Yes.
Does the private sector waste money? Yes.
Does the government fund research which benefits society? Yes.
Does the private sector fund research which benefits society? Yes.
But at least the private money is voluntarily wagered for profit, there is little moral equivalence here to the $3,800,000,000,000 orgy of violence and waste that is the federal government.
-
My bad for bringing up markets and getting us off-track here, but it does expose those who believe they have claim to the livelihood, freedom, and hard work of others by way of involuntary force (statists). I hope this is a good reminder to everyone that anything created by the state is by definition unwanted by the voluntary efforts of productive citizens (the market as I define it in a broad sense). A tax by definition is involuntary and the result of those subject to pay the ransom or be victims of violent confinement (see Wesley Snipes for a recent example of this crime).
It's amazing that on this very website trying to aid in the struggle for freedom there are statists, but they are to be found everywhere a govt paycheck is sent, for it is hard to bite the hand that feeds.
Regarding invention of electronics, no the government did not create what we know today because it took entrepreneurs following yes (gasp!) the profit motive and risking capital to bring it to market. Did Nokia invent the iPhone because they made a plastic brick first? No.
I think we need a politics only subforum where all the blowhards politically interested can post their Ayn Rand garbage, communist fantasies, Republicrat party line, etc. and those of us who aren't interested can avoid it.
-
My bad for bringing up markets and getting us off-track here, but it does expose those who believe they have claim to the livelihood, freedom, and hard work of others by way of involuntary force (statists). I hope this is a good reminder to everyone that anything created by the state is by definition unwanted by the voluntary efforts of productive citizens (the market as I define it in a broad sense). A tax by definition is involuntary and the result of those subject to pay the ransom or be victims of violent confinement (see Wesley Snipes for a recent example of this crime).
It's amazing that on this very website trying to aid in the struggle for freedom there are statists, but they are to be found everywhere a govt paycheck is sent, for it is hard to bite the hand that feeds.
Regarding invention of electronics, no the government did not create what we know today because it took entrepreneurs following yes (gasp!) the profit motive and risking capital to bring it to market. Did Nokia invent the iPhone because they made a plastic brick first? No.
Are you seriously suggesting that government employees – people hired to do a job – believe they "have claim to the livelihood, freedom, and hard work of others by way of involuntary force?"
-
I hope this is a good reminder to everyone that anything created by the state is by definition unwanted by the voluntary efforts of productive citizens (the market as I define it in a broad sense).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmHABUfjYPI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3FUdB86OG0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4boyXQuUIw
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1693/social-security.aspx
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/poll-58-percent-oppose-medicare-cuts-86703.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/07/27/CDC-NASA-FBI-top-approval-poll/UPI-30601248717732/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/10/Sandy-response.jpg
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-21/local/40713461_1_education-policy-school-employees-parents
...
-
It's amazing that on this very website trying to aid in the struggle for freedom there are statists
You are amazed that some people believe that the government should have some measure of power in either social or economic spheres?
-
The husband and I are both govt subcontractors. If they shut everything down I will be off and unpaid, but much of his work keeps his company's systems running, so he will continue working. They may use the time to work on proposals, etc.
We will be okay even if we have no income, that is what the emergency fund is for.
-
My main beef with all of this is I know a lot of responsible, middle-classed people that are civilian government workers (I at one time working as a contractor), and they're going to have to pay a huge price for the mistakes and lack of maturity of a bunch of fat cats who are so disconnected from the public opinion and interest that they really don't care what happens to us. We're just a bunch of pawns paying into the debt-induced society that they've created for us.
this is my main beef as well. I don't see anyone in Washington who cares about doing the right thing for us, the common people; nor do I see any way we can affect real, large-scale change for society.
-
My main beef with all of this is I know a lot of responsible, middle-classed people that are civilian government workers (I at one time working as a contractor), and they're going to have to pay a huge price for the mistakes and lack of maturity of a bunch of fat cats who are so disconnected from the public opinion and interest that they really don't care what happens to us. We're just a bunch of pawns paying into the debt-induced society that they've created for us.
this is my main beef as well. I don't see anyone in Washington who cares about doing the right thing for us, the common people; nor do I see any way we can affect real, large-scale change for society.
We can make change by first being the change we want to see, educating ourselves to reduce the harm we cause, don't support statists, don't vote for the expansion of theft and govt prog, vote against all tax measures, inform your family members, and of course live below your means and know that every dollar saved is one day closer to freedom!
-
It's amazing that on this very website trying to aid in the struggle for freedom there are statists, but they are to be found everywhere a govt paycheck is sent, for it is hard to bite the hand that feeds.
There will always be someone who wants less government than you. To that person, you are a statist. How's that for a thinker?
Maybe tossing about labels isn't the best way to persuade others...
-
Maybe tossing about labels isn't the best way to persuade others...
This hasn't been a thread for persuasion since back on page one. Early page one. This is clearly a thread for venting, and has been since the early derailment.
Which is fine. One person wants to decry statists. Another hates federal employees, or congress, or health care, or insurance companies, or a party, or partisanship, or taxes, or scientific research, or whatever else gets your dander up.
If people really wanted to change things, there are better avenues than bitching on relatively anonymous internet forums. Here, we revel in name calling instead. Don't take that away from us, Mr. Moderator.
-
It's amazing that on this very website trying to aid in the struggle for freedom there are statists, but they are to be found everywhere a govt paycheck is sent, for it is hard to bite the hand that feeds.
There will always be someone who wants less government than you. To that person, you are a statist. How's that for a thinker?
Maybe tossing about labels isn't the best way to persuade others...
Maybe they'll realize they're cheering for the wrong team.
-
The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.
No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!
I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.
The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.
-
Does the government waste money? Yes.
Does the private sector waste money? Yes.
Does the government fund research which benefits society? Yes.
Does the private sector fund research which benefits society? Yes.
Here's the difference though.
The private sector has a true incentive not to waste money, because they directly suffer the loss.
The public sector has no incentive to be frugal since they aren't risking their own capital and don't suffer the consequences of waste and failure.
-
The public sector has no incentive to be frugal since they aren't risking their own capital and don't suffer the consequences of waste and failure.
Speaking as a public sector worker, this is laughably inaccurate. You think I don't have a budget or timelines or deliverables for everything I work on? Sounds like you think feds have pretty sweet jobs, do whatever, spend whatever, consequence free. The reality is very different.
-
Doesn't that confuse the stockholders for the employees, too? Those groups are usually pretty separated in the private sector.
-
The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.
No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!
I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.
The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.
But it's not conclusions I'm proposing but facts. Governments have been involved in the modern age with our technological discoveries and the development of modern infrastructure. Without those the consumer technology market wouldn't even exist. That's not a conclusion but a fact.
I'm not talking about government directives but that private industry uses the current environment which is generated by both private industry, individual demand, and government to bring and create goods for the market. I'm curious as to how you disagree with that statement and what proof you have to back up any disagreement.
-
The public sector has no incentive to be frugal since they aren't risking their own capital and don't suffer the consequences of waste and failure.
Speaking as a public sector worker, this is laughably inaccurate. You think I don't have a budget or timelines or deliverables for everything I work on? Sounds like you think feds have pretty sweet jobs, do whatever, spend whatever, consequence free. The reality is very different.
I'm sure there are plenty of agencies where the low levels are held accountable so the middle and upper management can blow it. There's a reason why SS, medicare, the post office, etc are completely broke, but still funded.
Where do you get your funding sol? What determines it? Is it automatic?
-
The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.
No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!
I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.
The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.
But it's not conclusions I'm proposing but facts. Governments have been involved in the modern age with our technological discoveries and the development of modern infrastructure. Without those the consumer technology market wouldn't even exist. That's not a conclusion but a fact.
I'm not talking about government directives but that private industry uses the current environment which is generated by both private industry, individual demand, and government to bring and create goods for the market. I'm curious as to how you disagree with that statement and what proof you have to back up any disagreement.
Where there is a govt subsidy, there is a private business to take advantage of that, and a govt to take advantage of the tax revenue it generates. I'm not disputing that fact.
You said the iPhone could not exist without govt. That is your theory, not a fact. My theory is if the demand is so strong for a product or service, if we lived in anarchy, private investment would fund cell phone infrastructure needed to deliver an iPhone into the hands of consumers.
-
The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.
No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!
I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.
The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.
But it's not conclusions I'm proposing but facts. Governments have been involved in the modern age with our technological discoveries and the development of modern infrastructure. Without those the consumer technology market wouldn't even exist. That's not a conclusion but a fact.
I'm not talking about government directives but that private industry uses the current environment which is generated by both private industry, individual demand, and government to bring and create goods for the market. I'm curious as to how you disagree with that statement and what proof you have to back up any disagreement.
Where there is a govt subsidy, there is a private business to take advantage of that, and a govt to take advantage of the tax revenue it generates. I'm not disputing that fact.
You said the iPhone could not exist without govt. That is your theory, not a fact. My theory is if the demand is so strong for a product or service, if we lived in anarchy, private investment would fund cell phone infrastructure needed to deliver an iPhone into the hands of consumers.
So when you said -
The free market is only a meaningless concept to someone who supports a top down authoritarian directive.
It does actually exist. Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there? We have more advancements at cheaper prices in all areas of consumer technology. This is a result of direct consumer influence, picking the winners and losers, not government intervention.
You didn't mean it actually exists? You meant theoretical possibilities? That didn't come across that way.
-
The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.
No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!
I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.
The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.
But it's not conclusions I'm proposing but facts. Governments have been involved in the modern age with our technological discoveries and the development of modern infrastructure. Without those the consumer technology market wouldn't even exist. That's not a conclusion but a fact.
I'm not talking about government directives but that private industry uses the current environment which is generated by both private industry, individual demand, and government to bring and create goods for the market. I'm curious as to how you disagree with that statement and what proof you have to back up any disagreement.
Where there is a govt subsidy, there is a private business to take advantage of that, and a govt to take advantage of the tax revenue it generates. I'm not disputing that fact.
You said the iPhone could not exist without govt. That is your theory, not a fact. My theory is if the demand is so strong for a product or service, if we lived in anarchy, private investment would fund cell phone infrastructure needed to deliver an iPhone into the hands of consumers.
So when you said -
The free market is only a meaningless concept to someone who supports a top down authoritarian directive.
It does actually exist. Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there? We have more advancements at cheaper prices in all areas of consumer technology. This is a result of direct consumer influence, picking the winners and losers, not government intervention.
You didn't mean it actually exists? You meant theoretical possibilities? That didn't come across that way.
[ Direct attack on user removed by mod ]
-
"We do it all the time" is not a means that it is just (in my opinion) or accurate. Statistics are misused all the time. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" was his quote. I think the answer to my last question is obvious. If an entity is taking the moral high ground to govern, it should accurately represent, the only way to do that is to sample everyone on a voluntary basis, instead of system run by a handful of officials representing certain interests.
Oh dear Lord. Yes, statistics are misused all the time, by people who don't understand how they are produced or by people who know how they are produced but take advantage of other people's ignorance. It is not feasible or cost-effective to survey the ENTIRE population of the US. That is the point of sampling and survey design. The point of statistics is that you can make inferences about an entire population by studying a representative sample. Statistics is a rigorous discipline. There are a lot of mathematical proofs behind it. You can't just dismiss the entire field because you don't understand it and this one time someone misrepresented some study results*.
And if lesbians are overweight to the point that there's a significant** difference between them and the rest of the population, I think that's an interesting characteristic that might be worth studying. You aren't even slightly curious as to why that is? If you were a scientist, you might be. I have zero problem with scientists studying significant differences that might turn out to be interesting. I have zero problem paying taxes that go to support this kind of research.
*disclaimer: I am a statistician.
**and by significant, I mean statistically significant
-
Where do you get your funding sol? What determines it? Is it automatic?
Agency-wide, about one third of our funding is from Congressional appropriation, i.e. the federal budget. The other 2/3 comes from outside sources, partners who pay us to do work on their behalf. It's an interesting funding model for a government agency, to get so much of it's funding from sources outside the government.
Me personally, I've been 100% funded by non-federal funds for all of my career until this year. With a new project and job title, I'm suddenly 100% funded by the federal budget.
Which doesn't mean that funding is automatic. I compete with other research scientists for a finite pool of federal research dollars. When I compete successfully, I get funded. When I compete unsuccessfully, I don't get any money. The pool is automatically funded, at levels set by Congress. No particular scientist gets funded automatically, though. If you blow your budget or miss your deadlines, you don't get new funding anymore. We're all accountable, with a detailed performance rubrik to assign numerical rankings to our productivity. If there's one thing government is good at, it's record keeping.
-
The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.
No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!
I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.
The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.
But it's not conclusions I'm proposing but facts. Governments have been involved in the modern age with our technological discoveries and the development of modern infrastructure. Without those the consumer technology market wouldn't even exist. That's not a conclusion but a fact.
I'm not talking about government directives but that private industry uses the current environment which is generated by both private industry, individual demand, and government to bring and create goods for the market. I'm curious as to how you disagree with that statement and what proof you have to back up any disagreement.
Where there is a govt subsidy, there is a private business to take advantage of that, and a govt to take advantage of the tax revenue it generates. I'm not disputing that fact.
You said the iPhone could not exist without govt. That is your theory, not a fact. My theory is if the demand is so strong for a product or service, if we lived in anarchy, private investment would fund cell phone infrastructure needed to deliver an iPhone into the hands of consumers.
So when you said -
The free market is only a meaningless concept to someone who supports a top down authoritarian directive.
It does actually exist. Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there? We have more advancements at cheaper prices in all areas of consumer technology. This is a result of direct consumer influence, picking the winners and losers, not government intervention.
You didn't mean it actually exists? You meant theoretical possibilities? That didn't come across that way.
Is that pig singing yet? Or are you just covered in mud?
[ Direct attack on user removed by mod ]
-
The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.
No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!
I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.
The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.
But it's not conclusions I'm proposing but facts. Governments have been involved in the modern age with our technological discoveries and the development of modern infrastructure. Without those the consumer technology market wouldn't even exist. That's not a conclusion but a fact.
I'm not talking about government directives but that private industry uses the current environment which is generated by both private industry, individual demand, and government to bring and create goods for the market. I'm curious as to how you disagree with that statement and what proof you have to back up any disagreement.
Where there is a govt subsidy, there is a private business to take advantage of that, and a govt to take advantage of the tax revenue it generates. I'm not disputing that fact.
You said the iPhone could not exist without govt. That is your theory, not a fact. My theory is if the demand is so strong for a product or service, if we lived in anarchy, private investment would fund cell phone infrastructure needed to deliver an iPhone into the hands of consumers.
So when you said -
The free market is only a meaningless concept to someone who supports a top down authoritarian directive.
It does actually exist. Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there? We have more advancements at cheaper prices in all areas of consumer technology. This is a result of direct consumer influence, picking the winners and losers, not government intervention.
You didn't mean it actually exists? You meant theoretical possibilities? That didn't come across that way.
The funding for that infrastructure depends on the free market demand for it. As I've already stated, a government, as inefficient as it is, still does not build roads to nowhere and will not build infrastructure where there is no market demand.
So when you said the iPhone would not exist without government, you are saying that is a fact?
Do you think roads wouldn't be built without a government? Does government build roads where there are no services (demand)?
-
This thread is now locked. It resumed with personal attacks, and we just can't have that.