Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 233 posts

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#91

Post by rob05c »

cantrevealname wrote: post #67
gizmo686 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people actually get paid by the federal government. When these people don't get paid, they are much less likely to spend money, hurting non-government businesses. And the parts of the government that are shutting down also won't be consuming from private business either, again hurting business and the economy.

Your making the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window If we didn't have these unwanted government services (or wanted services provided very poorly or at excessive cost), then the taxpayers would spent their money on something else -- something that is wanted -- and it would generate just as many jobs or economic activity in some other way.

The broken window fallacy is only applicable in an economic environment where there is sufficient labor demand and insufficient product supply. America produces more than enough goods for everyone, but there aren't enough jobs.

Besides, which services do you believe are "unwanted?" I agree there are many unnecessary "paper pushers" and managers, but the shutdown affects entire departments. One can't simply stop paying the redundant middle managers, and continue paying prison guards and air traffic controllers.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#92

Post by icambron »

ars wrote: post #68
icambron wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which I think says something very sad about our national priorities.

That we prioritize jobs? The DOD is a jobs program, with a side benefit of being a military. But mainly it's a jobs program that also does basic research and engineering.

All the other jobs being furloughed are also jobs. Why not prioritize them instead?

It seems crazy to say, "yeah, those people we hired because we actually want them to work should go unpaid first, and the people we hired just as a jobs program should be kept hell or high water."

Edit: s/laid off/go unpaid

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#93

Post by ck2 »

mappu wrote: post #85
ck2 wrote: post #44

Costs around $50 million a day to be closed. Imagine how many people that money could help, how much health care it could buy.

How does that compare to how much it costs per day to be open?

Well you get zero value for the $50 Million, so that is kind of irrelevant.

Also, all these short term extensions prevents each part of the government from buying what it needs to operate in bulk, they now have to pay top dollar for small amounts.

So super-dooper expensive. But that might be the plan to jack up the cost and say "look how expensive!"

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#95

Post by scottjad »

nhaehnle wrote: post #42
nostromo wrote: post #24

We all spend so much time focusing on the Federal Government but I doubt many of us will even notice the "shut down." Compare that with what would happen if your local and state governments shut down: Trash would pile up. Criminals would run free in the streets. Fires wouldn't be put out. Water and electricity would stop. Sewage systems would back up. Schools would close. We're talking about services that are the ver…

The truly positive contribution of a federal government (besides the questionable benefit of military protection) comes in the form of automatic stabilizers for the economy. When there is a shock to the economy, social safety nets dampen the pain significantly. Local and state governments would never be able to provide a reliable social safety net, because they have to operate on the same principles as every other us…

This is basically argumentation by story. You told one of many possible stories as if it was obviously and indisputably true. You provided no support for it. What about all the other plausible stories that you ignored?

What if these "stabilizers" (i.e. money creation) are doing more harm than good, or even causing the business cycle? What if social safety hammocks decrease growth? What if welfare provided by prudent local governments through savings, or even private means, are sufficient? What if there are a ton of differences between the Europe and America other than the Federal Reserve?

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#96

Post by notdonspaulding »

jwarkentin wrote: post #64
avty wrote: post #39

Now we can determine which part of government we did not miss and shut those down permanently.

Haha, exactly what I was thinking. Like the part where the IRS stops auditing...

> Like the part where the IRS stops.

There, fixed that for you.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#97

Post by gmuslera »

[deleted] wrote: post #73

[deleted]

You definately don't want that all the people with such high access to basically everything digital in the world (including your credit cards and all your banks accounts, to say the least) suddently feel unsafe about getting their salary.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#98

Post by jwarkentin »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #96
jwarkentin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, exactly what I was thinking. Like the part where the IRS stops auditing...

> Like the part where the IRS stops. There, fixed that for you.

Whoops, that's what I meant to say. Good catch!

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#100

Post by icambron »

001sky wrote: post #72
pkfrank wrote: post #46

>The bigger issue, he [Vanguard Group Chief Economist Joseph Davis] said, is how much the turmoil raises the “Uncertainty Tax” on the U.S. economy. Policy uncertainty, Davis argues, is already keeping U.S. economic growth down around 2%, when it could be 3% a year. This is what captures my frustration as well. It's infuriating that a faction of Tea Partiers is causing such instability. Having campaigned on a promise…

It's infuriating that a faction of Tea Partiers is causing such instability Why is growth not considered a form of instability? Just curious, last time I looked risk and volatility were agnostic to direction.

Risk is very explicitly directional. E.g. Wikipedia has it as:

> Risk is the potential of loss (an undesirable outcome, however not necessarily so) resulting from a given action, activity and/or inaction

When was the last time you checked?

Post reply on HN