US Politics: The Art of Governing

[Ramsay Gimp]

And when reality intrudes, they have a nice thick layer of strawmen to insulate themselves from it.

Are you just defining "reality" as whatever your side supports? I agree that the world as it is now does not reflect my political preferences. Continuously pointing that out as if you're being clever is inane and tiresome. He asked what agencies I would do away with - the premise of the question was that I could decide such things.

So either define what "reality" actually means to you people or, maybe, just maybe, engage in the conversation. If you want to make the case for these bureaucracies, fine, I'm happy to debate. But parroting "reality" like a bunch of trained drones gets us nowhere.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Raidne I think Ramsay may have a tiny bit of a board-crush on you.

Ramsay - Why specifically would you eliminate those depts and agencies?

And the arguments you listed... well, surely you can see that they're strawmen? Nobody has made any claim as dramatic as that (at least not here).

As for your other response about that author (whom I've not read btw), I find fault with your initial premise, ie that federal workers are by nature unproductive. Are you contending that government does not provide value in either our economy or society?

[alguien]

Are you just defining "reality" as whatever your side supports? I agree that the world as it is now does not reflect my political preferences. Continuously pointing that out as if you're being clever is inane and tiresome. He asked what agencies I would do away with - the premise of the question was that I could decide such things.

So either define what "reality" actually means to you people or, maybe, just maybe, engage in the conversation. If you want to make the case for these bureaucracies, fine, I'm happy to debate. But parroting "reality" like a bunch of trained drones gets us nowhere.

No. I'm claiming you're flailing against strawmen and I very specifically bolded the strawmen that you're flailing against. No one believes those things you claim. Just because we believe in government and a civil society doesn't mean we view such institutions and agencies as sacred or above critique. We can reasonable apply criticisms to said institutions while also labeling those who would blithely throw out the baby with the bathwater as oblivious to the complex nature of a civil society, ie "reality."

[lokisnow]

statistics and charts for the courts appointments of the last three presidents--Obama sure is anti-male, he's nominated almost as many women as he has men, The Shame!

http://judicialnomin....org/statistics

also, infographic:

http://judicialnominations.org/infographic

[DanteGabriel]

No. I'm claiming you're flailing against strawmen and I very specifically bolded the strawmen that you're flailing against. No one believes those things you claim. Just because we believe in government and a civil society doesn't mean we view such institutions and agencies as sacred or above critique. We can reasonable apply criticisms to said institutions while also labeling those who would blithely throw out the baby with the bathwater as oblivious to the complex nature of a civil society, ie "reality."

Well put.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Raidne I think Ramsay may have a tiny bit of a board-crush on you.

Ramsay - Why specifically would you eliminate those depts and agencies?

And the arguments you listed... well, surely you can see that they're strawmen? Nobody has made any claim as dramatic as that (at least not here).

As for your other response about that author (whom I've not read btw), I find fault with your initial premise, ie that federal workers are by nature unproductive. Are you contending that government does not provide value in either our economy or society?

Thanks for the constructive reply, Wrath. I would eliminate those agencies because I believe they either do not fall within the legitimate realm of government or should be handled on a State level.

The DEA, for example, is part of the "War on Drugs" which is really a war on the liberty of the people and a business designed to keep the poor locked up as part of the prison-industrial complex (we could start a whole nother thread on that!). The Department of Agriculture is largely responsible for the influx of corn syrup in our diet, and exists to basically subsidize farmers (or, rather, large mega-farming firms). People can farm and trade their crops on the market without government intervention - we've been doing it for thousands of years. Labor Relations comes between employers and their employees, adding red tape and regulation to a relationship that should be completely voluntary. If workers want to unionize, that is absolutely their right, but by the same token employers should have every right to not work with unions or to forbid their employees from unionizing. Not only that, but the NLRB presumes to tell workers what kind of strikes they are allowed to do. The DHS is a bloated bureaucracy that seems designed to spy on citizens and has been granted powers that are far too easily abused.

There's also the not-insignificant fact that most of these agencies are not authorized by the Constitution, unless you expand the Commerce Clause to allow the Feds to do basically anything. Education is probably the most glaring example, but it counts for the rest to varying degrees.

As for my earlier replies, the exaggerated examples I gave were in response to their dismissive hand-waving. Simply saying "reality" is not an argument, in fact, it is usually used to avoid argument by people who would rather not state their actual position.

[Kelli Fury]

Ramsay- what exactly makes you think farming in the us can survive unsubsidized? As someone who actually owns a farm, I really don't think we can grow crops and livestock here without subsidy and keep food affordable as well. The cost of food would skyrocket (disproportionately impacting the lower classes), farm foreclosures would be a huge hit on banks and mortgage backed securities. Farmland, as an asset would plummet, which would impact real estate. It would remove controls on farming chemicals and medications given to livestock. It would remove the crp, which would have environmental impact, public health impact, economic impact, and social impact. There are many, many ways i would change the department of agriculture, but we do need an agency to handle these things

[ants]

......Unemployment would shoot up in the short term, yes. But have you read Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt? He is the best at refuting this kind of argument - if we're paying people to be useless, laying them off is a net gain for the economy. Yes, we could create a Federal Agency that pays people tax dollars to dig up holes and then fill them in again, or erect Pyramids, and we would increase "employment."But we'd be moving resources away from the productive sector (private taxpayers) and into unproductive or counter-productive nonsense, which is what most of these agencies are

The obvious issue with that perspective is it assumes that the people in those roles are not adding value. Yes, digging and filling holes does no long term good. But spend the same money on a bridge, or a port, or education someone, and you get a return on the investment. Then it becomes a question of whether or not the return on the investment is greater than the cost.

Note that in downturns, when the private sector contracts and needs a boost, in all likelihood the return on the investment increases due to the benefits of people working and the reduced cost of taking people out of the private sector (due to a surplus of supply of labour).

[ThinkerX]

Ok...I'll play:

Can you specify which agencies you'd like to discard?

Agriculture, the DEA, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Education, ATF, National Labor Relations Board

Agriculture I don't know about...but I would ask serious questions about just how cozy they are with the likes of Monsanto.

DEA and ATF - one or the other has to go. Possibly both could be folded into the FBI.

Homeland Security never should have existed in the first place. For some reason, the name alone brings up images of Nazi Germany for me.

Collectively, I believe we have far too many security agencies already, and these agencies spend at least as much time feuding with each other as they do at their purported jobs.

Housing and Urban Development - this one got brought up a lot on the sites that predicted the meltdown of 2007 - 2008 a year or more in advance AND listed exactly what financial institutions were in the greatest peril. Their assessment: this agency has been totally corrupt for decades. Even the 'reformers' such as Jack Kemp had a taint...at least according to these people. At a minimum...top to bottom overhaul, with an eye towards getting rid of them.

Education...this agency seems to be failing big time. The public school system appears to be in a state of accelerated decline. Additionally, I am under the possibly false impression that to all intents and purposes it is Texas that determines what the contents of many 'social' type text books will be. Why preserve an agency that is doing so poorly? And if you think the public school system is so great, then why does just about everybody with the means to do so send their kids to private schools?

National Labor Relations I don't know about. Gotta ask, though...are they corporate puppets? My personal inclination would be to go for vastly stronger unions rather than a government agency - say unions with the authority to firebomb corporate HQ when the executives slash jobs to increase their personal bonus's. Ok...maybe not that powerful...

[Shryke]

Unemployment would shoot up in the short term, yes. But have you read Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt? He is the best at refuting this kind of argument - if we're paying people to be useless, laying them off is a net gain for the economy. Yes, we could create a Federal Agency that pays people tax dollars to dig up holes and then fill them in again, or erect Pyramids, and we would increase "employment."But we'd be moving resources away from the productive sector (private taxpayers) and into unproductive or counter-productive nonsense, which is what most of these agencies are

That's only true if the work they are doing adds no value now and if those resources would be used by someone else.

Neither is always true. The first especially is not true most of the time, the second depends on economic conditions.

[Guest Raidne]

Raidne I think Ramsay may have a tiny bit of a board-crush on you.

Highly unlikely that I could be wined and dined any more thoroughly by a board "conservative" than I already have been. ;)

[Ramsay Gimp]

Ramsay- what exactly makes you think farming in the us can survive unsubsidized? As someone who actually owns a farm, I really don't think we can grow crops and livestock here without subsidy and keep food affordable as well. The cost of food would skyrocket (disproportionately impacting the lower classes), farm foreclosures would be a huge hit on banks and mortgage backed securities. Farmland, as an asset would plummet, which would impact real estate. It would remove controls on farming chemicals and medications given to livestock. It would remove the crp, which would have environmental impact, public health impact, economic impact, and social impact. There are many, many ways i would change the department of agriculture, but we do need an agency to handle these things

I'll admit I'm not familiar with the details of owning or running a farm, so thanks for your insights. I also agree that all else being equal, food costs would increase substantially if we simply cut off all farm subsidies. But people tend to forget that these subsidies come from somewhere - they aren't free, the costs are just hidden. We'd pay more at the grocery store, but pay less through taxation (this is assuming the gov't doesn't find something else to throw the money at and actually cuts the cost). In fact, in my ideal world taxes would be minimal so that's even more extra change people have to pay.

You mention the poor being most hurt. Have you considered that the obesity epidemic is largely because the crops/agricultural products most subsidized by the government are some of the least healthy, and this afflicts the poor just as much if not more than increased food prices? Heart attacks, diabetes, cancer, etc are all related to bad diet

[Shryke]

I'll admit I'm not familiar with the details of owning or running a farm, so thanks for your insights. I also agree that all else being equal, food costs would increase substantially if we simply cut off all farm subsidies. But people tend to forget that these subsidies come from somewhere - they aren't free, the costs are just hidden. We'd pay more at the grocery store, but pay less through taxation (this is assuming the gov't doesn't find something else to throw the money at and actually cuts the cost). In fact, in my ideal world taxes would be minimal so that's even more extra change people have to pay.

You mention the poor being most hurt. Have you considered that the obesity epidemic is largely because the crops/agricultural products most subsidized by the government are some of the least healthy, and this afflicts the poor just as much if not more than increased food prices? Heart attacks, diabetes, cancer, etc are all related to bad diet

And making fresh food more expensive it not gonna help that.

We do pay for subsidies, but the important thing is who pays and how much. The taxation system distributes the burden.

[Ramsay Gimp]

The obvious issue with that perspective is it assumes that the people in those roles are not adding value.

Note that in downturns, when the private sector contracts and needs a boost, in all likelihood the return on the investment increases due to the benefits of people working and the reduced cost of taking people out of the private sector (due to a surplus of supply of labour).

I sincerely don't believe that the thugs in the DEA, the nosy spies in DHS, or most of the bureaucrats in the rest of those agencies have any real value to society (economically, that is, I'm not calling them Untermensch or anything). By all means, let's build bridges and dams. But do you have evidence that private firms could not handle those tasks, with an eye towards the consumer and the shareholder? Or at least that the States couldn't handle their own infrastructure without Federal meddling?

That's only true if the work they are doing adds no value now and if those resources would be used by someone else.

Neither is always true. The first especially is not true most of the time, the second depends on economic conditions.

It seems logically fallacious to say "the federal government has to spend tax dollars on X,Y, and Z because if not, no one will" for a couple reasons. First, there is no real way to know if people would use those resources if the government denies them opportunity by taxing them and spending on its own projects. Second, if people would not voluntarily do something and require Government (i.e. force) to do it, isn't that a sign that the project isn't worthwhile in the first place?

In short, I trust the reasoning of Bastiat, Hazlitt, Mises, Hayek, and Friedman over that of Saint Keynes :cool4:

[Shryke]

It seems logically fallacious to say "the federal government has to spend tax dollars on X,Y, and Z because if not, no one will" for a couple reasons. First, there is no real way to know if people would use those resources if the government denies them opportunity by taxing them and spending on its own projects. Second, if people would not voluntarily do something and require Government (i.e. force) to do it, isn't that a sign that the project isn't worthwhile in the first place?

Actually there is a bunch of measures of capacity utilization. The idea of an economy operating below capacity is kinda central to the idea of a recession. And no, people not doing something is not a sign it isn't worth doing.

I suggest you stop throwing around the concept of crowding out while actually not knowing something about it.

In short, I trust the reasoning of Bastiat, Hazlitt, Mises, Hayek, and Friedman over that of Saint Keynes :cool4:

Right, because you don't know wtf you are talking about. Also, you might want to read your Friedman a wee bit closer.

[ThinkerX]

Obama to appoint a republican to head the FBI:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/29/18592033-obama-to-appoint-comey-to-head-fbi-sources?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Of course, this means the guy will immediately be declared a 'RINO'.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Actually there is a bunch of measures of capacity utilization. The idea of an economy operating below capacity is kinda central to the idea of a recession. And no, people not doing something is not a sign it isn't worth doing.

I suggest you stop throwing around the concept of crowding out while actually not knowing something about it.

Right, because you don't know wtf you are talking about. Also, you might want to read your Friedman a wee bit closer.

We're veering into an argument over different schools of economics, which could derail the thread. Also, you're being rude. My apologies for besmirching the honor of the Noble Lord Keynes, which obviously struck a nerve with you.

Anyway, what is the actual point of your post? I am well aware of what a recession is. But just because an economy is operating "under capacity" does not mean that the government should step in to make up for the loss. In fact, governments are often the biggest factor that prevent markets from reaching their capacity. But that's irrelevant to the utility of these Federal agencies - did any of them prevent the crash and current recession? Allow me to offer you a suggestion: quit taking Keynesian macroeconomics as gospel

[Ramsay Gimp]

Ok...I'll play:

Agriculture I don't know about...but I would ask serious questions about just how cozy they are with the likes of Monsanto.

DEA and ATF - one or the other has to go. Possibly both could be folded into the FBI.

Homeland Security never should have existed in the first place. For some reason, the name alone brings up images of Nazi Germany for me.

Collectively, I believe we have far too many security agencies already, and these agencies spend at least as much time feuding with each other as they do at their purported jobs.

Housing and Urban Development - this one got brought up a lot on the sites that predicted the meltdown of 2007 - 2008 a year or more in advance AND listed exactly what financial institutions were in the greatest peril. Their assessment: this agency has been totally corrupt for decades. Even the 'reformers' such as Jack Kemp had a taint...at least according to these people. At a minimum...top to bottom overhaul, with an eye towards getting rid of them.

Education...this agency seems to be failing big time. The public school system appears to be in a state of accelerated decline. Additionally, I am under the possibly false impression that to all intents and purposes it is Texas that determines what the contents of many 'social' type text books will be. Why preserve an agency that is doing so poorly? And if you think the public school system is so great, then why does just about everybody with the means to do so send their kids to private schools?

National Labor Relations I don't know about. Gotta ask, though...are they corporate puppets? My personal inclination would be to go for vastly stronger unions rather than a government agency - say unions with the authority to firebomb corporate HQ when the executives slash jobs to increase their personal bonus's. Ok...maybe not that powerful...

We seem to be 90% in agreement, good sir

[lokisnow]

We're veering into an argument over different schools of economics, which could derail the thread. Also, you're being rude. My apologies for besmirching the honor of the Noble Lord Keynes, which obviously struck a nerve with you.

Anyway, what is the actual point of your post? I am well aware of what a recession is. But just because an economy is operating "under capacity" does not mean that the government should step in to make up for the loss. In fact, governments are often the biggest factor that prevent markets from reaching their capacity.

Newsflash, in the current economy, debt nor government spending is not crowding out private investment. Just because this was true in some circumstances does not mean it is true under every circumstance. We are currently in a scenario where there is constraint from the zero bound, excessively tight fiscal policy, an inflation target that is too low (and is missing the target on the under side, which is even worse), and an overall lack of aggregate demand. There are economic solutions to most of these problems, and these problems happening in tandem means those possible solutions are reduced further. but it doesn't matter because one party is determined to kill any attempt to improve the economy.

In this instance/moment of time, the government and spending is not crowding out the private sector.

[Guest Raidne]

But do you have evidence that private firms could not handle those tasks, with an eye towards the consumer and the shareholder? Or at least that the States couldn't handle their own infrastructure without Federal meddling?

Oh hell yes. Here are the problems with your two theories presented here.

(1) The same federal government that you argue would botch the efficient construction of bridges and dams would still be hiring those private firms. You think they handle actual construction projects poorly and without any eye to "shareholder value?" You should just see how they handle taking bids, negotiating for, and managing contracts.

(2) On the whole, the state government cannot afford the same caliber of employee as the federal government. This is even more true at the local vs. state level. Just take a look at your county commissioner vs. your state senator vs. your US Senator. It's the same in the bureaucracy. To give you an example that I know a libertarian would be sympathetic to - think about every abuse of the eminent domain power that you've ever heard of. Now think of the absolutely stupidest, most pointless examples that utterly failed to achieve the outcomes desired. What type of governments are the guilty parties there? Kelo v. _____? _____ v. Hathcock?

Second, if people would not voluntarily do something and require Government (i.e. force) to do it, isn't that a sign that the project isn't worthwhile in the first place?

Sure. A group of people get together, pool funds, organize themselves into some sort of operational structure, and build something for the benefit of the community. the group is very successful. It gets bigger and bigger because a lot of people want to join. Eventually, they have to adopt a formal decision-making structure and start voting. The group gets bigger and more and more complex issues arise that individuals want to be handled by the justice of the group. Specialization is required. Everyone can't vote on every issue anymore - representatives are needed. See where this is going?