Harper Government to crack down on public servants -- again

[Argus]

You're arguing that wealth can't be created. That's simply not true. The problem right now is that enterprise is sitting on wealth and not moving it around the economy. Everyone prospers the more it moves around. When you have more consumers demanding goods, those companies will hire more employees, build more factories/stores, buy more land, etc. All of these things free up the wealth that's being concentrated at the top, adding more into the economy than just the money paid to the public service employees. The best and fastest way to get money moving around the economy is a healthy middle-class. The more people demanding goods and services the better.

The problem with your logic is the government has to take money away from people in order to give it to other people. So the money those companies are sitting on has to be taken by government in order to hire people, who will create demand for companies to expand, except they won't have the money to expand because the government used it to pay the workers. Or, the government taxed the money off other citizens to hire the workers leaving the entire mass of citizens with less money to inspire this new consumer demand. As Smallc has stated, government only recirculates money, it doesn't create it.

[cybercoma]

The government actually does create money through the Bank of Canada, but that's another topic. You guys are still treating this like a zero sum game when it's not. I don't know how else to explain it to you. All of those people making money in the public service support local economies by buying from them. Lay off the public service and you take money from the local economy. Lowering taxes on those businesses is not going to give them an incentive to hire more workers or produce more goods. Having customers who are ready, able, and willing to buy from them does.

[Argus]

The government actually does create money through the Bank of Canada, but that's another topic. You guys are still treating this like a zero sum game when it's not. I don't know how else to explain it to you. All of those people making money in the public service support local economies by buying from them. Lay off the public service and you take money from the local economy. Lowering taxes on those businesses is not going to give them an incentive to hire more workers or produce more goods. Having customers who are ready, able, and willing to buy from them does.

This only works to the extent the government's operations are being run on borrowed money. If the books are balanced then they have to take $1 out of the economy in order to put $1 back into the economy. The government has no money. It has to take it from you to give it to me.

[cybercoma]

I understand all of that, but the government doesn't need to raise more money to have more money when the economy is growing. The only way to grow the economy, despite supply-side myths, is to get more money into the hands of as many consumers as possible.

[Argus]

I understand all of that, but the government doesn't need to raise more money to have more money when the economy is growing. The only way to grow the economy, despite supply-side myths, is to get more money into the hands of as many consumers as possible.

Barring borrowing money overseas and deficit spending the only money the government can use is money it takes from the economy in the first place.

[cybercoma]

They don't sit on that money. They spend more than they take in at the moment. In other words, they put more money into the economy than they're taking.

[hitops]

The government actually does create money through the Bank of Canada, but that's another topic. You guys are still treating this like a zero sum game when it's not. I don't know how else to explain it to you. All of those people making money in the public service support local economies by buying from them. Lay off the public service and you take money from the local economy. Lowering taxes on those businesses is not going to give them an incentive to hire more workers or produce more goods. Having customers who are ready, able, and willing to buy from them does.

You're splitting hairs. Yes obviously the government physically prints money. What he meant was the government doesn't create wealth, it just moves it around. And this is absolutely true. Printing money does not create wealth, it just dilutes the value of the money.

You have the usual nonsense logic that government taking money from people (taxpayer) and then giving it to people (government employees) to spend in the economy, accomplishes something. It doesn't. The money spent in the economy from the gov workers is just less money to spend in the economy by the taxpayer it was taken from. it's a wash.

I understand all of that, but the government doesn't need to raise more money to have more money when the economy is growing. The only way to grow the economy, despite supply-side myths, is to get more money into the hands of as many consumers as possible.

No the way to grow the economy is to create wealth. Printing money does not create wealth, in just increases the supply of the means of transacting that wealth. Zimbabwe learned this the hard way. Printing endless trillions of their currency and putting it into people's hands did not create wealth. Eventually they just switched to the USD since it had value, and their currency did not.

Currency exists to lower transaction costs, it is not wealth in and of itself, only a representation of it. You carry in in your wallet to represent, for example, labor, since you can't carry labor around to spend very easily.

Edited September 30, 2014 by hitops

[cybercoma]

Which is why I said that was another topic.

[Michael Hardner]

Government also creates the conditions for wealth, including the responsibility to provide essential services at a profit-free rate, so that people can spend their disposable income on other things.

It also includes trade agreements, that balance national interests between producers and consumers.

There are lots of companies that have become wealthy doing work for the public.

[Argus]

Government also creates the conditions for wealth, including the responsibility to provide essential services at a profit-free rate, so that people can spend their disposable income on other things.

It also includes trade agreements, that balance national interests between producers and consumers.

There are lots of companies that have become wealthy doing work for the public.

The government is the infrastructure society uses to operate within. It's like paying for the rent and heat. It's a cost, but a necessary one.

[Smallc]

The government is the infrastructure society uses to operate within. It's like paying for the rent and heat. It's a cost, but a necessary one.

Exactly, government is the road, not the car.

[Moonbox]

Exactly as I stated. There's no point lying about it. The posts are still back there.

I guess we can add a lack of intellectual integrity to your perverted sense of reasoning. First, you oversimplify an economic concept specifically to suit your argument, and then you attempt to misrepresent my objection to the oversimplification as me denying the concept altogether. Hilariously, you then call me a liar, only to follow up in the VERY NEXT sentence by acknowledging that what I was saying is true.

That's true.

Argus the mental gymnastics your brain must go through to come up with some of this reasoning is truly bizarre and entertaining. At least, however, you've finally acknowledged my objection of your grossly oversimplified economic theory. It certainly makes a lot of your remarks concerning my apparent lack of economic understanding look pretty stupid!

Unfortunately for you no one, including you, has demonstrated, or even shown any evidence that federal public service wages and benefits have risen so high as to have this diminishing returns effect.

We've shown plenty of evidence. We have the average cost of federal public servant compensation clocking in (according to the PBO) at $114,000/year. We can also see by looking at federal public service postings that entry-level jobs (a CSO for example, that require no skills and nothing but a 2-year college diploma), earns just short of $60,000/year when benefits are accounted for ($45k + 30% benefits). The average recent 4-year university grad earns significantly less. A similar position in the private sector would pay, at best, 2/3 as much.

According to you, $60,000/year for customer service clerks is money well spent! Surely there must be TONS of evidence to suggest they're 50% more productive than the average private sector clerk, right!?? Please show us!

As I said before, only the least competent of nerdy net warriors brag and swagger about their amazing accomplishments in debate, particularly when their accomplishments are imaginary.

Basically, your argument boils down to "I'm jealous of public servants!"

and as I've said before, your automatic and consistent fall-back on personal attacks is the telltale sign of a struggling intellect. The hypocrisy you so consistently display is clearly going over your head too. Your 24,000+ posts on this forum, along with your penchant for insults, makes your nerdy net warriors comment particularly ironic!

Edited October 2, 2014 by Moonbox

[overthere]

Argus, are you posting on your own time here or at work for the federal govt?

[Bob Macadoo]

Argus, are you posting on your own time here or at work for the federal govt?

Couldn't help it could you? I look at the posts and either we have:

A] Alot of retired cranks

B] Alot of ornery BCers who were supposed to be oh so mellow

C] Alot of public servants playing on my dime. I pay their salary goddamnit.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[Argus]

I guess we can add a lack of intellectual integrity to your perverted sense of reasoning. First, you oversimplify an economic concept specifically to suit your argument, and then you attempt to misrepresent my objection to the oversimplification as me denying the concept altogether.

I made a basic statement. You ridiculed it. So go on pretending that your argument was replete with subtlety and you only MEANT something else. As I said, the posts are back there, unless you've scurried back to delete or change yours.

Hilariously, you then call me a liar, only to follow up in the VERY NEXT sentence by acknowledging that what I was saying is true.

No, what I said was your new altered statement was true. But that wasn't what you originally stated in sweepingly ridiculing my statement of fact. But as I said, the posts are there, so you can dance and spin and bob and weave all you want to.

We've shown plenty of evidence. We have the average cost of federal public servant compensation clocking in (according to the PBO) at $114,000/year.

I've already dealt with that and your answer was proven wrong, so why are you still at it?

We can also see by looking at federal public service postings that entry-level jobs (a CSO for example, that require no skills and nothing but a 2-year college diploma), earns just short of $60,000/year when benefits are accounted for ($45k + 30% benefits).

Really? I'd be interested in seeing this posting, especially since most of the links you've posted have nothing to do with the federal government. I'm not aware of ANY external posting ever posted which had no skills requirement.

and as I've said before, your automatic and consistent fall-back on personal attacks is the telltale sign of a struggling intellect. The hypocrisy you

Blah blah blah. Another post you fill with personal insults then whine about my alleged personal insults.

[Argus]

Argus, are you posting on your own time here or at work for the federal govt?

I pay more in taxes every year than you'll ever make.

[guyser]

I pay more in taxes every year than you'll ever make.

Damn you can be a pompous ass.

Of course you couldnt possibly know .

[Argus]

Damn you can be a pompous ass.

Of course you couldnt possibly know .

I reject the term 'pompous'. I was being arrogant. They are not synonyms.

And statistically speaking, I have a very high degree of confidence.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's stop making this personal.

[Moonbox]

I made a basic statement. You ridiculed it. So go on pretending that your argument was replete with subtlety and you only MEANT something else. As I said, the posts are back there, unless you've scurried back to delete or change yours.

Yes, all my posts are there for you to review. Please go back and look. At no point did I deny your 'basic statements' as a fundamental concept. Instead, I explained how your application of them was perverted economic theory and, if you'll recall, how you were taking only the economic principles that suited your argument and leaving out the parts that proved them unsound. I provided analogies, extensions of your own logic as well as explicit explanations of HOW your argument/statement was faulty (twice explaining diminishing returns), but either this all went over your head (likely) or you're trying to worm your way out of embarrassment.

No, what I said was your new altered statement was true. But that wasn't what you originally stated in sweepingly ridiculing my statement of fact. But as I said, the posts are there, so you can dance and spin and bob and weave all you want to.

LOL! There's no altered statement. I sweepingly ridiculed your 'statement of fact' because it isn't actually a fact. The argument that you've peddled in this thread, stating higher wages = better workers/higher productivity, is about as true as saying that more vitamin C is good for you. While more vitamin C can be good for you, after a certain point any extra will just get pissed away or cause diarrhea.

I've already dealt with that and your answer was proven wrong, so why are you still at it?

Uhh, because you absolutely did not prove anything of the sort. On one hand, we have the PBO's published findings. In opposition, we have Argus' feeble offerings of personal testimonials and vague explanations of how the RCMP and Canadian Forces are skewing the averages upwards (despite only being a small fraction of the federal public service). I think I'll stick with the PBO's findings.

Really? I'd be interested in seeing this posting, especially since most of the links you've posted have nothing to do with the federal government. I'm not aware of ANY external posting ever posted which had no skills requirement.

Here: https://emploisfp-psjobs.cfp-psc.gc.ca/psrs-srfp/applicant/page1800?poster=244886&toggleLanguage=en&psrsMode=1&noBackBtn=true

The earth shattering requirements for a $45,000/year entry-level salary + federal benefits being:

-2 years post-secondary

-Experience in using technology (e.g. e-mail, Internet and word processing) (LOL!)

-Experience in delivering services or programs to the general public involving obtaining and providing information requiring explanation or clarification. (WOW!)

Blah blah blah. Another post you fill with personal insults then whine about my alleged personal insults.

Your insults aren't alleged. They're fairly explicit, and usually expressed when your arguments start looking stupid and you get frustrated.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

I pay more in taxes every year than you'll ever make.

Coming from someone who was calling me out earlier as a nerdy internet warrior, it's pretty damn funny seeing you thump your chest about real life accomplishments that nobody here could possibly verify or disprove. That's the true sign of a nerdy forum crusader!

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

Stop making this discussion personal. Members who post a personal attacks from this point onward risk of having their posting privileges suspended.

Ch. A.