NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard this discussion on a left leaning radio show the other day. Was surprised at this show does not usually feature libertarian view points. The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country. So what do you think could it be possible to cut government expenditures in the first place by 50%? Next question would it then translate in substantial increased wealth of the nation as a whole due to the a reduction in taxes by 50%? I am also not limiting this to a discussion about the US economy. Could European economies also do such a thing?

In most of Europe, not being backwards and having had universal healthcare since WW2 and all that, losing that kind of money would be pretty poor for the economy as the health insurance companies could then rip us off. This would cause a vicious circle as people got depressed about this, then got ill because of it, then had their premiums go up, etc. etc. etc.

Which is not good. Oh no.

I'm sure you guys could cut taxes by 50%. It's not as if you've been interested in balancing the books for the last 25 years anyway. As for Britain, I'd love lower taxes (although as I student I don't pay much anyway), but that's not possible while funding the publicly funded services I want and use, primarily the NHS, and what's left of government funding for tertiary education.

In most of Europe, not being backwards and having had universal healthcare since WW2 and all that, losing that kind of money would be pretty poor for the economy as the health insurance companies could then rip us off. This would cause a vicious circle as people got depressed about this, then got ill because of it, then had their premiums go up, etc. etc. etc.

Which is not good. Oh no.

Health insurance costs can be brought under control. Regulations on lawsuits would be a big first step. Also a better allocation of assets would have to be looked at. If in fact that part is even feasible in a free market.

Quite frankly, it sounds like a policy straight from Wishfulthinkingland. People may be wealthier, but stupider, sicker, and hungrier, as their roads crumble to dust.

I heard this discussion on a left leaning radio show the other day. Was surprised at this show does not usually feature libertarian view points. The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country. So what do you think could it be possible to cut government expenditures in the first place by 50%? Next question would it then translate in substantial increased wealth of the nation as a whole due to the a reduction in taxes by 50%? I am also not limiting this to a discussion about the US economy. Could European economies also do such a thing?


the hardest part is cutting the spending that much in the US while still in a War. Of course the libertarians solve this by leaving Iraq but i doubt that will happen.
A 50% cut in European governments would put them online with current US.

I'm sure you guys could cut taxes by 50%. It's not as if you've been interested in balancing the books for the last 25 years anyway. As for Britain, I'd love lower taxes (although as I student I don't pay much anyway), but that's not possible while funding the publicly funded services I want and use, primarily the NHS, and what's left of government funding for tertiary education.

Well would have to add to the original op that a balanced budget is required.

In most of Europe, not being backwards and having had universal healthcare since WW2 and all that, losing that kind of money would be pretty poor for the economy as the health insurance companies could then rip us off. This would cause a vicious circle as people got depressed about this, then got ill because of it, then had their premiums go up, etc. etc. etc.

Which is not good. Oh no.
Hell, the British government spends less per person on healthcare than the US federal government, and we don't have to pay premiums.

But let's not turn this into a universal healthcare debate, no?

50% sounds like a rather arbitrary figure.

I believe that government expenditure should be set at a level to maintain a surplus relative to taxes, with tax smoothing to allow for deficits during times of recessions, disaster or war to prevent harmful distortionary effects of sudden jumps/falls in taxes. I don't really have a preference between high tax/high spending or low tax/low spending, so long as a government avoids low tax/high spending.

The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country.

was tax cuts mentioned or is the plan just to magically cut this 50% (a nice round number so I guess lots of careful planning went in) no doubt from Americas education budget and just keep it for porn?

Could European economies also do such a thing?

no, because economics isn't some simple issue where this tax cut phenomenon has been conclusively proven

also cut from what exactly?

Well would have to add to the original op that a balanced budget is required.
Can't see that happening, I'm afraid, and don't see amending the constitution to balance the budget and cutting taxes by 50% as being politically or economically feasible.

I believe that government expenditure should be set at a level to maintain a surplus relative to taxes

why? I mean yes its an ideal but cutting things like education and public health tends to costs more in the long run

it would put millions of govt employees out of work.

and it would require a total refocus of our attitude toward what we want the federal government to do.

we'd have to scale way back on social security and medicare.

dump the dept of education, hud, health and welfare, drop farm subsidies, transportation, commerce....

and we'd still have to take a big chunk out of the military

Health insurance costs can be brought under control. Regulations on lawsuits would be a big first step. Also a better allocation of assets would have to be looked at. If in fact that part is even feasible in a free market.
We hardly have any lawsuits here in the UK, although people are starting to emulate you Yanks in that area.

Err better allocation of assets? It's already pretty well done. Aye, there are odd stories of people waiting Really Fucking Ages for some ops like hip replacements, but the important stuff is done quickly and well.

And the free market can kiss my socialist arse when it comes to healthcare.

Quite frankly, it sounds like a policy straight from Wishfulthinkingland. People may be wealthier, but stupider, sicker, and hungrier, as their roads crumble to dust.

What about allowing the states to take control of all infrastructure, education and health care if they want it? Of course each state would have to set their tax rates higher. Let the Federal Government handle our defense and foreign affairs as they were intended to.

What about allowing the states to take control of all infrastructure, education and health care if they want it? Of course each state would have to set their tax rates higher. Let the Federal Government handle our defense and foreign affairs as they were intended to.
Uhu...

How does states raising their taxes to pay for the services that the federal government used to be in charge of actually benefit anyone?

We hardly have any lawsuits here in the UK, although people are starting to emulate you Yanks in that area.

Err better allocation of assets? It's already pretty well done. Aye, there are odd stories of people waiting Really Fucking Ages for some ops like hip replacements, but the important stuff is done quickly and well.

And the free market can kiss my socialist arse when it comes to healthcare.

Was basically talking of the US in that response. I know the UK does a decent job at cost per capita on healthcare.

Uhu...

How does states raising their taxes to pay for the services that the federal government used to be in charge of actually benefit anyone?

You have freedom of movement within the US. You don't like it one can move to a different state. Also local control in my opinion seems to work out better in controlling overall costs. Typically the case as the private business world works.

What about allowing the states to take control of all infrastructure, education and health care if they want it?

because some of your more backwards states can't be trusted? because decentralization would only increase the costs?

Of course each state would have to set their tax rates higher. Let the Federal Government handle our defense and foreign affairs as they were intended to.

here we go...

You have freedom of movement within the US. You don't like it one can move to a different state.
Moving house, possibly thousands of miles, to get to a cheaper state?

Bit much, no?
Also local control in my opinion seems to work out better in controlling overall costs. Typically the case as the private business world works.
Not really. One central body with which the medical companies etc. can negotiate and do business with makes for bulk deals, a strong business partner with literally billions of dollars and hundreds of experts on its books.

50-odd little states makes for a ton of problems, as the smaller states utterly flounder whereas states such as Florida and California live in much the same way as before, albeit with more taxes.

Doesn't sound all that good to me.

why? I mean yes its an ideal but cutting things like education and public health tends to costs more in the long run

A government can't run a deficit indefinitely though. If a government is in surplus it also leaves it better prepared to deal with events which force it to raise spending (disaster, war) or lead to a sudden drop in tax revenues (recession). Cutting healthcare or education spending is not normally a good thing but once the government finds itself in surplus it will find that increasing spending to the desired levels with in-kind increases in tax revenues is much easier.

A government can't run a deficit indefinitely though.

No, but it can run one for a good long while. Many corporations do this too, where they are almost perpetually owing someone money.

No, but it can run one for a good long while. Many corporations do this too, where they are almost perpetually owing someone money.

The longer it runs its deficit the harder it becomes to return to surplus.

Company are different though - business debt and government deficit are not the same thing. It would be more accurate to compare a loss making business to a government in deficit. Both can continue until the debtors demand their money but that money can't be paid. Although most businesses maintain loans (for a very good reason) they are usually capable of paying those loan back. If a government keeps running a deficit the loans, the total amount of bonds that government issues, will get larger and larger until they are totally screwed *cough*Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_crisis_%281999-2002%29)*cough*

Moving house, possibly thousands of miles, to get to a cheaper state?

Bit much, no?


Not at all. I won't live in California because of taxes and several other laws pertaining to divorces. As for moving to another state I would suspect you would probably only have to do that once or twice. Not much different then relocating for a job or what not.


Not really. One central body with which the medical companies etc. can negotiate and do business with makes for bulk deals, a strong business partner with literally billions of dollars and hundreds of experts on its books.

50-odd little states makes for a ton of problems, as the smaller states utterly flounder whereas states such as Florida and California live in much the same way as before, albeit with more taxes.


I would imagine it would end up with about 4-6 buying groups with states making pacts with one another to buy insurance plans. Remember each block would have a populace of 50-60 million. The current system of national medicare breaks it down to the county level. Each county has it's own payment rates. That system has 40 million US citizens getting government healthcare. I also am in this type of business. I believe it could work.


Doesn't sound all that good to me.

Off the cuff I could see why you would say that. But overall I think it could work.

I heard this discussion on a left leaning radio show the other day. Was surprised at this show does not usually feature libertarian view points. The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country. So what do you think could it be possible to cut government expenditures in the first place by 50%? Next question would it then translate in substantial increased wealth of the nation as a whole due to the a reduction in taxes by 50%?
I think 50% is not enough;). But yes, it would improve the wealth of whatever country you do it in as a whole.

Cutting the government budget is a good idea (especially the military and corporate welfare) but 50% sounds like an arbitrary number.

Uhu...

How does states raising their taxes to pay for the services that the federal government used to be in charge of actually benefit anyone?

greater efficiently as each program is tailored to what the state needs instead of a federal goverment one size fits all program.

I think dropping 50% of the budget is a terrific idea. The problem is, it is as difficult as swimming up an acid waterfall.

I think it would help a lot.Then we could afford to pay off the debt...or build bridges that don't fall into the Mississippi...or healthcare.

The President's budget for 2008 totals $2.9 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2007. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:
Mandatory spending: $1.788 trillion (+4.2%)
$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.114 trillion (+3.1%)
$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror
$69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
$56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
$39.4 billion (+18.7%) - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$35.2 billion (+1.4%) - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
$35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
$34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$24.3 billion (+6.6%) - Energy
$20.2 billion (+4.1%) - Department of Justice
$20.2 billion (+3.1%) - Department of Agriculture
$17.3 billion (+6.8%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.1 billion (+13.1%) - Department of Transportation
$12.1 billion (+6.1%) - Department of Treasury
$10.6 billion (+2.9%) - United States Department of the Interior
$10.6 billion (-9.4%) - United States Department of Labor
$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending

The Iraq war and the Afghanistan war are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.

Items in bold would be marked for cuts first.

I think it would help a lot.Then we could afford to pay off the debt...or build bridges that don't fall into the Mississippi...or healthcare.

The President's budget for 2008 totals $2.9 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2007. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:
Mandatory spending: $1.788 trillion (+4.2%)
$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.114 trillion (+3.1%)
$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror
$69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
$56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
$39.4 billion (+18.7%) - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$35.2 billion (+1.4%) - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
$35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
$34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$24.3 billion (+6.6%) - Energy
$20.2 billion (+4.1%) - Department of Justice
$20.2 billion (+3.1%) - Department of Agriculture
$17.3 billion (+6.8%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.1 billion (+13.1%) - Department of Transportation
$12.1 billion (+6.1%) - Department of Treasury
$10.6 billion (+2.9%) - United States Department of the Interior
$10.6 billion (-9.4%) - United States Department of Labor
$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending

The Iraq war and the Afghanistan war are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.

Items in bold would be marked for cuts first.

So 1.5 trillion goes towards SSI and Medicare including Medicaid and unemployment with welfare. SSI should be scrapped and if anything replaced by a quasi-private system. Medicare should technically be self funding. They take taxes specifically for both of these programs. Unemployment insurance is also paid as basically a premium. Again this should be a self funded program. These all should be self funded and not counted within the budget.

This leaves military spending as the single biggest expenditure.

With cuts in the other 1.14 trillion could bring the Federal Budget under 1 trillion. This would cut the budget by 2/3 instead of 50%.

I heard this discussion on a left leaning radio show the other day. Was surprised at this show does not usually feature libertarian view points. The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country. So what do you think could it be possible to cut government expenditures in the first place by 50%? Next question would it then translate in substantial increased wealth of the nation as a whole due to the a reduction in taxes by 50%? I am also not limiting this to a discussion about the US economy. Could European economies also do such a thing?

That guy was a fool.

That guy was a fool.

I wouldn't call the guy a fool because he provided some excellent points. Not sure if we could ax the government by 50% however there is some room for improvement.

What about allowing the states to take control of all infrastructure, education and health care if they want it? Of course each state would have to set their tax rates higher. Let the Federal Government handle our defense and foreign affairs as they were intended to.

How does that cut the government if the state governments raise taxes as the federal government reduces them?

I heard this discussion on a left leaning radio show the other day. Was surprised at this show does not usually feature libertarian view points. The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country. So what do you think could it be possible to cut government expenditures in the first place by 50%? Next question would it then translate in substantial increased wealth of the nation as a whole due to the a reduction in taxes by 50%? I am also not limiting this to a discussion about the US economy. Could European economies also do such a thing?

Completely possible, and it would we very good for everyone. Middle class wouldn't have to pay as much tax and lower income would learn to be less dependent on the government. Prices would drop and wages would increase. More wealth would be created.

I heard this discussion on a left leaning radio show the other day. Was surprised at this show does not usually feature libertarian view points. The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country. So what do you think could it be possible to cut government expenditures in the first place by 50%? Next question would it then translate in substantial increased wealth of the nation as a whole due to the a reduction in taxes by 50%? I am also not limiting this to a discussion about the US economy. Could European economies also do such a thing?

I'm not an economist, but I find it highly improbable to say the least.
The thing about government is, they run a lot of services that most people aren't even aware of, but that have a massive impact and are best run in a centralised way. True, they might not be the most efficient, but at least they are forced to provide them. If you cut that away, what are you left with?
Health services like in the US, the most expensive and least effective in the developed world? Unaffordable public transport? No more public libraries? Privately funded schools only, and those who can't afford them will have to find a way to make money without being able to read and write? No street lights in poor areas?

It sounds like a surefire way to increase social instability, if you ask me.

Completely possible, and it would we very good for everyone. Middle class wouldn't have to pay as much tax and lower income would learn to be less dependent on the government. Prices would drop and wages would increase. More wealth would be created.

Why would prices drop? And why would wages increase?

I wouldn't call the guy a fool because he provided some excellent points. Not sure if we could ax the government by 50% however there is some room for improvement.

You seem to forget that for everything you put in in taxes, you actually do get something back.
So, what services would you wish to no longer receive?

I wouldn't call the guy a fool because he provided some excellent points. Not sure if we could ax the government by 50% however there is some room for improvement.

It is completely possible. Lets rewind to a 150 years ago. No income tax, no death tax, no Medicare, no social security, no drug laws, no assualt weapon bans, no DEA, no FCC, no FAA, no public recycling plants, no national army, no insurance laws, no driver's licenses, etc. That more than halves the role of the government in our personal lives.

The government has been growing out of control throughout the history of America. If Thomas Jefferson was brought back from the dead today, he would probably think that he was in Europe.

It is completely possible. Lets rewind to a 150 years ago. No income tax, no death tax, no Medicare, no social security, no drug laws, no assualt weapon bans, no DEA, no FCC, no FAA, no public recycling plants, no national army, no insurance laws, no driver's licenses, etc. That more than halves the role of the government in our personal lives.

The government has been growing out of control throughout the history of America. If Thomas Jefferson was brought back from the dead today, he would probably think that he was in Europe.

Because Europe in Jefferson's days had Medicare, social security, drug laws, bin collection (not even to talk about recycling), insurance laws, drivers licenses, etc., right? :rolleyes:

You seem to forget that for everything you put in in taxes, you actually do get something back.
So, what services would you wish to no longer receive?

that is debatable.

but anywho, I would say that anything the government does aside from defending the country's borders, enforcing laws, and following the constitution is nonessential. Especially programs that redistribute wealth as they tend to make people worse off.

Because Europe in Jefferson's days had Medicare, social security, drug laws, bin collection (not even to talk about recycling), insurance laws, drivers licenses, etc., right? :rolleyes:

u trying to be silly or something? I cast lvl 3 stupify on Cabra West!

that is debatable.

but anywho, I would say that anything the government does aside from defending the country's borders, enforcing laws, and following the constitution is nonessential. Especially programs that redistribute wealth as they tend to make people worse off.

They tend to make the richest individuals slightly worse off, while increasing the wealth available to the majority of the population.
Education, bin collection and recycling, public transport, public recreational areas, health care and welfare come to mind.

Why would prices drop? And why would wages increase?

taxes make it generally more expensive to make things. Taxes also make it harder for buisnesses to take risks. Therefore, less taxes = cheaper goods and services + more innovation.

With more business comes more wealth and more money that we get to keep.

u trying to be silly or something? I cast lvl 3 stupify on Cabra West!

Me? I wasn't the one who claimed that "If Thomas Jefferson was brought back from the dead today, he would probably think that he was in Europe." :p

that is debatable.

but anywho, I would say that anything the government does aside from defending the country's borders, enforcing laws, and following the constitution is nonessential. Especially programs that redistribute wealth as they tend to make people worse off.

A number of wealth redistribution programs support investment. Early education intervention, WiC, and publically funded education all redistribute wealth while providning human capital investment.

They tend to make the richest individuals slightly worse off, while increasing the wealth available to the majority of the population.

That affects everyone else too. Taxing bill gates heavily just makes computers more expensive for the rest of us.

Education, bin collection and recycling, public transport, public recreational areas, health care and welfare come to mind.

Those are all things that the private sector can do better than the government. Private business = less waste and more micromanagement.

taxes make it generally more expensive to make things. Taxes also make it harder for buisnesses to take risks. Therefore, less taxes = cheaper goods and services + more innovation.

With more business comes more wealth and more money that we get to keep.

Sorry, no, it doesn't work that way. Yes, less taxation will make the production less costly, that much you got right. But you're not paying production prices on the good you buy, now, do you? Production is usually between 10-20% of the price you pay. The remaining 80-90% are what's called "profit" for the producer/seller. Less taxes on production will essentially only mean more profit for the seller, not cheaper goods and services.

And, no, you will not get to keep the money. You will have to pay through your nose for privatised, former public, services. Like having street lighting in front of your house, having the roads maintained, having your bins collected, having your mail delivered, etc.

You seem to forget that for everything you put in in taxes, you actually do get something back.
So, what services would you wish to no longer receive?

I don't need the government involved in my retirement (Social Security) and I also do not need the government involved in my retirement health care (Medicare). I also could do without the bloated government that goes a long with those two major government programs. I would also like the government as I already stated to transfer responsibility to the states for their education and infrastructure. Those states would likely tax to pay for them. I want my government to protect me (military) and represent the populace on the world stage. (foreign affairs). This was the original intention of the federal government. I would like it to go back to that.

That affects everyone else too. Taxing bill gates heavily just makes computers more expensive for the rest of us.

*lol

You do know that what the government taxes Bill Gates is such a tiny fraction of the price of each computer, it's hard to even put it in percentages?


Those are all things that the private sector can do better than the government. Private business = less waste and more micromanagement.

No, it can't. Never could, never will. Look at privatised health care in the US : The most expensive worldwide for the worst services in the Western world.
Look at privatised transport in some European countries : Railroads in Germany are being so terribly mismanaged that about half of the rail system has been shut down in the last 2 decades, leaving small towns and villages without vital services.
Or even worse : Privatised post office. Running itself into the ground and no longer being able to delvier the mail to everyone on a daily basis.

Public services are public because there is NO way they can ever be run privately and make a profit. They need the flexibility of being in the tax system.

And, no, you will not get to keep the money. You will have to pay through your nose for privatised, former public, services. Like having street lighting in front of your house, having the roads maintained, having your bins collected, having your mail delivered, etc.

Maybe you are missing out on something here. The local public services stay the same. Even state services stay the same. I am speaking of cutting the federal government. A totally different subject from what you just posted above. The mail is federal however self supporting in the US.

A number of wealth redistribution programs support investment. Early education intervention, WiC, and publically funded education all redistribute wealth while providning human capital investment.

Thats true, but why do we need the government to take money from us by force and invest it, inefficiently I might add, in ventures that the average person might not find profitable? Money doesn't just go away because the government isn't spending it either. In the absence of these programs, the same money would be invested in smarter ways without being passed around different bureaucracies that are designed to let various politicians wet their pockets.

I don't need the government involved in my retirement (Social Security) and I also do not need the government involved in my retirement health care (Medicare). I also could do without the bloated government that goes a long with those two major government programs. I would also like the government as I already stated to transfer responsibility to the states for their education and infrastructure. Those states would likely tax to pay for them. I want my government to protect me (military) and represent the populace on the world stage. (foreign affairs). This was the original intention of the federal government. I would like it to go back to that.

The administration costs for Social Security and Medicare are lower than comparable private pension plans and health insurance. What bloated government. Also why do you not see state governments as part of the government?

Thats true, but why do we need the government to take money from us by force and invest it, inefficiently I might add, in ventures that the average person might not find profitable? Money doesn't just go away because the government isn't spending it either. In the absence of these programs, the same money would be invested in smarter ways without being passed around different bureaucracies that are designed to let various politicians wet their pockets.

I would assume that most of the money going towards investment here would instead go towards consumption. I dont see them as ineffecient as all the programs generally have high returns on investment.

Thats true, but why do we need the government to take money from us by force and invest it, inefficiently I might add, in ventures that the average person might not find profitable? Money doesn't just go away because the government isn't spending it either. In the absence of these programs, the same money would be invested in smarter ways without being passed around different bureaucracies that are designed to let various politicians wet their pockets.

I've yet to see a single company that took on a public service and provide it better than the government did before while making a profit out of it. Name just one.

Sorry, no, it doesn't work that way. Yes, less taxation will make the production less costly, that much you got right. But you're not paying production prices on the good you buy, now, do you? Production is usually between 10-20% of the price you pay. The remaining 80-90% are what's called "profit" for the producer/seller. Less taxes on production will essentially only mean more profit for the seller, not cheaper goods and services.



really, hmm, and I though competition made things cheaper? Like how Microsoft has yet to turn a profit with the XBOx 360 because they have been constantly trying to undersell Playstation. Or how major pharmaceutical companies typically charge 80-90% more for drugs than it costs them to make the drugs, but then they spend most of the money that they make on multi billion dollar research to develop new drugs.

CAn you give me one example of a business run by the government that is more effiecient than its private counter part?

*lol

No, it can't. Never could, never will. Look at privatised health care in the US : The most expensive worldwide for the worst services in the Western world.


Sorry but the best care in the world for health care in the world is in the US if you have a good plan.

As for privatized health care it is a bit of a misconception. About 15-25% of the population is on government run health care in the US. Part of it being Medicare for anyone 65 and up. The other aspect is Medicaid for low income people provided by individual states. If you were to take the 15% (the Medicare enrolled) which make up nearly 40% of the total health care dollars in the US. Now that means that 60% of the health care dollars is spent by private insurance companies but a staggering 40% is paid by the federal government. That is not a privatized health care system in a true sense. Now if private health care was 100% the competition for health care dollars would become true and the market would take over and correct the growth of health care costs. Just my opinion.

really, hmm, and I though competition made things cheaper? Like how Microsoft has yet to turn a profit with the XBOx 360 because they have been constantly trying to undersell Playstation. Or how major pharmaceutical companies typically charge 80-90% more for drugs than it costs them to make the drugs, but then they spend most of the money that they make on multi billion dollar research to develop new drugs.

That's only if there is someone who WILL sell cheaper. A nice example for a situation like this would be Germany when the Euro was introduced : The exchange rate was 1Euro = 2Mark. When the new currency was introduced, most businesses did not convert their prices, but kept them and just charged Euros instead of Marks. Those who didn't do it immediately did so after a few months. Essentially, they halved the income of the German population that way.


CAn you give me one example of a business run by the government that is more effiecient than its private counter part?

Any public transport system. Compare any that is publicly funded to any that is run privately, and invariably the services will be better on the public ones.
Thatcher effectively ruined the British railroad system by privatising it, it's now prohibitively expensive and utterly ineffective.

*lol

You do know that what the government taxes Bill Gates is such a tiny fraction of the price of each computer, it's hard to even put it in percentages.

how about what the government taxes microsoft? That is a lot of money. And its not just bill gates, its every entrepreneur in America that has a new idea.

No, it can't. Never could, never will. Look at privatised health care in the US : The most expensive worldwide for the worst services in the Western world.
Look at privatised transport in some European countries : Railroads in Germany are being so terribly mismanaged that about half of the rail system has been shut down in the last 2 decades, leaving small towns and villages without vital services.
Or even worse : Privatised post office. Running itself into the ground and no longer being able to delvier the mail to everyone on a daily basis.

Public services are public because there is NO way they can ever be run privately and make a profit. They need the flexibility of being in the tax system.

"Privatized" health care in America is heavily regulated by the government. It may be expensive too if you compare it too more socialized countries, but if you consider the taxes that people pay for socialized medicine, its not that expensive. I would say that health insurance companies drive up the price healthcare, but that is not a reason to hand the job over to the governemnt.

As for train in germany, i dont know anything about that.

And privitized mail? I have had very good experiences with both FEDEX and UPS.

Sorry but the best care in the world for health care in the world is in the US if you have a good plan.

As for privatized health care it is a bit of a misconception. About 15-25% of the population is on government run health care in the US. Part of it being Medicare for anyone 65 and up. The other aspect is Medicaid for low income people provided by individual states. If you were to take the 15% (the Medicare enrolled) which make up nearly 40% of the total health care dollars in the US. Now that means that 60% of the health care dollars is spent by private insurance companies but a staggering 40% is paid by the federal government. That is not a privatized health care system in a true sense. Now if private health care was 100% the competition for health care dollars would become true and the market would take over and correct the growth of health care costs. Just my opinion.

And how much would a good plan cost you, then? I take it it's not what you get when you're on Medicare...
It's like saying that Britain has the best education in the world, if you've got enough money to get into Eton. It doesn't do much for the general education of the public, much as being able to afford a doctor privately doesn't do much for public health.

And free marekts tend not to lower costs on anything, in my experience, on the contrary.

The administration costs for Social Security and Medicare are lower than comparable private pension plans and health insurance. What bloated government. Also why do you not see state governments as part of the government?

Social Security robs people of better returns vs investing on ones own. Private pension plans are not controlled by the individual rather it is part of a compensation plan one gets while working at a particular company. Social Security is deducted right out of your check.

As for Medicare costs are redirected at higher costs for private individuals. In a sense we subsidies Medicares low payments by paying higher costs on private insurance.

What bloated government? Look at how much the government is involved in our daily lives? Someone has to administer all these programs.

State governments are not the federal government. They are a different animal and have to be treated as such. My state for example can't spend more then they bring in taxes. Why is that? Answer is they can't print money like the feds.

And how much would a good plan cost you, then? I take it it's not what you get when you're on Medicare...
It's like saying that Britain has the best education in the world, if you've got enough money to get into Eton. It doesn't do much for the general education of the public, much as being able to afford a doctor privately doesn't do much for public health.

And free markets tend not to lower costs on anything, in my experience, on the contrary.


The education analogy doesn't fit this subject. The reason being is that most people in the US are covered by good health care.

Maybe I should make it clear what I was saying about health care costs. I believe a 100% private health care system would bring the health care costs into a realistic growth rate. We have seen health care outpace inflation in the US year after year. I think a true free market health care system would reduce the growth as it is now. You will typically see inflation adjustments but I think it would end the runaway costs that are so prevalent today in the US.

Edit:

Sorry didn't answer what a plan would cost. I am an employer for two business that offer healthcare. The last time I went over the plans with the plan providers the real cost for a "family" plan was about 7-8k a year. That is provided that the family pays roughly a 10% deductable. So it would work out to be about $600-$700 a month I pay for an employee. Now remember for people that have these type of plans it is part of their overall compensation package. If healthcare was bought by the individual I would then have to raise my pay accordingly to retain my employees.

I've yet to see a single company that took on a public service and provide it better than the government did before while making a profit out of it. Name just one.

UPS + FEDEX work better than the typical mail service.

Private schools are another good example. They typically prefore better with less money.

in hong kong the subway and bus system is private and it is one of the best in the world.

Mercenaries in Africa suppressed rebel armies when the government's military couldn't. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes)

Roads, bridges, large capital projects such as dams, transportation systems, etc. are all built through private contracts in America.

shall i go on?

A Democratized (nationalized, for all of you Freidmanomicists) economy always works better than a series of private tyrannies. Unless the government has more power than industry, industry is perfectly capable of making trusts or other anti-competitive measures. I can't be bother bringing up any more problems, but that one's a biggie.

A far more important act that needs to be done tha cutting the government by any arbitrary amount is banning advertising of all kinds and banning political donation of all kinds. That way, money has a less massive impact on economic sucess and political sucess, and therefore popular candidates might actually win. And America might actually develop something close to a democracy.

Social Security robs people of better returns vs investing on ones own. Private pension plans are not controlled by the individual rather it is part of a compensation plan one gets while working at a particular company. Social Security is deducted right out of your check.

By private pension plans I was including participant directed plans.

As for Medicare costs are redirected at higher costs for private individuals. In a sense we subsidies Medicares low payments by paying higher costs on private insurance.

Elaborate.

What bloated government? Look at how much the government is involved in our daily lives? Someone has to administer all these programs.

Social Security is run by a relatively easy to follow formula. The Administration costs are around 1.8% of the costs of the program. The rest goes to those on getting SS income. Medicare has a higher costs of around 5.6%, i believe, as healthcare is more complicated. Still hardly a bloated program.

State governments are not the federal government. They are a different animal and have to be treated as such. My state for example can't spend more then they bring in taxes. Why is that? Answer is they can't print money like the feds.

The states are still part of the government. As for their inability to make fund deficit well a lot of what they cut often ends up to bite them in the ass later. Spending on investment like education and infrastructure is often the first stuff to be cut. Yep, that is wise when one wishes to creat wealth.

That's only if there is someone who WILL sell cheaper. A nice example for a situation like this would be Germany when the Euro was introduced : The exchange rate was 1Euro = 2Mark. When the new currency was introduced, most businesses did not convert their prices, but kept them and just charged Euros instead of Marks. Those who didn't do it immediately did so after a few months. Essentially, they halved the income of the German population that way.

yeah i have some friends from Spain that had to suffer the euro-switch. What a mess. I would like to say that in any competative market, there is almost always someone willing to drop their prices to get more business. That is the invisible hand that gudes the free market.


Any public transport system. Compare any that is publicly funded to any that is run privately, and invariably the services will be better on the public ones.
Thatcher effectively ruined the British railroad system by privatising it, it's now prohibitively expensive and utterly ineffective.

Thatcher was not an ideal leader, but I will mention that hong kng has an excellent private bus and subway and the subway in my town, atlanta, isn't that bad either and its private.

For starters if you work for the government and you get paid more than $65,000 a year your pay should be cut in half to a minimum of $65,000 a year. That pay comes out of our tax dollars. You can fly coach like the rest of us, and basically spend a lot fewer of our tax dollars on luxuries.

We can get out of this damned war in Iraq and save even more tax dollars.

We can make sure we never again pull the equivalent of paying $500 for a hammer.

Not sure if this would save 50% but it would be a start.

UPS + FEDEX work better than the typical mail service.

Private schools are another good example. They typically prefore better with less money.

in hong kong the subway and bus system is private and it is one of the best in the world.

Mercenaries in Africa suppressed rebel armies when the government's military couldn't. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes)

Roads, bridges, large capital projects such as dams, transportation systems, etc. are all built through private contracts in America.

shall i go on?

Just want to amend something you said. The US postal service provides the cheapest per oz delivery system in the US. It is however a government agency run like a real business. It also supports itself.

As for infrastructure it could be conceivable that private companies take over the major infrastructure projects. I know that there was a very large suspension bridge built over the narrows near Tacoma, Washington that was funded by a private company that collects a $3 toll recently. That was the first major suspension bridge built in the US in 30 years.

For starters if you work for the government and you get paid more than $65,000 a year your pay should be cut in half to a minimum of $65,000 a year. That pay comes out of our tax dollars. You can fly coach like the rest of us, and basically spend a lot fewer of our tax dollars on luxuries.

We can get out of this damned war in Iraq and save even more tax dollars.

We can make sure we never again pull the equivalent of paying $500 for a hammer.

Not sure if this would save 50% but it would be a start.

totally!

The government is a disorganized joke!
The only reason why it keeps going is simply because it has an seemingly endless supply of other people's money to waste!

If private sector business took over the government's business there would be mass firings and mass reorganizations with a quickness!

it would put millions of govt employees out of work.

and it would require a total refocus of our attitude toward what we want the federal government to do.

we'd have to scale way back on social security and medicare.

dump the dept of education, hud, health and welfare, drop farm subsidies, transportation, commerce....

and we'd still have to take a big chunk out of the military

Taking a big chunk out of the military should be the step after cutting our pay to the politicians, moving the president out of his mansion and into a house like the rest of us live in, and basically doing away with all the non-essential perks we give our leaders.

Just want to amend something you said. The US postal service provides the cheapest per oz delivery system in the US. It is however a government agency run like a real business. It also supports itself.

As for infrastructure it could be conceivable that private companies take over the major infrastructure projects. I know that there was a very large suspension bridge built over the narrows near Tacoma, Washington that was funded by a private company that collects a $3 toll recently. That was the first major suspension bridge built in the US in 30 years.

Yes, but I would like to add that the U.S. postal service competes with private industry. But yeah, they do a good job, in America at least.

yeah and check out this elevated highway that a private company built in Florida. It has a variable toll that changes price depending on the traffic on the regular highway. Its mostly used by long-distance commuters and delivery vehicles.

http://www.flatrans.com/files/images/thcea-1.gif

It provides a fast option for drivers while simultaneously reducing traffic on the lower public highway. All at no cost to tax payers.

What about allowing the states to take control of all infrastructure, education and health care if they want it? Of course each state would have to set their tax rates higher. Let the Federal Government handle our defense and foreign affairs as they were intended to.

There goes the teaching of evolution in several states, as well as abortion rights.

There goes the teaching of evolution in several states, as well as abortion rights.

I doubt any state would out law the teaching of evolution.
The few school boards that tried to add intelligent design to the curriculum were voted out of office before the courts could decide the matter. not really relevant to compare state attempts at things now to events that happened in the 1920's.


as for abortion what is so wrong with letting people vote on it instead of allowing the Supreme Court to dictate it to us?

as for abortion what is so wrong with letting people vote on it instead of allowing the Supreme Court to dictate it to us?

Some things should not be subject to the whims of the majority.

Some things should not be subject to the whims of the majority.

I would say that abortion should be one of those things that is subject to the will of the majority.

I would say that abortion should be one of those things that is subject to the will of the majority.

On what grounds?

On what grounds?

because this is a democracy and that how things work in a democracy you know we get out and vote about it.

Living in the US, I don't think there's any problem with the "production power" of the country.

The problem never lies in how much money is in the poor people's pocket, but the distribution of power. Having more money flowing around with an unchanged power structure will just lead to inflation. More paper cash =/= more equal distribution of resources.

Besides, the government will simply borrow more money from outside, which will hurt the country and the people living in it more than what it is right now.

Now, if we are talking about having the government run 50% more efficiently, that is something I would like to see.

as for abortion what is so wrong with letting people vote on it instead of allowing the Supreme Court to dictate it to us?

¿Qué?

I heard this discussion on a left leaning radio show the other day. Was surprised at this show does not usually feature libertarian view points. The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country. So what do you think could it be possible to cut government expenditures in the first place by 50%? Next question would it then translate in substantial increased wealth of the nation as a whole due to the a reduction in taxes by 50%? I am also not limiting this to a discussion about the US economy. Could European economies also do such a thing?

Lets test it out, by reducing our military spending first. :)

really, hmm, and I though competition made things cheaper? Like how Microsoft has yet to turn a profit with the XBOx 360 because they have been constantly trying to undersell Playstation. Or how major pharmaceutical companies typically charge 80-90% more for drugs than it costs them to make the drugs, but then they spend most of the money that they make on multi billion dollar research to develop new drugs.

CAn you give me one example of a business run by the government that is more effiecient than its private counter part?

US vs. Canada/UK health care

Clearly, that author doesn't realize that much of the government spending is necessary.

Clearly, that author doesn't realize that much of the government spending is necessary.

Or at least has a very different view of what is necessary than you do.

because this is a democracy and that how things work in a democracy you know we get out and vote about it.

In a constitutional democracy we (theoretically) have protect for the rights of the minority against the whims of the majority.

In a constitutional democracy we (theoretically) have protect for the rights of the minority against the whims of the majority.

women make up the majority. and which constitutional right guarantees abortion.

women make up the majority. and which constitutional right guarantees abortion.

Take a read... (http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/)

women make up the majority. and which constitutional right guarantees abortion.

I was speaking in generalized terms, about people need protection although you could consider those who would need/want an abortion a minority.

I can't be bothered so search through the American constitution so:
Constituional Act 1982 (Charter of Rights and Liberties)
Part 1
7 . Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

It would fall under security of person.

Look at privatised transport in some European countries : Railroads in Germany are being so terribly mismanaged that about half of the rail system has been shut down in the last 2 decades, leaving small towns and villages without vital services.
But do they need a railway when a bus is fine and costs less?
Or even worse : Privatised post office. Running itself into the ground and no longer being able to delvier the mail to everyone on a daily basis.I do that 6 days a week, is that good enough for a privatised company?:p

Any public transport system. Compare any that is publicly funded to any that is run privately, and invariably the services will be better on the public ones.
Thatcher effectively ruined the British railroad system by privatising it, it's now prohibitively expensive and utterly ineffective.Not true, the privatised railroads in Holland have seen an increase in passengers with 30%, with new trains and more frequent driving as well. The privatisation in Great Britain was utter fail though.

True, some people think it's okay to skimp on policemen, firefighters, education, and healthcare. Of course, if their house is on fire, or they get sick, or the police are needed...

And, for the record, 2004 blue states (democrats prefer larger budgets and taxes) tend to have higher graduation rates (http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/005153.html) than red states (republicans prefer smaller budgets and taxes... usually).

Mercenaries in Africa suppressed rebel armies when the government's military couldn't. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes)

So long as it remains in the interests of a mercenary army to help the government, they will be just as good as an eqully well-trained army with similar numbers. They will be more expensive, though, as pay needs to be higher to draw people in, and ultimately to profit the leaders. As in all companies.

The government is one of the largest employers in western countries. If they have to cut 50% of their budget, a lot of people end up unemployed. And the government wouldn't be able to provide unemployment benefits for them. I'd expect a economic collapse, social uproar, chaos and at least a decade before things are in some sort of order again.

I heard this discussion on a left leaning radio show the other day. Was surprised at this show does not usually feature libertarian view points. The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country. So what do you think could it be possible to cut government expenditures in the first place by 50%? Next question would it then translate in substantial increased wealth of the nation as a whole due to the a reduction in taxes by 50%? I am also not limiting this to a discussion about the US economy. Could European economies also do such a thing?

They could, but unless they want their nations to turn into third world hellholes, they shouldn't. If you cut income (taxes) by 50%, then the nation is approximately 50% poorer. Individuals have more money, but they can also use it for personal items, not national assets which we all depend on and bring far more benefit.

If a person has, say, £10,000, he can use that to buy himself private treatment for, say, a bypass.

If the government has £10,000, they can put this toward setting up a dedicated cardio unit at a public hospital, that can treat many people.

To put a huggy cuddly democratic spin on it, it's your money and when you pull it out of the services, it's your own services that you are underfunding and destroying.

yeah i have some friends from Spain that had to suffer the euro-switch. What a mess. I would like to say that in any competative market, there is almost always someone willing to drop their prices to get more business. That is the invisible hand that gudes the free market.


Really? And why should they? Why would anybody willingly run the risk of making less profit than the competitor?

I heard this discussion on a left leaning radio show the other day. Was surprised at this show does not usually feature libertarian view points. The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country. So what do you think could it be possible to cut government expenditures in the first place by 50%? Next question would it then translate in substantial increased wealth of the nation as a whole due to the a reduction in taxes by 50%? I am also not limiting this to a discussion about the US economy. Could European economies also do such a thing?

If you stop feeding half your children, you can make huge savings.

Same mentality, same rationality.

Could Europe do the same? Sure - but why would they want to? The only thing that saved the US from embracing communism half a century ago, was the sudden and sweeping introduction of a safety-net for the poor and underprivileged. We've all watched as that safety net has been destroyed in recent terms, and what is left of it has been raped and left tied by the roadside, bound in electrical tape.

Unless the US actually does something to help the majority, the majority will do what underpriviged majorities always do, eventually.

Europe will then become the place that those fleeing the new Third World States of America will try to flee to, after Mexico and Canada slam the borders shut.

I heard this discussion on a left leaning radio show the other day. Was surprised at this show does not usually feature libertarian view points. The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country.

Of course you can cut government expenses. Then, remains to be seen whether you:
1.cut unnecessary expenses, or
2.cut important services, like healthcare, police forces, public schooling, universities, research...

Anyway, cutting 50% govt.exp. would NOT mean increasing GNP by the same amount.
1.govt.exp. comprises GNP: govt.employees buy consumer goods, too; govt.offices buy paper, ink, computers, cars etc.
2.let's say you cut funding to the police, maybe that departments who check the payment of taxes. clearly, you'd boost tax evasion and many other services you didn't want to cut will have to be cut.

Generically claiming "let's cut the government" is just another episode of the usual "I hate the government" attitude. I don't understand why citizens of a democracy should hate the government: it belongs to them, and not the other way around.

:Education, bin collection and recycling, public transport, public recreational areas, health care and welfare come to mind.

Those are all things that the private sector can do better than the government. Private business = less waste and more micromanagement.

Private business = irresponsibility, cartels & corruption

Just look at Italy:
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.2136493287
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQFUf6lDnqIDhcd43AiNAj0VnvLA

edit:
The previous link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0805/p07s01-woeu.html) was old, from 2004, replaced it with newer links.

edit2:
By private business, I mean in context of upkeeping low yield necessities with healthy profit margin where poor or unsatisfactory end result isn't measured in $€£.

You know, cutting the military budget by 50% has been part of the socialist party's platform for some time now. And really, military expenditures are an area where we get exponentially less benefit for each increased dollar.

Do we really need to outspend the rest of the world by a 2:1 margin to protect ourselves? Seems like a raw deal for us taxpayers if you ask me.

They could, but unless they want their nations to turn into third world hellholes, they shouldn't. If you cut income (taxes) by 50%, then the nation is approximately 50% poorer. Individuals have more money, but they can also use it for personal items, not national assets which we all depend on and bring far more benefit.

Actually, its 43% (http://www.concordcoalition.org/education/penny-game/fedbudget-income.htm)

but actually, if you decrease taxes by 50%, then the nation is 43% richer.

If you stop feeding half your children, you can make huge savings.

Same mentality, same rationality.

Could Europe do the same? Sure - but why would they want to? The only thing that saved the US from embracing communism half a century ago, was the sudden and sweeping introduction of a safety-net for the poor and underprivileged. We've all watched as that safety net has been destroyed in recent terms, and what is left of it has been raped and left tied by the roadside, bound in electrical tape.

Unless the US actually does something to help the majority, the majority will do what underpriviged majorities always do, eventually.

Europe will then become the place that those fleeing the new Third World States of America will try to flee to, after Mexico and Canada slam the borders shut.

When you subsidize unwanted children or bad health, then they generally become more common. The majority in America do not participate in social programs, they are covered by private health companies that are better. In the absence of social programs, you have less poverty. And private charity like churches and shelters can help anyone who is in object poverty and needs help.

Take a read... (http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/)

already familiar with Roe V Wade.
3rd paragraph of the opinion of the court shows the reasoning.
In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.
The court has exceeded it's authority. It purpose in Roe V Wade was effect population growth, pollution and poverty. These issues are to be addressed and fixed by the legislature. what next will the supreme court rule that we must have national health care, or perhaps rule for welfare minimums?
these are things to be addressed by the legislature, to think a 220+ year old document would some how cover abortion is really a stretch. abortion is not simple yes or No, We need to regulate it in accordance of the will of the people.

Today if the Court ruled I am willing to bet it would be a different ruling.

Of course you can cut government expenses. Then, remains to be seen whether you:
1.cut unnecessary expenses, or
2.cut important services, like healthcare, police forces, public schooling, universities, research...

not cut important services, privatize them.

Anyway, cutting 50% govt.exp. would NOT mean increasing GNP by the same amount.
1.govt.exp. comprises GNP: govt.employees buy consumer goods, too; govt.offices buy paper, ink, computers, cars etc.
2.let's say you cut funding to the police, maybe that departments who check the payment of taxes. clearly, you'd boost tax evasion and many other services you didn't want to cut will have to be cut.

so we need to fund police to make sure that we pay our taxes to fund the police? your going in circles. And who needs taxes when your GNP could be higher without them?

Generically claiming "let's cut the government" is just another episode of the usual "I hate the government" attitude. I don't understand why citizens of a democracy should hate the government: it belongs to them, and not the other way around.

I would say that its more of a business decision than a political one.

I was speaking in generalized terms, about people need protection although you could consider those who would need/want an abortion a minority.

I can't be bothered so search through the American constitution so:
Constituional Act 1982 (Charter of Rights and Liberties)
Part 1
7 . Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

It would fall under security of person.

that legislation could just as likely be read as pro life. aka protecting life liberty and security of a unborn child.
As said elsewhere you wont find anything in the constitution because a 200 yr old document isn't going to address the issue of abortion.

So what do you think could it be possible to cut government expenditures in the first place by 50%?

I'd just as soon leave expenditure levels where they are as a whole. I'd sooner take 50% of the military's budget and redirect it to education.

I don't really have a preference between high tax/high spending or low tax/low spending, so long as a government avoids low tax/high spending.

Too bad neither Dems nor Repubs have figured that one out yet. *sigh*

I'd just as soon leave expenditure levels where they are as a whole. I'd sooner take 50% of the military's budget and redirect it to education.



Too bad neither Dems nor Repubs have figured that one out yet. *sigh*

the solution with education isn't throwing money at it. We also outspend the rest of the world per child in education. What we need to do is school choice attach the money to the child and allow him to attend the school of his and his parents choice. it allows children to specialized more, like sports join of the close sports schools, want violin join a school with a great music program. want some religious education go to that so long as the other requirements are met. also will produce children more interested in learning since the schools will focus on things the child is interested in.

When you subsidize unwanted children or bad health, then they generally become more common. The majority in America do not participate in social programs, they are covered by private health companies that are better. In the absence of social programs, you have less poverty. And private charity like churches and shelters can help anyone who is in object poverty and needs help.

Yes! You are right, America's health insurence is the best in the world.

Which is why America spends so little (only 1.2 trillion dollars- more than the rest of the planet and all from private hands) which goes directly into helping patients (only 400 billion, or 33% goes to CEO pay and administration), is affordable to all (except the over 10,000 who die every year because they can't afford the massively overpriced health insurence), covers everything (except anything) and gives you such a great position in the rankings for health statistics.

'Social programs' as you call them made the Scandinavian welfare states the best in the world in every statistic that matters, and hoisted millions of Americans out of poverty.

Private charity is bullshit. Anyone who can afford to give enough money to make a difference has an incentive to keep people poor and unable to resist.

In short- privitisation doesn't work, neo-liberalism is bullshit and little private tyrannies should not rule the country.

Uhu...

How does states raising their taxes to pay for the services that the federal government used to be in charge of actually benefit anyone?

Theoretically a particular state should be more in touch with the actual wants of the people within that state, whereas the rest of the collective states pretty much have no clue or care, outside of their own borders.

Moving house, possibly thousands of miles, to get to a cheaper state?

Bit much, no?

Hardly. Some people actually move to states that more closely reflect their personal values. When the majority of a state begins to demand things which conflict with the principles of those with views that are in the minority, the option of "voting with your feet" is always available. (If you don't like it...move)

They tend to make the richest individuals slightly worse off, while increasing the wealth available to the majority of the population.

A mandated rob the rich and give to the poor setup. Definitely an immoral position. I prefer voluntarily giving to those less fortunate than I. At least that way I have a better idea where the contributions are going. Federally mandated confiscation has your contributions going who knows where, maybe even to directly funding a war you might not agree with.

Generically claiming "let's cut the government" is just another episode of the usual "I hate the government" attitude. I don't understand why citizens of a democracy should hate the government: it belongs to them, and not the other way around.

Indeed, the people are the employer, and the sovereign as well. If the people feel they have too many employees or that their resources are being squandered in manners contrary to their will, how is it a negative attitude for the people to demand control of their own money by cutting government?

the solution with education isn't throwing money at it.

Given how much money we're talking about (half the DOD budget), I think we'd see a vast degree of improvement. You can build an awful lot of new schools, buy an awful lot of computers, and hire an awful lot of better qualified teachers with that kind of money.

Given how much money we're talking about (half the DOD budget), I think we'd see a vast degree of improvement. You can build an awful lot of new schools, buy an awful lot of computers, and hire an awful lot of better qualified teachers with that kind of money.

the problem isn't hiring new teachers it is firing the crappy ones. because it is a goverment job it is hard to get fired. also there is a lack of competition between schools. Look at Finland they spend a ton less on education but they pull out ahead because of school choice.

I heard this discussion on a left leaning radio show the other day. Was surprised at this show does not usually feature libertarian view points. The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country. So what do you think could it be possible to cut government expenditures in the first place by 50%? Next question would it then translate in substantial increased wealth of the nation as a whole due to the a reduction in taxes by 50%? I am also not limiting this to a discussion about the US economy. Could European economies also do such a thing?

So long as that spending is all military. Everything else has been cut so much that it's already causing significant harm to the country. Cuts at the FDA are causing poisoned food and medicine to be imported. Cuts at FEMA, well I'll leave someone from New Orleans to tell you about that. Our infrastructure is deteriorating. Even the IRS doesn't have enough of a budget to run proper audits of big corporations.

What services would be cut or done away with or even privatised to fund this I wonder?

Given how much money we're talking about (half the DOD budget), I think we'd see a vast degree of improvement. You can build an awful lot of new schools, buy an awful lot of computers, and hire an awful lot of better qualified teachers with that kind of money.
And none of these things have been shown to produce better outcomes. The key to producing those is to change the structure of the education industry (and particularly the labour market for teachers).

And as a general note, the new Australian government tonight unveiled its new budget for this year. Given the inflationary pressures we're facing here at the moment, the name of the game was a reduction in government spending.

Not sure whether you'll be able to access this article without signing up (it's worth it, by the way, if you're interested in the Australian economy), but here it is: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/K1-ELBUG?OpenDocument
The Government, meanwhile, is playing down the centrepiece of its first budget. It is not mentioned at all in Wayne Swan’s budget speech; he just sums up all the nice things that have previously been announced.

The core of the budget – what it’s really all about - is contained at the back of budget paper No.2 - from page 361 to p.427. Here you will find 66 pages detailing 134 new savings measures, on top of the 46 cuts announced during the election campaign, totalling $1.6 billion in 2008-09.

The new savings total $5.7 billion in 2008-09, 11 dozen of them – big ones, small ones: nip cut slash.

The big picture of this budget is that the Rudd Government has announced $5.3 billion worth of new spending for 2008-09 leading up to it, and has now announced savings of $7.3 billion, increasing the surplus by $2 billion.

In addition to that there are a total of $5.4 billion in unexpected increases in tax receipts and other windfalls since the pre-election fiscal outlook (PEFO) that was issued by Treasury during the election campaign last year.

As a result the $14.3 billion surplus forecast in the PEFO has now turned into a $21.7 billion surplus ($14.3 billion plus $2 billion plus $5.4 billion).

And that's from a government that's been running surpluses for years now and is expected to switch over to a positive net worth (!) some time in 2009/10. Imagine what would be possible in the States.

A mandated rob the rich and give to the poor setup. Definitely an immoral position. I prefer voluntarily giving to those less fortunate than I. At least that way I have a better idea where the contributions are going. Federally mandated confiscation has your contributions going who knows where, maybe even to directly funding a war you might not agree with.



Place of residence is entirely voluntary, and taxes usually are bound to residence. So, no, it's not robbing, and not mandated.

Place of residence is entirely voluntary, and taxes usually are bound to residence. So, no, it's not robbing, and not mandated.

Huh, place of residance is not entirley voluntary. We have no choie where we are born, and many of us could not emigrate even if we wanted.

Other than that, yeah I agree.:D

Huh, place of residance is not entirley voluntary. We have no choie where we are born, and many of us could not emigrate even if we wanted.

Other than that, yeah I agree.:D

you can migrate. you just might not be able to migrate to where you want. plenty of 3rd world countries don't have the infrastructure to stop people from showing up and building a home stead.

you can migrate. you just might not be able to migrate to where you want. plenty of 3rd world countries don't have the infrastructure to stop people from showing up and building a home stead.

Perhaps, but as I say many of us cannot.

Huh, place of residance is not entirley voluntary. We have no choie where we are born, and many of us could not emigrate even if we wanted.

Other than that, yeah I agree.:D

But you don't pay taxes right after you're born, now, do you? ;)
And there are very, very few people on the planet who really cannot emigrate if they want to.

But you don't pay taxes right after you're born, now, do you? ;)
And there are very, very few people on the planet who really cannot emigrate if they want to.

Naa I disagree. I can't, none of my brothers bar perhaps one can't, none of my sisters can, my Mum can't, ohh but my dad did.

There are many reasons why many people can't emigrate, most down to money.

Perhaps, but as I say many of us cannot.

maybe if your on an island, otherwise just pack up your stuff and walk across the boarder the Mexicans do it.

maybe if your on an island, otherwise just pack up your stuff and walk across the boarder the Mexicans do it.

Ahh yes, I'm on an Island.

Naa I disagree. I can't, none of my brothers bar perhaps one can't, none of my sisters can, my Mum can't, ohh but my dad did.

There are many reasons why many people can't emigrate, most down to money.

Not true.
I went to Ireland with next to no money at all, I had all in all 500 Euros when I came here.
I think what you mean is "disinclined", rather than "can't".

Ahh yes, I'm on an Island.

So am I now ;)

The whole "you choose not to leave, therefore you choose to pay taxes" line of argument breaks down at some point when the government's action becomes so problematic to you that you start wondering what exactly gives the government the right to confront you with that choice.

Not true.
I went to Ireland with next to no money at all, I had all in all 500 Euros when I came here.
I think what you mean is "disinclined", rather than "can't".
Wow, just imagine where my £3000, a degree and £10000+ of debt could get me...

Wow, just imagine where my £3000, a degree and £10000+ of debt could get me...

one of the benefits of moving to a new country is you skip on your debt.

You could randomly fire one of every 3 government employees in the US and noone would notice a bit of difference.

Not true.
I went to Ireland with next to no money at all, I had all in all 500 Euros when I came here.
I think what you mean is "disinclined", rather than "can't".

No I mean can't. I havn't got a spare 500 euro's, what if your spare cash is nowt, then is it a question of disinclined, or plain just can't?

You see the telling words here are 'next to nothing' what if in fact you have 'nothing '?

You could randomly fire one of every 3 government employees in the US and noone would notice a bit of difference.

no no goverment service would improve. the other 2/3s would have less people to sit around talking with while ignoring the people in line.

No I mean can't. I havn't got a spare 500 euro's, what if your spare cash is nowt, then is it a question of disinclined, or plain just can't?

You see the telling words here are 'next to nothing' what if in fact you have 'nothing '?

you seem to have a computer?
Tv and many other electric appliances.

seems your disinclined. sell that crap and move if you want.

you seem to have a computer?
Tv and many other electric appliances.

seems your disinclined. sell that crap and move if you want.

Bwahahah I seem to be at work, on the work PC.

Yeah I could sell all of my crap, and decied to go elsewhere, still couldn't afford to though, not with a wife, two children, cats and a hamster. My wife and my youngest child do not have a passport, thats' £100 before admin costs. Air fare, or sea fare for 4 and pets, duty, rent, cost of finding employment, etc....

No it's easy to get a hang of you know, if somebody says, no mate I can't aford it, what they envirably mean is no mate I can't afford it.

Bwahahah I seem to be at work, on the work PC.

Yeah I could sell all of my crap, and decied to go elsewhere, still couldn't afford to though, not with a wife, two children, cats and a hamster. My wife and my youngest child do not have a passport, thats' £100 before admin costs. Air fare, or sea fare for 4 and pets, duty, rent, cost of finding employment, etc....

No it's easy to get a hang of you know, if somebody says, no mate I can't aford it, what they envirably mean is no mate I can't afford it.

the benefit of going to another country is you ditch the wife and kids and start over. your missing the whole point of going to another country. bring the wife and kids ??? are you mad might as well have stayed there.

the benefit of going to another country is you ditch the wife and kids and start over. your missing the whole point of going to another country. bring the wife and kids ??? are you mad might as well have stayed there.

Wait, whuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?

No I mean can't. I havn't got a spare 500 euro's, what if your spare cash is nowt, then is it a question of disinclined, or plain just can't?

You see the telling words here are 'next to nothing' what if in fact you have 'nothing '?

I didn't say "spare", I said it was all I had. It was the last pay of my previous job.

If you haven't got anything, what do you pay your line rental with?

one of the benefits of moving to a new country is you skip on your debt.
Nope, my contract with the SLC states that I have to make arrangements for paying off my student loan abroad if I emigrate.

Nope, my contract with the SLC states that I have to make arrangements for paying off my student loan abroad if I emigrate.

thats nice but since they cant garnish your wage in another country that contract is just a piece of paper in another country.

Bwahahah I seem to be at work, on the work PC.

Yeah I could sell all of my crap, and decied to go elsewhere, still couldn't afford to though, not with a wife, two children, cats and a hamster. My wife and my youngest child do not have a passport, thats' £100 before admin costs. Air fare, or sea fare for 4 and pets, duty, rent, cost of finding employment, etc....

No it's easy to get a hang of you know, if somebody says, no mate I can't aford it, what they envirably mean is no mate I can't afford it.

Sounds to me like you have too much, not too little. ;)

Oh, and why not just take the ferry, then? Finding employment doesn't cost much, there are no more duties within the EU (besides, what would you pay duty on anyway?), the first couple weeks I lived in a hostel.

It can be done, if you want to.

the benefit of going to another country is you ditch the wife and kids and start over. your missing the whole point of going to another country. bring the wife and kids ??? are you mad might as well have stayed there.

Heheh naa I'm quite attached to them.

I'd cut:

federal welfare spending (belongs in the states if it should exist at all)

federal education spending (belongs in the states if it should exist at all)

foreign aid (charity is a matter for the citizens to perform as they see fit.)

the military (we have soldiers stationed worldwide when they should be at home. I disagree with Iraq, and Afghanistan should be able to sort itself out by now. All we need is the Marines at the embassies, and a standing army isn't even allowed by the Constitution. We should have the US Navy, the US Air Force as a natural extension of technology, and a state-run National Guard under the authority of the 50 governors.)

Every government program, agency, bureau, and office not explicitly created by the Constitution

That ought to cover more than 50%.

I didn't say "spare", I said it was all I had. It was the last pay of my previous job.

If you haven't got anything, what do you pay your line rental with?

What is line rental?

What is line rental?

It's what you pay for phone and internet.

I'd cut:

federal welfare spending (belongs in the states if it should exist at all)

federal education spending (belongs in the states if it should exist at all)

foreign aid (charity is a matter for the citizens to perform as they see fit.)

the military (we have soldiers stationed worldwide when they should be at home. I disagree with Iraq, and Afghanistan should be able to sort itself out by now. All we need is the Marines at the embassies, and a standing army isn't even allowed by the Constitution. We should have the US Navy, the US Air Force as a natural extension of technology, and a state-run National Guard under the authority of the 50 governors.)

Every government program, agency, bureau, and office not explicitly created by the Constitution

That ought to cover more than 50%.

*looks at the suggestions*

I doubt it would cut costs... you'd have to massively increase your police force and homeland security, and pay for it out of severly reduced funds due to more than 50% of your population being unemployed (and unemployable) and not paying taxes. Facture the massive decline of your economy due to lack of qualified labour into that, and I think the country you might find comes closest would be Zimbabwe.

Sounds to me like you have too much, not too little. ;)

Oh, and why not just take the ferry, then? Finding employment doesn't cost much, there are no more duties within the EU (besides, what would you pay duty on anyway?), the first couple weeks I lived in a hostel.

It can be done, if you want to.

Nope it can't. How much does a ferry to NZ cost BTW?:D

When you have no cash to spare, things like papers, phone calls, internet cafe use, printing up CV's, traveling to and from interviews, purchasing of snmarty cloths, all cost more than you have.

It's what you pay for phone and internet.

Ohhh THAT line rental. I don't have it, no phone or internet, no sky TV, shit man I can't afford all that!:D

The idea of randomly chucking government employees is absurd.

The problem in the United States is not government employees do nothing of value, it is that the systems in place for producing that value are inefficient and expensive. Some time in the late 20th century we passed a line, and since then, the average government worker does less work for more pay and benefits than an equivalent worker in the private sector.

You know what happens in such a situation: holding on to that sweet deal becomes an end in itself. And the job, since it is superior to what's out there in the private sector, becomes a reward the politically powerful get to hand out. The powerful don't want to lose that power, the weak want to line up and get that reward.

The only thing that would counter it is a move to make the public sector less attractive. For example, laws mandating that government employees receive no more time off, and no lower retirement ages than the average for the equivalent work in the private sector. A public bus driver should have six sick days and personal days a year like everyone else, not 18. Retiring at 55 is absurd in this era.

The added productivity just from requiring public sector workers to work to private sector standards would completely revitalize this nation.

It's been my experience that there are already some public workers that work with the same level of effort, or more, as private sector workers. Not coincidentally, these are all in areas that require a great deal of personal comittment. National Parks and Forest Service employees, especially Rangers, work their butts off. So do military personnel, and people in various security agencies. Not coincidentally, when a state senator hands out a plumb job as a reward to a supporter, it's generally not something like Artillerist.

There is probably no easier or less important job is the US government than Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Big time patronage reward. A job so easy and yet so prestigious could pay minimum wage, and it would STILL draw a long waiting list of applicants.

As a historical note, it's also not a coincidence that many years ago, when the situation was different and it was the military that offered the rewards, military commissions WERE handed out as favors.

Heheh naa I'm quite attached to them.

see your just disinclined then.

see your just disinclined then.

Bwahahahahah ohh shit you're funny.

*looks at the suggestions*

I doubt it would cut costs... you'd have to massively increase your police force and homeland security, and pay for it out of severly reduced funds due to more than 50% of your population being unemployed (and unemployable) and not paying taxes. Facture the massive decline of your economy due to lack of qualified labour into that, and I think the country you might find comes closest would be Zimbabwe.

can you explain how any of those ideas would increases unemployment or crime?

can you explain how any of those ideas would increases unemployment or crime?

Really?

Come on man do you not think that reducing the number of people in the armed services would mean less employed people?

can you explain how any of those ideas would increases unemployment or crime?

Decrease in education (budget cut severely) = less qualified workers available = decrease in investment in the country, both foreign and national = less jobs = more unemployment = more people relying on unemployment benefits, which are cut severely as well = more poverty = more crime

If you want an example of a country going through this process at the moment, take a good look at Germany.

Really?

Come on man do you not think that reducing the number of people in the armed services would mean less employed people?

Most servicemen other that infantry grunts have some form of skill that can be transferred into the private sector quite easily. I don't agree with completely ending the standing Army, but you could realize a great cost reduction by moving all bases to the United States. No more transportation costs, foreign cost of living pay, and the economies of whatever city you move the troops into increases as there are more employed individuals there.

Most servicemen other that infantry grunts have some form of skill that can be transferred into the private sector quite easily. I don't agree with completely ending the standing Army, but you could realize a great cost reduction by moving all bases to the United States. No more transportation costs, foreign cost of living pay, and the economies of whatever city you move the troops into increases as there are more employed individuals there.

Well yes of course, but are you really saying that if you reduce the number of trops by say 100,000, that 100,000 people will easily find other employment, can you garuntee that?

Most servicemen other that infantry grunts have some form of skill that can be transferred into the private sector quite easily. I don't agree with completely ending the standing Army, but you could realize a great cost reduction by moving all bases to the United States. No more transportation costs, foreign cost of living pay, and the economies of whatever city you move the troops into increases as there are more employed individuals there.

Well, what about the supplier companies? The army is big business, not only where weapons and arms are concerned, but anything from food to computers to boots.
All of them would have to drastically reduce their workforce...

See, the big difference between government and individuals is, governments are forced to keep spending. Individuals tend to hoard their money. And guess which is better for the economy?

the subway in my town, atlanta, isn't that bad either and its private.

Wrong. You pay a 1% sales tax in Fulton, Dekalb, Clayton, Cobb and Gwinnett counties for MARTA.

I heard this discussion on a left leaning radio show the other day. Was surprised at this show does not usually feature libertarian view points. The author was proclaiming that a 50% reduction in government expenditures would substantially increase the wealth of the country. So what do you think could it be possible to cut government expenditures in the first place by 50%? Next question would it then translate in substantial increased wealth of the nation as a whole due to the a reduction in taxes by 50%? I am also not limiting this to a discussion about the US economy. Could European economies also do such a thing?
The title of the thread is "Cut the government by 50%." You are talking about the desirability of a 50% cut in taxes. The size of the government != taxes. A 50% cut in taxes would not limit the coercive power of the state. It would just make a lot of services impossible to sustain, and we know full well that nobody will tolerate a much needed cut in the military budget, so I know where that leaves everyone else.

Why not cut the government by 50%, both in its coercive capacity and in taxation? If we got to the point that the majority of Americans would meaningfully consider this possibility, we might as well shoot a lot higher.

Well yes of course, but are you really saying that if you reduce the number of trops by say 100,000, that 100,000 people will easily find other employment, can you garuntee that?

Of course not. Can you guarantee they won't?

Well, what about the supplier companies? The army is big business, not only where weapons and arms are concerned, but anything from food to computers to boots.
All of them would have to drastically reduce their workforce...

See, the big difference between government and individuals is, governments are forced to keep spending. Individuals tend to hoard their money. And guess which is better for the economy?

I'm not saying cut the army. I'm saying move the army home. And maybe cut a little of the fat.

What services would be cut or done away with or even privatised to fund this I wonder?Start with corporate welfare.

When you subsidize unwanted children or bad health, then they generally become more common. The majority in America do not participate in social programs, they are covered by private health companies that are better. In the absence of social programs, you have less poverty. And private charity like churches and shelters can help anyone who is in object poverty and needs help.

If the majority in America do not participate in social programs.... where is all this 'private charity' going to come from? If you are objecting to $5 of your tax going to feed the poor, what reason would anyone have to believe that the poor are going to get fed under your idealised 'private charity' society?

Let's roll back the clock, and see what happened before the alphabet agencies in the US?... The poor got sick and died. The poor got hungry and died. SO... yes, the costs is lower - because people died.

Is that your solution? The poor should just hurry up and die, so the fat cats at the top of the stack can get more of... well, everything?

The US government tries to shame the poor and unfortunate... tries to make out that it's somehow their fault. It's cute to try to ignore that a capitalist society MUST have a poor strata if it is going to have a wealthier one, and it's cute to make people feel responsible for being one of the poor ones... but, in the end, people are going to feel the pangs of hunger more sharply than the shame that they are told they should feel. And, without the raft of support the US once had, when the next tide changes, the US will fall.

Nope, my contract with the SLC states that I have to make arrangements for paying off my student loan abroad if I emigrate.

Might be worth checking. When I got mine it used to have a clause about no longer having to pay back if you become a citizen of a new country...

already familiar with Roe V Wade.

Obviously you are not, I would suggest reading it again.

See, the big difference between government and individuals is, governments are forced to keep spending. Individuals tend to hoard their money. And guess which is better for the economy?

Consumer spending is far larger than household investment. In the UK, for instance, household consumption is four times higher than private investment. And the government doesn't consume all of its income either - in the UK 10% of government spending is through investment rather than consumption.

As for your question, whether consumption or investment is better for the economy depends on the present state of the economy.

*looks at the suggestions*

I doubt it would cut costs... you'd have to massively increase your police force and homeland security, and pay for it out of severly reduced funds due to more than 50% of your population being unemployed (and unemployable) and not paying taxes. Facture the massive decline of your economy due to lack of qualified labour into that, and I think the country you might find comes closest would be Zimbabwe.

Interesting that you would compare it to Zimbabwe where a source of one of their greatest problems - hyperinflation - is due to having too many government workers, especially soldiers.

Interesting that you would compare it to Zimbabwe where a source of one of their greatest problems - hyperinflation - is due to having too many government workers, especially soldiers.
source?

source?

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/world/africa/02zimbabwe.html?ex=1304222400&en=e4f95916b4e5d098&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), one of many sources on the subject.

"At the same time, Mr. Mugabe's government has printed trillions of new Zimbabwean dollars to keep ministries functioning and to shield the salaries of key supporters — and potential enemies — against further erosion. Supplemental spending proposed early in April would increase the 2006 spending limits approved last November by fully 40 percent, and more such emergency spending measures are all but certain before the year ends.

On Friday, the government said it would triple the salaries of 190,000 soldiers and teachers."

The government has no money and is printing Zimbabwean dollars to pay government workers which is causing hyperinflation.

Obviously you are not, I would suggest reading it again.

the ever popular "if you don't agree with me you must be ignorant" approach.

very popular with dictators that run reeducation camps I hear.

The government has no money and is printing Zimbabwean dollars to pay government workers which is causing hyperinflation.

That's not the same thing as having too many government workers.

That's not the same thing as having too many government workers.

They have more workers than they can afford to employ with their budget. If they are unwilling to raise taxes then they have too many workers.

They have more workers than they can afford to employ with their budget. If they are unwilling to raise taxes then they have too many workers.
Yeah, but the issue is the way the government is financing its spending rather than what the money happens to be spent on. France has too many government workers, but it's not causing hyperinflation because the French government doesn't monetise its deficits continuously, while post-WWI Germany didn't have many government workers but did monetise its deficits that were caused by things like economic stimulus packages and war reparations.

Now, having too big a public sector can be the cause of inflation, but that's a different story.

Yeah, but the issue is the way the government is financing its spending rather than what the money happens to be spent on. France has too many government workers, but it's not causing hyperinflation because the French government doesn't monetise its deficits continuously, while post-WWI Germany didn't have many government workers but did monetise its deficits that were caused by things like economic stimulus packages and war reparations.

Now, having too big a public sector can be the cause of inflation, but that's a different story.

I'd say its two sides to the same coin. I agree that Zimbabwe's situation is not the same as the situation described in the OP, I was just pointing out the slight irony of saying that by hiring less government workers you'd end up with a country that cannot afford the workers it already has.

The situation in countries like France and Zimbabwe are different, but both have too many workers - France has more than it needs, Zimbabwe more than it can afford.

The situation in countries like France and Zimbabwe are different, but both have too many workers - France has more than it needs, Zimbabwe more than it can afford.
Yes. I'm just saying that for hyperinflation to happen, there has to be printing money in order to finance spending. Governments can default, currencies collapse, economies go down the crapper and lots of other things can happen if tax- or debt financing are used, but hyperinflation can't.

So even given the bad situation of the Zimbabwean economy and government, hyperinflation wouldn't necessarily have to happen. Mugabe could just try to tax more (though in practice it is doubtful whether there is anyone left in the country who could pay much extra) or issue lots of debt (which, again, probably no one would want to buy). Easiest and the best policy of course would be to drastically cut spending and reform the government and the economy, but he refuses to see the logic behind that, prefering instead to believe that politics can somehow rule over economics.

Anyways, long story short: Zimbabwe's hyperinflation isn't because of too many government workers, but because of the way their wages are financed. Important conceptual difference.

What if the government does not have the means to raise enough money to finance the wages of its workers? It sounds like this is such a case. I sincerely doubt that the government there can raise much more tax and if you happen to know anyone who is willing to buy Zimbabwean government bonds let me know because I have some magic beans they might be interested in ;)

I'm not claiming that Zimbabwe's lack of money and subsequent seignorage and hyperinfaltion is caused by too many workers, rather that Zimbabwe's lack of money means they have too many workers.

I'm not claiming that Zimbabwe's lack of money and subsequent seignorage and hyperinfaltion is caused by too many workers, rather that Zimbabwe's lack of money means they have too many workers.
In that case, we agree.

If we got rid of social security and reduced our military budget by 10%, does anyone know if this would reduce the US federal budget by 50%?

If we got rid of social security and reduced our military budget by 10%, does anyone know if this would reduce the US federal budget by 50%?
Probably, on the other hand, since 94% of voters are over 60 years old, you couldn't win on this platform.

the ever popular "if you don't agree with me you must be ignorant" approach.

very popular with dictators that run reeducation camps I hear.

You asked what the constitutional basis for the Roe Vs. Wade decision was, and your response to my posting a link to the decision was to pick out one part of the decision that you disagreed with the reasoning, completely ignoring the constitutional reasoning for the decision.
Explain to me how this shows familiarity with Roe vs. Wade.