Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Silver Lining In The Government Shutdown

  1. #1

    Silver Lining In The Government Shutdown

    Silver Lining In The Government Shutdown



    A shocker article in the Daily Caller this week blew the lid on what it's really like among all those "public servants" working in the Federal bureaucracy: about 85 percent of them do nothing at all related to their jobs. With thousands of "workers" furloughed, the government offices are actually working better than ever. Is there a lesson in this somewhere???
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    ďThey are what they hate.Ē - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    OK everyone - time to get serious, get on the knees, and get praying that this thing keeps going until the furloughs quit for greener pastures.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  4. #3
    With thousands of "workers" furloughed, the government offices are actually working better than ever. Is there a lesson in this somewhere???
    It depends. Which do you regard as being more objectionable - more government employees, or more "efficient" government?

    If we object to myriad things being done by "government offices", then do we really want those offices "working better than ever" ... ?

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    OK everyone - time to get serious, get on the knees, and get praying that this thing keeps going until the furloughs quit for greener pastures.
    Local news was lamenting the fact that some furloughed govt employees were having to get new jobs. As if that is a terrible thing. Government is long past due for an across the board lay-off, like real employers have to do.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    ďThey are what they hate.Ē - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    It depends. Which do you regard as being more objectionable - more government employees, or more "efficient" government?

    If we object to myriad things being done by "government offices", then do we really want those offices "working better than ever" ... ?
    We have yet to see 'more efficient' government, efficient Govt=oxymoron.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    We have yet to see 'more efficient' government, efficient Govt=oxymoron.
    Hence my use of quote marks around "efficient" (and my use of the comparative term "more").

    Just replace "more efficient" with "less inefficient" if you prefer ...
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 01-20-2019 at 01:59 PM.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Hence my use of quote marks around "efficient" (and my use of the comparative term "more").

    Just replace "more efficient" with "less inefficient" if you prefer ...
    I wasn't bustn' your chops nanner, just adding ........

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    It depends. Which do you regard as being more objectionable - more government employees, or more "efficient" government?

    If we object to myriad things being done by "government offices", then do we really want those offices "working better than ever" ... ?
    More employees is more objectionable, the government doesn't grow more inefficient as quickly as it just plain grows.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    More employees is more objectionable, the government doesn't grow more inefficient as quickly as it just plain grows.
    But the condition presented by Ron is that the government grows less inefficient with fewer employess, not more. I submit that "less inefficient" is worse than "more employees". Given that almost all of what the government does is objectionable, I'd rather live under a state that employs ten million and gets less of those objectionable things done than one that employs only one million and gets more of those objectionable things done. (Also, when we speak of the insalubrious effects of "big" or "growing" government, we are not typically referring to the length of its payroll, but rather to the scope of its purview.)

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    But the condition presented by Ron is that the government grows less inefficient with fewer employess, not more. I submit that "less inefficient" is worse than "more employees". Given that almost all of what the government does is objectionable, I'd rather live under a state that employs ten million and gets less of those objectionable things done than one that employs only one million and gets more of those objectionable things done. (Also, when we speak of the insalubrious effects of "big" or "growing" government, we are not typically referring to the length of its payroll, but rather to the scope of its purview.)
    But if twice as many employees are 2/3rds as efficient they still get more "governing" done.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    But if twice as many employees are 2/3rds as efficient they still get more "governing" done.
    As they will if half as many employees are 3/2nds as efficient. And this illustrates the problem with this example: it implicitly assumes an inverse linear relationship between length of payroll and "efficiency". But there is no reason to make such an assumption. (Just the opposite, in fact - "efficiency" would be maximized with only one employee. The actual relationship is probably Gaussian or something similar.) That is why I used comparative terms ("less" and "more") instead of coefficients when I said, "I'd rather live under a state that employs ten million and gets less of those objectionable things done than one that employs only one million and gets more of those objectionable things done". As I mentioned before, what actually matters most here is the size of the purview, not the size of the payroll. I'd rather have 10,000 park rangers and only 1,000 asset-seizing drug warriors than 5,000 park rangers and 5,000 asset-seizing drug warriors - even though there are 1,000 more employees on the federal payroll in the first scenario than there are in the second. And that is regardless of how much more or less "efficient" the park rangers and drug warriors might be.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 01-20-2019 at 06:48 PM.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    As they will if half as many employees are 3/2nds as efficient.
    That isn't true.

    2X2/3=1 1/3
    .5X3/2= 3/4

    1 1/3 is more than 1, 3/4 is less than 1.

    Less government workers is always better.


    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    And this illustrates the problem with this example: it implicitly assumes an inverse linear relationship between length of payroll and "efficiency". But there is no reason to make such an assumption. (Just the opposite, in fact - "efficiency" would be maximized with only one employee. The actual relationship is probably Gaussian or something similar.) That is why I used comparative terms ("less" and "more") instead of coefficients when I said, "I'd rather live under a state that employs ten million and gets less of those objectionable things done than one that employs only one million and gets more of those objectionable things done". As I mentioned before, what actually matters most here is the size of the purview, not the size of the payroll. I'd rather have 10,000 park rangers and only 1,000 asset-seizing drug warriors than 5,000 park rangers and 5,000 asset-seizing drug warriors - even though there are 1,000 more employees on the federal payroll in the first scenario than there are in the second.
    I would like to target their purview as well but a crude attack on their numbers is profitable if that is all we can get right now.

    If one man is made tyrant of the whole world with unlimited authority except that he can't hire anyone to help him then very little tyranny will actually take place.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That isn't true.

    2X2/3=1 1/3
    .5X3/2= 3/4

    1 1/3 is more than 1, 3/4 is less than 1.
    You are correct. Algebra fail on my part. I didn't stop to work out the math ...

    Since we are using made up numbers, just replace "3/2nds" with "2 & 2/3rds" (or "half" with "nine-tenths"). The substance of the point remains the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Less government workers is always better.
    No, it isn't always better ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I'd rather have 10,000 park rangers and only 1,000 asset-seizing drug warriors than 5,000 park rangers and 5,000 asset-seizing drug warriors - even though there are 1,000 more employees on the federal payroll in the first scenario than there are in the second.
    What government workers do - i.e., their purview - makes all the difference. They are not interchangeably homogeneous units.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I would like to target their purview as well but a crude attack on their numbers is profitable if that is all we can get right now.

    If one man is made tyrant of the whole world with unlimited authority except that he can't hire anyone to help him then very little tyranny will actually take place.
    And ceteris paribus, a tyrant who employs 10,000 park rangers and 1,000 asset-seizing drug warriors is less tyrannical than a tyrant who employs 5,000 park rangers and 5,000 asset-seizing drug warriors - despite the fact that he has hired more people to help him.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    You are correct. Algebra fail on my part. I didn't stop to work out the math ...

    Since we are using made up numbers, just replace "3/2nds" with "2 & 2/3rds" (or "half" with "nine-tenths"). The substance of the point remains the same.
    I believe that the government workers become less efficient at a slower rate than their rate of growth, you believe that they become less efficient at a faster rate than their rate of growth, we won't ever agree unless one of us could be proven correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    No, it isn't always better ...
    What government workers do - i.e., their purview - makes all the difference. They are not interchangeably homogeneous units.



    And ceteris paribus, a tyrant who employs 10,000 park rangers and 1,000 asset-seizing drug warriors is less tyrannical than a tyrant who employs 5,000 park rangers and 5,000 asset-seizing drug warriors - despite the fact that he has hired more people to help him.
    I agree that attacking the kind of government workers is an even better option if it is available but we aren't talking about hiring a few more drug warriors while firing a lot of park rangers, even if we fire no drug warriors it is still a victory to fire some park rangers as long as we aren't hiring more drug warriors.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I believe that the government workers become less efficient at a slower rate than their rate of growth, you believe that they become less efficient at a faster rate than their rate of growth, we won't ever agree unless one of us could be proven correct.
    That's not what I believe - indeed, my point was that such inverse linearity is a bad assumption (regardless of whether the slope is "fast" or "slow").

    Thus, there is no constant "rate of growth" over the domain.

    As I said before, the distribution is quite probably Gaussian or the like (with "efficiency" ramping up at first but inflecting at some point and then falling off).

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I agree that attacking the kind of government workers is an even better option if it is available but we aren't talking about hiring a few more drug warriors while firing a lot of park rangers, even if we fire no drug warriors it is still a victory to fire some park rangers as long as we aren't hiring more drug warriors.
    I agree. But that's not the claim to which I was responding (namely, that "less government workers is always better").
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 01-20-2019 at 10:00 PM.



Similar Threads

  1. Silver lining...
    By PaleoPaul in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 05:48 PM
  2. there could be a silver lining
    By cindy25 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-04-2012, 06:59 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-03-2011, 10:41 AM
  4. The Silver Lining
    By PeacePlan in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-10-2010, 02:49 PM
  5. Always a silver lining
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-23-2010, 11:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •