Editor's Note: For any Federal workers among our readership, our harsh reference towards government workers should not be
taken personally. It is the agencies and positions we view as "parasitic" and "useless," not the people
holding jobs there. We can't really fault someone for accepting a job with FedGov.
I don't know about "youse guys," but other than the furloughed Federal parasites (probably 90% of them
Demonrats), has anyone actually noticed any of these oh-so-horrible effects of the partial (15%) "government
shutdown" ™ caused
by Demonrat refusal to fund Trump's border wall?
From the article:
"The partial government shutdown is inflicting far greater damage on the United States economy than previously
estimated ... The revised estimates from the Council of Economic Advisers show that the shutdown, now in its fourth week,
is beginning to have real economic consequences. The analysis, and other projections from outside the White House, suggests
that the shutdown has already weighed significantly on growth."
Only in the upside-down insular world of Keynesian / Marxist economic theory -- which holds that all
prosperity and all human advancement flow from government manipulation and bureaucratic interference -- are the layoffs of
800,000 generally well-payed useless eaters considered a "threat" to the national economy. That's like claiming
that the removal of 800,000 blood-sucking ticks from the butt-hole of a sick racehorse will weaken the creature and make him
1. The British sodomite John Maynard Keynes
is the founding father of the anti-market, pro-big government manipulation economics which has infested the business schools
of America and Europe. Keynes' groupies believe that government spending creates prosperity. // 2. Some of the useless eaters
of America's bloated bureaucracy believe that they are entitled to cushy, lay-off-free jobs with automatic payraises for life.
// 3. 800,000 blood-sucking ticks digging into a horse's ass. Who needs em?
The piece goes on and on in a pathetic
attempt to induce reader tears for the useless eaters of the Departments of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency
and the National Science Foundation. Weep not for these engorged Marxist mosquitoes, boys and girls -- for if history serves
correctly as any indicative precedent, they will all receive full back-pay when they do return to "work" (rolling
eyes). The "government shutdown" ™ is actually a paid vacation for
them. Nice "work" if you can get it, eh?
from the fact that no economic harm will come to the 800,000 ticks and fleas, may we ask: "What is so bloody
damn sacrosanct about a position with the Federal government?" Why
no tears from Sulzberger's sleazy scribblers for those of us here in the private sector (the racehorse which supports
the parasites) for whom job losses due to firings, downsizing, environmental regulations and outsourced / off-shored
work are standard elements of the vicissitudes
(a $10 word for ups-and-downs) of life?
Most hard-working private
sector workers in America have, at one time or another, been laid off and stood on unemployment lines.
But this guy can't ever be touched?
This idiotic claim about the "threat" to the overall economy (due to less
government spending) is "supported" by the various pseudo-economists quoted in the article. It represents a
textbook example of what the 19th Century French free-market economist, Frederic Bastiat described as, "The
Broken Window Fallacy."
From the Slimes
article (citing "economist," Ian Sheperdson):
"If the shutdown continues through the end of March, Mr. Shepherdson said in a research note, he would expect
the economy to shrink in the first quarter. While federal workers are likely to receive back pay once the furlough ends,
most government contractors will not, and the longer spending is depressed, the higher the risk that the businesses
they run or patronize will fail, Mr. Shepherdson said." (emphasis added)
Forget about ever re-educating
the dogmatic econo-eggheads
of Academia about basic macro-economics. But methinks
"youse guys" would surely appreciate the simple logic behind
of the Broken Window" (From "That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen"). It's a timeless
classic -- very short and sweet too. Here it is:
"Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James
Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present
at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators,
were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable
consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become
of the glaziers (glass cutters / installers) if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will
be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily,
regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that
it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say
against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs
his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is
a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry
in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined
to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon
one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window
to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library.
In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented."
The lesson is this: Money taken from taxpayers to inject
into one sector of the economy deprives another sector of the economy of that same investment. And if
the "public" expenditure does not add to the net wealth (GDP), society is actually poorer
because of the transfer scheme.
concise and passionate writings (The Law, Economic Sophisms, The Man and the Statesman), were
penned at a time when more and more French "intellectuals" were becoming smitten with Marxist-style
foolishness. His books are essential and understandable reading for free-market / sound currency liberty
lovers. It's a damn shame that most of today's economics majors will
never be exposed to Bastiat.