Isn't this true? So then why is government still considered so big here?
Couldn't one respond that employment in general has been shrinking, yet the influence and control of the government 'sector' over the economy (I've read that it makes up 40 % or some related figure) still remains a major factor (you know, being the largest employer in the world) in how the economy has functioned over time?
But even then, hasn't government in general been shrinking?
@Cortes: Who is your avatar???? Driving me crazy!
Look up Tim and Eric Awesome Show: Great Job!
I... don't necessarily know how you'll react to it when you watch an episode, but... it's worth it.
Hahaha...well put. But you forgot--It's not Jackie Chan!
Government has not been shrinking as a percentage of the economy. It is the economy that has been shrinking. And just like in nature, a smaller number of hosts means a smaller number of parasites. That is why the huge increases in employment at the US Federal Government Level have created only very short term decreases in unemployment as their increase has predictably crowded out entrepreneurism but also state and local government activities.
The core issue here is always scarcity. Government at the Federal Level can create money through the Federal Reserve Banking cartel. It can not create wealth. The money created goes to the Federal Govenrment but that activity redistributes wealth away from individuals who can no longer afford all of the stuff and local government they had previously.
If we only had one guy with a mind controlling helmet the government would be even smaller!
One question I have is, has the amount of government jobs been shrinking in all areas?
Another question is, has the amount of money the government's been taking also shrinking?
I think the answer to both of those questions is no. Plus government jobs seem to be increasingly outsourced to private contractors.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
The problem is that Obama is doing what Reagan is doing by paying them too much and by contracting things out. At the same time, he hasn't kept as many people directly on the Federal payroll as Reagan has. The contracts are hurting more than they're helping. The aforementioned is why I'm actually more afraid of Romney than Obama because the Republicans are "supply-siders" who only care about the deficit rather than the increase in growth of govt (i.e., public spending) while Obama should've said he would reduce the rate of growth in govt spending if he was going to regulate and give the Fed so much power. The reason deficits are so high is because of less tax receipts even though spending is definitely way too high. That said, if the banks and GM had failed a few years ago, then I think we would probably be at much higher "employment" now and the budget would likely be balanced (or close to it) even at current expenditure rates. The "ZIRP" was also a failure, but it is not as bad as a more N(egative)IRP which is what the EU tried a long time ago if I'm not mistaken. The Fed shouldn't have tried to tweak interest rates, because it couldn't change human action.
Anyway, I think perhaps Obama is more pro-regulation than pro-spending and the regulations/bureaucracy and the Fed are probably keeping growth slow.
Yes, my good friend nailed it before I did. The contracts are doing more harm than good because the people who lobby for them are set for life.