Economics Questions

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

mickanomics — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:05:43 GMT

wilderness:

should I go on?

No. Please don't.

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

liberty student — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:04:38 GMT

Daniel:

mickanomics:

Dear "liberty student",

Thank you for that excellent answer, thats just the kind of thing I wanted to know.

Sure, but that is not what you were asking. Oh wellz!

You are correct. It's what he wanted to know, not what he asked.

Sometimes, people are asking for one thing, and they want another. Communicating in text has its limitations. That's why it is important to be a sensitive reader (listener). We have to make up for the lack of tone, context and body language when using this medium.

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

wilderness — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:59:37 GMT

mickanomics:

Daniel:

Yes.

There are currently 1.1 million firefighters in the US.

Pleeeeease could anyone other than Daniel please have a guess at some %of GDP figures for the Austrians.

or this?

should I go on?

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

mickanomics — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:59:30 GMT

wilderness:

mickanomics:

Well its a matter of degree. There's bloated and there's bloated. According to Daniel we've got to get from 1.1 million down to a *component* of the 150,000, say 30,000 ?. Thats a 36:1 ratio. Sounds like quite a stretch to me.

if that's NOT what you are asking then what is this?

Please, go through the posts again from the beginning - slowly, or better still ask a grown up.

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

wilderness — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:58:13 GMT

mickanomics:

In reply to several posts.

This thread was never intended to be "what % of GDP should be spent on public service provision" merely "what % of GDP did the guys in the list think should be spent on public service provision".

or this?

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

wilderness — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:57:11 GMT

mickanomics:

Well I hadn't thought it though in any great detail, but I figured that if there are 1.1 million firefighters now then 150,000 for the total of *all* government workers seemed a little on the low side.

or this?

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

mickanomics — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:55:56 GMT

Daniel:

Sure, but that is not what you were asking. Oh wellz!

True, but it was close enough. It answered the gist of my question.

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

wilderness — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:55:04 GMT

mickanomics:

Well its a matter of degree. There's bloated and there's bloated. According to Daniel we've got to get from 1.1 million down to a *component* of the 150,000, say 30,000 ?. Thats a 36:1 ratio. Sounds like quite a stretch to me.

if that's NOT what you are asking then what is this?

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

Saan — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:53:42 GMT

mickanomics:

I know this is very unscientific and you'll be guessing to a large degree, but I'm curious to see if everyone will insist its zero for all of them.

Ludwig von Mises ......?%

M Rothbard...................?%

Tom Woods.................?%

Peter Schiff...................?%

Ron Paul.......................?%

Henry Hazlitt ................?% (I know its not zero for him)

The problem is Macro theory. It gathers statistics (a record of reported information gathered by the state), then attempts to direct them. GDP is a perfect example.

Tell me this. Do you make your personal economic decisions based upon GDP, NDP, NX, GX, TR, TA, Y, I, or any of the other meaningless variables in macro theory? If you do, I would guess you are doing about as well as the government. i.e. you will never be able to get out of debt. Your question is pointless because it is based on a false fork in the road. The fork was never there, so discussing what lies down it is pure fantasy.

mickanomics:
In a few threads I have been on it seems like this forum is filled almost exclusively with anarchists with the odd minarchist thrown in. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't help feeling that perhaps some of the more famous Austrian economists are not quite so fundamentalist as they guys here.

This is an attempt to kill the messenger. Stupid tactic. It never solves the problem

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

mickanomics — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:53:36 GMT

wilderness:

So what are you talking about when you are asking how many firemen and police there will be in a free market?

That wasn't my question!... Either concentrate and pay attention, or don't post.

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

DanielMuff — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:53:19 GMT

mickanomics:

Dear "liberty student",

Thank you for that excellent answer, thats just the kind of thing I wanted to know.

Sure, but that is not what you were asking. Oh wellz!

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

wilderness — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:53:15 GMT

mickanomics:

non-sequiturs. And this is a fine example.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

it's only a non-sequitur if we are debating. you might think we are debating. I don't. I think I'm trying to ask you a question referring to what you are talking about. it's a discussion - i'm not trying to pin you down on some fallacy or something.

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

mickanomics — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:47:37 GMT

Dear "liberty student",

Thank you for that excellent answer, thats just the kind of thing I wanted to know.

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

wilderness — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:42:02 GMT

liberty student:

It's been a problem on the forum lately. People have what they want to talk about, and instead of making new threads, they inject it into any current discussion.

@ the premise of the thread,

you answered the OP seemingly. i simply wanted to know why the OP is wondering about how many firemen, police, etc... there will be. I asked in response to his post. notice i didn't give an answer as to how many or what have you, i mean wouldn't that mean hijacking the thread? i asked why he is asking these questions - so - by default it's obvious the OP is veering from his own OP. a person could effectively argue that I am enabling the OP in veering from his initial post, but the whole general theme of this thread has basically veered by numerous posters away from the initial post - including the Oposter him or her self.

Re: Percent of GDP spent on public sector.

wilderness — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:38:20 GMT

mickanomics:

wilderness:

Tell me how this is not central planning?

I've noticed, from observing many of your postings on multiple threads, that your posts are very often non-sequiturs. And this is a fine example.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

yes and I can think the same of you. that gets us nowhere. We're obviously not communicating affectively. So what are you talking about when you are asking how many firemen and police there will be in a free market? Why are you asking these questions?