Ace of Spades HQ

May 07, 2014

Does the political Left hate work?
— Monty

The problem isn't that the Left hates work; the problem is that they don't understand the difference between productive work and unproductive work.

The public sector (where many if not most leftists focus their lives, directly or indirectly) is not a productive enterprise. It consumes; it does not produce. It is a cost center, not a profit center. This is not to say that a public sector is bad or wrong or unnecessary (though I think it should be as small as possible) -- it is simply to say that the public sector, generally speaking, does not produce wealth. It eats wealth. The larger the public sector, the less wealth that is produced (in market economies, anyway).

But this is just another way of saying that the political left doesn't really understand basic economics, or the difference between wealth and money.

This goes back to a point I was making a couple of weeks back about the left hating economic inequality, but being perfectly okay with political inequality. In the public sector, power stems from rank and position, from networks of colleagues and regulatory influence -- thus, public-sector workers tend to disdain wealth-building because they've never done it and don't really understand it. In the public sector wealth just appears as if by magic, and can then be spent (for this is exactly how liberals understand taxation).

In the real world that citizens must inhabit, however, wealth is vital. It keeps us clothed, shod, and fed; it provides shelter; it provides contingency against future calamity. It makes life more comfortable and more enjoyable. It provides alternatives, in amazing profusion. More wealth, in general, is better. Rich people get richer, but poor people get richer too, so everyone benefits in that scenario. Political power, on the other hand, tends to be a zero-sum equation: power gained by one is power lost or abrogated by someone else.

To sharpen my point: people who create wealth in the private sector tend to be far more productive than those in the public sector, all other things being equal. The left may natter on about "intangibles" and "externalities" in terms of creating value, but ultimately before a thing is consumed it must be produced (remember Say's Law?). Products must be paid for with other products. An economy cannot function for long without productive labor.

Posted by: Monty at 02:52 PM | Comments (125)
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.

1 let it burn

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at May 07, 2014 02:55 PM (u8GsB)

2 Causality escapes them. Always good to see a Monty post. This place always looks better with a little Doom.

Posted by: garrett at May 07, 2014 02:57 PM (tMCok)

3 I like that cat. He looks like a sultan.

Posted by: grammie winger at May 07, 2014 02:57 PM (oMKp3)

4 This is ridiculous. The Soviet Union will last a thousand years.

Posted by: The Harvard Faculty at May 07, 2014 02:58 PM (1mtKP)

5 Kim Jong Cat

Posted by: garrett at May 07, 2014 02:58 PM (tMCok)

Oh, I think they understand it, Ace.

They just enjoy not doing anything productive.

And of course, it helps that they get to 'redefine' what the word "productive" means.

Posted by: wheatie at May 07, 2014 02:58 PM (l/M30)

7 There are a lot of public sector employees who value the importance of work, and produce nothing but the chance for us to have freedom. They are called soldiers.

Posted by: grammie winger at May 07, 2014 02:59 PM (oMKp3)

8 A Monty sighting is always welcome.

Posted by: GnuBreed at May 07, 2014 02:59 PM (wNF3N)

9 Provide an example of someone Â“Producing wealthÂ” from the public sector. Not just of Â“getting richÂ”, but of -producing- wealth.

Posted by: Al at May 07, 2014 02:59 PM (OP/MM)

10 Kittehs are leftists. They take and take and take and provide nothing in return but smug aloofness, a sense of entitlement, and shit.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 07, 2014 03:01 PM (mx5oN)

11 Good to see a Monty post, and as always it is eminently sensible.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 07, 2014 03:01 PM (bb5+k)

12 Not to quibble, but doesn't the public sector produce -- just inefficiently? Many states have the State run alcohol distribution. It's doing the same process as the private sector does in other states -- just less efficiently, with higher cost and greater waste and lower quality.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at May 07, 2014 03:02 PM (ZPrif)

13 9 Provide an example of someone Â“Producing wealthÂ” from the public sector. Not just of Â“getting richÂ”, but of -producing- wealth. Posted by: Al at May 07, 2014 06:59 PM (OP/MM) Okay, I'll bite. My daughter is a clinical nurse specialist who works for the state college system. She teaches nursing. She turns out on average ten nurses per semester who go on to productive careers in private sector healthcare. I would say she is a net producer of wealth.

Posted by: grammie winger at May 07, 2014 03:03 PM (oMKp3)

14 7 >> There are a lot of public sector employees who value the importance of work, and produce nothing but the chance for us to have freedom. They are called soldiers.

They are, nevertheless grammie, a drain on the Treasury. An absolutely necessary drain, but still...

Now, if we were renting our armies out, or conquering and looting and keeping the spoils of war, that equation changes.

But then we wouldn't be who and what we are.

Posted by: GnuBreed at May 07, 2014 03:03 PM (wNF3N)

15 Cliff Note Version: Public employees are fucking lazy, clueless leaches of and on the real world.*

Not due to each and every one of them personally, but their collective selfish, asswipedness.

Posted by: eureka! at May 07, 2014 03:03 PM (GPlyy)

16 Vote over....Lerner held in contempt.

Posted by: Tami [/i][/b][/u][/s] at May 07, 2014 03:04 PM (v0/PR)

17 Can't say as I've seen many people from the post office or DHS or some other government entity make the transition into the commercial/private sector. But military guys tend to do it fairly well. Still, its always fun to watch some newly retired colonel come into the company, look around and ask where his office and office administrator are only to be shown to a cube and a computer. Welcome to the real world!!!

Posted by: Diogenes at May 07, 2014 03:04 PM (08Znv)

18 I hate to work. It bites, big time.

Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at May 07, 2014 03:05 PM (Dwehj)

19 Lerner held in contempt. Now to Holder. So she'll get a raise.

Posted by: RWC at May 07, 2014 03:06 PM (QeH9j)

20 Monty at night? WTF? BRB. I better read the PM DOOM!

Posted by: Osoloco at May 07, 2014 03:06 PM (vQAJD)

21 Now it goes to the DOJ, which is in contempt itself....so they got that goin' for 'em.

Posted by: Tami [/i][/b][/u][/s] at May 07, 2014 03:07 PM (v0/PR)

22 Often, leftists who don't work in the public sector work for "nonprofits". They believe it is somehow nobler than soiling their hands working for mere profit-making businesses.

Posted by: rickl at May 07, 2014 03:08 PM (sdi6R)

23 #13

Are trying to claim that there would be no teaching positions for that profession if the state did not run them?

Posted by: Epobirs at May 07, 2014 03:09 PM (Icq+V)

24 *Monty*

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 07, 2014 03:09 PM (TIIx5)

25 The Sicilian court system is less corrupt than the American federal civil service.

Posted by: OG Celtic-American at May 07, 2014 03:10 PM (ASn1R)

26 23 #13 Are trying to claim that there would be no teaching positions for that profession if the state did not run them? Posted by: Epobirs at May 07, 2014 07:09 PM (Icq+V) No. Someone asked for an example. I gave one.

Posted by: grammie winger at May 07, 2014 03:10 PM (oMKp3)

27 Gracious. This is unexpected.

Posted by: Gingy @GingyNorth at May 07, 2014 03:11 PM (N/cFh)

28 23 #13

Are trying to claim that there would be no teaching positions for that profession if the state did not run them?

That isn't what she said. She said her daughter produced wealth. She said nothing about relative efficiencies or whether it was something the government should do.

Posted by: pep at May 07, 2014 03:12 PM (4nR9/)

29 Ever meet a leftist on an oil rig? Me neither.

Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at May 07, 2014 03:12 PM (+Ea6d)

30 I'm out and I wish you all the best. Be Well! GoooodNight, Ev'ry-Buddy! *static*

Posted by: Slapweasel at May 07, 2014 03:13 PM (lq3Ak)

31 26 Dems voted with the R's on the contempt charge.

Posted by: Tami [/i][/b][/u][/s] at May 07, 2014 03:13 PM (v0/PR)

32 Lerner just held in contempt of congress. She is expected to make a statement just as soon as her fit of laughter subsides.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 07, 2014 03:13 PM (BZAd3)

33 Monty!

Posted by: baldilocks at May 07, 2014 03:13 PM (36Rjy)

34 Full Monty!

Posted by: OG Celtic-American at May 07, 2014 03:14 PM (ASn1R)

35 Hmmm....most of the people I know who are "on the left" work in the private sector. I would say they are as hard-working than any of the conservatives I know, if not more so. It's the very fact of having a gubbermint job that leads to the kind of lassitude seen, for example, in our porn-surfing EPA bureaucracy, not the political stripe of the employee. Give people a job where there's nothing to do and they will acclimate themselves to doing nothing. Government produces such jobs naturally--with ease, you might say--because there is no profit motive and people are too nice to say "no."

Posted by: Caliban at May 07, 2014 03:14 PM (2ArJQ)

36 Monty at night? Monty Under the Covers was suggested but some homophone nixed it.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 07, 2014 03:15 PM (oFCZn)

37 Ok, first Greta said 26 Dems voted with the R's....now she's saying 6. Vote was 231 to 187.

Posted by: Tami [/i][/b][/u][/s] at May 07, 2014 03:15 PM (v0/PR)

38 Dack I am an hour north of you in Oakland,lets have a drink some time in a totally not man-love way...

Posted by: OG Celtic-American at May 07, 2014 03:16 PM (ASn1R)

39 23 Are trying to claim that there would be no teaching positions for that profession if the state did not run them? Posted by: Epobirs at May 07, 2014 07:09 PM (Icq+V) ----------------------- That's the thing. Government jobs are productive if, and only if, they would be supported by a free market anyway. If our public garbage collectors disappeared, we'd get private ones because collecting garbage is a real service. Likewise with teachers, nurses, cops, and firemen. But we would NOT have thousands of bureaucrats, sensitivity directors, video-game czars, and commissions to study the whatever.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at May 07, 2014 03:17 PM (dfYL9)

40 38 Dack I am an hour north of you in Oakland,lets have a drink some time in a totally not man-love way... Posted by: OG Celtic-American at May 07, 2014 07:16 PM (ASn1R) I lol'd

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 07, 2014 03:17 PM (oFCZn)

41 "Does the Left hate work? The problem isn't that the Left hates work; the problem is that they don't understand the difference between productive work and unproductive work. The public sector (where many if not most leftists focus their lives, directly or indirectly) is not a productive enterprise. It consumes; it does not produce." As the mother of both a soldier and an educator, I guess I just have a problem with saying that all public sector work is unproductive. It's not. And it's not only the left that works within it. Too broad of a brush.

Posted by: grammie winger at May 07, 2014 03:17 PM (oMKp3)

42 I don't know if they hate work, but the Lefts' hate works .

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 07, 2014 03:17 PM (XyM/Y)

43 Now she's back to 26....oy. Jim Jordan says the language is "shall refer to a grand jury"...so Holder has no option.

Posted by: Tami [/i][/b][/u][/s] at May 07, 2014 03:17 PM (v0/PR)

44 I don't think that leftists *hate* work or that they don't understand how wealth is produced. It is that they have a lot of bullshit academic-sounding reasons why what they are doing is considered "superior", which are really just rationalizations of their base Marxist impulses.

Posted by: chemjeff at May 07, 2014 03:18 PM (9GG/0)

45 Jim Jordan says the language is "shall refer to a grand jury"...so Holder has no option.

Posted by: Tami at May 07, 2014 07:17 PM (v0/PR)

Sorry, we're all out of grand juries.

Posted by: Eric Holder at May 07, 2014 03:18 PM (9GG/0)

46 Jim Jordan says the language is "shall refer to a grand jury"...so Holder has no option. Posted by: Tami at May 07, 2014 07:17 PM (v0/PR) And Holder will speed that decision along just as soon as his fit of laughter (which started right after he was held in contempt) subsides.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 07, 2014 03:19 PM (BZAd3)

47 44 I don't think that leftists *hate* work or that they don't understand how wealth is produced. It is that they have a lot of bullshit academic-sounding reasons why what they are doing is considered "superior", which are really just rationalizations of their base Marxist impulses.

Which is, of course, just a way of rationalizing their desire for social status.

Which is, of course, just a way of rationalizing their desire to get laid.

Posted by: pep at May 07, 2014 03:20 PM (4nR9/)

48 They don't hate work. They work hard at their government jobs, they just don't understand where money comes from. That was what I always worried about McCain. No one in his family has ever worked for anyone but the federal government in over 100 years. His dad in the Navy, John, jr was in the navy and then congress. These sort of people think money comes from a budget and you spend the budget. How the money got into the budget? They have no clue.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 07, 2014 03:20 PM (0FSuD)

49 Yes, Jordan did also say, "It doesn't say WHEN he has to refer it....".

Posted by: Tami [/i][/b][/u][/s] at May 07, 2014 03:20 PM (v0/PR)

50 But we would NOT have thousands of bureaucrats, sensitivity directors, video-game czars, and commissions to study the whatever.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at May 07, 2014 07:17 PM (dfYL9)

Sure you would!

Posted by: Kent Dorfmann, Sensitivity Trainer Encounter Groups of Cleveland at May 07, 2014 03:20 PM (KNXgp)

51 A comment at this link:

http://tinyurl.com/lwvzaoq

says

6 D's joined the R's on the contempt charge.
26 D's joined the R's on the special council to investigate.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 07, 2014 03:20 PM (IN7k+)

52 50 But we would NOT have thousands of bureaucrats, sensitivity directors, video-game czars, and commissions to study the whatever.

And we all know that American industry has no sensitivity directors, or diversity counselors, or human resources types.

Posted by: pep at May 07, 2014 03:22 PM (4nR9/)

53 Notice how all this activity on Benghazi and the irs just happened to occur right around the time ohio had it's primary. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

Posted by: Buzzion at May 07, 2014 03:23 PM (z/Ubi)

54 Know why they hate work? Fuckin Koch Brothers!!! That's why!

Posted by: tu3031 at May 07, 2014 03:23 PM (i0wGQ)

55 This is an alligator clip. This is a nipple.

Posted by: Sensitivity Director at May 07, 2014 03:24 PM (eAJwE)

56 As the mother of both a soldier and an educator, I guess I just have a problem with saying that all public sector work is unproductive. It's not. And it's not only the left that works within it. Too broad of a brush. ------------ Soldiering is absolutely essential...but it is not productive in an economic sense (except that it makes economic development possible by holding threats at bay, but it's hard to put a dollar value on that). And as far as public school teachers go, I suspect that you and I are far, far apart on how much value teachers add to the economy. Public teachers are net cost, and that cost rises as the pension fiasco spirals out of control. But that's a rant for another day. I urge people not to assign any moral weight to "productive" versus "unproductive". There are many good and necessary jobs that are "unproductive" in the sense I mean it here -- think of food inspectors, or police officers. The problem isn't that the individual workers do a bad job; the problem is that when you have too many of them they extract a disproportionate amount of wealth from the economy compared to the value they add in the aggregate.

Posted by: Monty at May 07, 2014 03:25 PM (qEHOe)

57 C-SPAN is even better on Lerner:
http://tinyurl.com/mt8gcwb

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 07, 2014 03:25 PM (IN7k+)

58 Lefties don't hate work, it's just that it interferes with their finger painting and quilting.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 07, 2014 03:25 PM (BZAd3)

59 52 --- Well, they do. But they'd have a whole lot fewer of them without the feds breathing down their necks. A lot of private jobs exist just to comply with the mandates of Caesar.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at May 07, 2014 03:26 PM (dfYL9)

60 Umm.... seriously guys, I'm pretty sure even suggesting that the Left hates work is like, you know, totally racist.

Posted by: Typical Liberal at May 07, 2014 03:26 PM (25HWz)

61 And we all know that American industry has no sensitivity directors, or diversity counselors, or human resources types. Posted by: pep at May 07, 2014 07:22 PM (4nR9/) Strippers?

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at May 07, 2014 03:26 PM (GEICT)

62 OT, but for any of you who think Tapper is not your typical lib, he grilled Gowdy on why he wasn't as concerned about the "faulty" WMD intelligence in Iraq as he is about Benghazi... F'ing piece of shit...

Posted by: Hello it's me Donna and I know nuthink! at May 07, 2014 03:27 PM (9+ccr)

63 i think when we think of left in govt we think of DMV, or city inspectors deciding your windows aren't green enough or your somehow by having a basketball hoop on your treelawn infringing on Their territory that You have to maintain , and they have the actual time to enforce their bs, although my problem personally is with unionized public employees that basically pay for the guy to be elected with our salaries and coerce the people to write their financial ticket.

Posted by: willow at May 07, 2014 03:27 PM (nqBYe)

64 Public sector work is very productive. It produces votes.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at May 07, 2014 03:27 PM (27KaM)

65 Dammit, I read that as "what American industry", "that American industry". Back to reading comments.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at May 07, 2014 03:27 PM (GEICT)

66 @52 pep "And we all know that American industry has no sensitivity directors, or diversity counselors, or human resources types. " Finish the thought. What drives industry to create the positions and hire such people? Government compliance. Like a disease it is.

Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at May 07, 2014 03:28 PM (+Ea6d)

67 The govt injects a lot of these non productive employees into private business through over regulation. Private business may work them harder but they add little to nothing to what Is produced. Though a lot of these regs are lobbied for by big private companies to reduce competition. Lot easier to have a couple full time govt compliance workers in a plant of a 1000 employees than one with a 100.

Posted by: Dendritic at May 07, 2014 03:28 PM (75hfB)

68 I get what Monty is saying. He's looking at it from a purely economic perspective. Does the job create wealth or cost wealth. There's no right or wrong, good or bad, worthy or unworthy about it. Does the job make or does it take.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at May 07, 2014 03:29 PM (GEICT)

69 and produces graft

Posted by: willow at May 07, 2014 03:29 PM (nqBYe)

70 GrammieWinger @ 41. Not all public sector work is unproductive. Some if it is necessary. It costs to be an American. We pay taxes so that when we turn on the water, what comes out is drinkable; so that when we flip the light switch, a light comes on; and when we go to bed at night we can sleep securely knowing we are protected. These taxes I gladly pay. The issues comes with all the other stuff the govies pile on. How much government is enough? Because when it becomes wasteful, it produces the kind of people we see at the drivers license bureau. Many thanks to your family for serving and teaching.

Posted by: Diogenes at May 07, 2014 03:29 PM (08Znv)

71 Private Schools vs Public Schools

If I understand the essence of what Monty is saying regarding education (as well as any other public "service"), the following are both true:

-Private schools make a profit by providing a service: educating students.
-Public schools, while still providing the service of educating students, do so without generating a profit.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 07, 2014 03:30 PM (IN7k+)

72 i'm on the right but i hate work....i just like having money to spend

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at May 07, 2014 03:30 PM (u8GsB)

73 Public schools, while still providing the service of educating students, do so without generating a profit Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 07, 2014 03:31 PM (mx5oN)

74 And as far as public school teachers go, I suspect that you and I are far, far apart on how much value teachers add to the economy. Public teachers are net cost, and that cost rises as the pension fiasco spirals out of control. But that's a rant for another day. Your suspicions would be wrong. In broad terms, we are on the same page. I was specifically citing nursing educators, who I believe provide an overall positive net wealth. If you turn out ten nurses ready to work in the private sector each semester, that's 30 nurses per year. 30 private nursing annual salaries vs one public nursing professor salary is a net positive.

Posted by: grammie winger at May 07, 2014 03:33 PM (oMKp3)

75 I should have tied it up with a therefore:

Therefore, private schools are productive while public schools are not.

@73 Heh. Yes, assuming that the public schools functioned as advertised.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 07, 2014 03:33 PM (IN7k+)

76 I would also add that there are lots of private-sector professions that aren't very productive (I feel that way about a lot of finance jobs, actually, as with hedge fund managers and Wall Street quants). But being unproductive in the private sector is a death sentence, sooner or later -- without profit (or a patron), the river of capital dries up and the enterprise fails. Misallocation of capital is punished by bankruptcy and penury in the private sector. Wealth is the carrot; ruin is the stick.

Posted by: Monty at May 07, 2014 03:33 PM (qEHOe)

77 Â“Producing wealthÂ” from the public sector. Cannot be done. The public sector can only create and protect the environment for wealth production. The public sector can only redistribute wealth. Not just of Â“getting richÂ”, but of -producing- wealth Understanding the difference between the two, completely undercuts the income inequality, class warfare and the victim mentality arguments.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at May 07, 2014 03:34 PM (0LWwl)

78 I think most K-8 private schools are parish ( or church,temple) schools, which always receive funding from the greater parish as well as students.

Posted by: Justamom at May 07, 2014 03:34 PM (Sptt8)

I prefer to call it the 'Govt Sector' rather than the Public Sector.

When the Govt Sector does things that destroys jobs...and thus destroys wealth production, in the private sector, then there should be a proportional reduction in the Govt Sector.

In other words, when the parasites harm the host...there should be an automatic reduction in the number of parasites.

And for God's sakes, we cannot keep letting the parasites borrow money and charge it to the host!

Posted by: wheatie at May 07, 2014 03:34 PM (l/M30)

80 nood...contempt thread

Posted by: The Jackhole at May 07, 2014 03:35 PM (nTgAI)

81 I would also add that there are lots of private-sector professions that aren't very productive Absolutely.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at May 07, 2014 03:35 PM (0LWwl)

82 Soldiering is absolutely essential...but it is not productive in an economic sense (except that it makes economic development possible by holding threats at bay, but it's hard to put a dollar value on that). And as far as public school teachers go, I suspect that you and I are far, far apart on how much value teachers add to the economy. Public teachers are net cost, and that cost rises as the pension fiasco spirals out of control. But that's a rant for another day. I urge people not to assign any moral weight to "productive" versus "unproductive". There are many good and necessary jobs that are "unproductive" in the sense I mean it here -- think of food inspectors, or police officers. The problem isn't that the individual workers do a bad job; the problem is that when you have too many of them they extract a disproportionate amount of wealth from the economy compared to the value they add in the aggregate. Posted by: Monty at May 07, 2014 07:25 PM (qEHOe) Don't forget that a lot of companies have their own food inspectors to inspect the plants of their suppliers. There standards tend to be much stricter than the governments.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, formerly MrCaniac at May 07, 2014 03:36 PM (HxSXm)

83 Public employees are the elephants. We are the dung beetles.

Posted by: bergerbilder at May 07, 2014 03:37 PM (8MjqI)

84 The left is all about credentialism, which defines your public sector earnings status. This is why there is so much drama and outrage within the grad student/phd crowd about a minimum/living wage, - because slinging tacos and schlepping soda pops with an advanced degree somehow adds value.

Posted by: Fritz at May 07, 2014 03:37 PM (3wLHY)

85 I was specifically citing nursing educators, who I believe provide an overall positive net wealth. ---------------- Point taken, but remember: I'm speaking of public sector workers *in aggregate*. I'm trying hard to avoid putting a moral slant on "unproductive" -- I mean it strictly in an economic sense of net wealth consumption rather than net wealth creation.

Posted by: Monty at May 07, 2014 03:38 PM (qEHOe)

86 I would also add that there are lots of private-sector professions that aren't very productive

What do you mean by that? Why I just picked up a part time job for 250K. So Bite Me, peasants...

Posted by: Paul Krugman at May 07, 2014 03:39 PM (i0wGQ)

Always good to see a Monty post. BUT as good as this theory is about leftists in the gubmint, it doesn't quite cover the bases.

Leftists/marxists know very well what capitalism is and how it works and the vast wealth it can create for so many people. But they hate it because it spreads the power in this nation out to those very same people. And, everyone knows, they can't abide with that. No siree.

Power must be centralized. They must make up strawmen and then broadcast phrases like "social justice" or "economic justice", teach these phrases over and over in our public schools until they produce what they can say that government produces: Sameness. The working class. The educated class, and finally, the ruling class.

Posted by: Soona at May 07, 2014 03:41 PM (+dFar)

88 Posted by: Monty at May 07, 2014 07:38 PM (qEHOe) I understand Monty. And upon further reflection, my ratios are way off. 30:1 is not accurate, of course my daughter doesn't teach all four years of all the classes herself. I think her department has at least ten instructors. So that definitely changes the productivity ratio.

Posted by: grammie winger at May 07, 2014 03:41 PM (oMKp3)

89 Remember when the SCOAMTT said if you want more of something, you subsidize it? My paraphrase, subsidize. He probably made a cute little gesture with his hand and said throw 'em some money or something. Anyhoo, preznit EBT and unemployment, Transparency.

Posted by: Justamom at May 07, 2014 03:41 PM (Sptt8)

90 Most Leftists think that the Proles will work while they themselves will hold a policy position, i.e. Everyone thinks that everyone else is going to happily clean the toilets.

Posted by: Daybrother at May 07, 2014 03:42 PM (+3Prp)

91 @62 Gowdy entered congress in 2011 so this is a classic squirrel operation by tapper. Never forget tappers wife was high up in planned parenthood so he is a card carrying liberal in good standing. He just sometimes does a little jazz hands to fool conservatives.

Posted by: Kreplach at May 07, 2014 03:47 PM (8tAEF)

92 Sometimes we convince Monty to fish these out of the email cause they're that good.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 07, 2014 03:48 PM (l7DqC)

93 But being unproductive in the private sector is a death sentence, sooner or later -- without profit (or a patron), the river of capital dries up and the enterprise fails. Misallocation of capital is punished by bankruptcy and penury in the private sector. Wealth is the carrot; ruin is the stick. Posted by: Monty 1990s: "I've got an idea for a business that buys and sells on the new Internet" Venture Capital: "Here's 50 million." 2000: "Damn!" 200Xs: "We need to grow the central government bigger than anything else. We're taking ALL the venture capital money and your little dog too." 2016: "Bring out your dead!"

Posted by: Daybrother at May 07, 2014 03:50 PM (uPb5L)

94 Government's only legitimate function is negative - thou shalt not. Whenever government is used to promote or create, the private sector could do that better (e.g. teach nurses). We shouldn't privatize soldiering and policing because you don't want to incentivize incarceration and other coercion (e.g. forfeiture laws). Private security walks a fine line as passive "protection" rather than active policing. Some activities may straddle the line or be in grey areas (such as infrastructure, roads, etc) but as a broad rule, government forbids and destroys, citizens promote and create.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at May 07, 2014 03:56 PM (7i0fA)

95 52 And we all know that American industry has no sensitivity directors, or diversity counselors, or human resources types. Posted by: pep at May 07, 2014 07:22 PM (4nR9/) True, but that's mostly because of laws, and the fear of litigation. Enact "loser pays", and some of the fear of litigation would go away.

Posted by: rickl at May 07, 2014 03:58 PM (sdi6R)

96 #74

You're missing the point. Education is not an inherent government function like, say, national defense. While some libertarian scenarios exists for privatization of nearly everything, in nearly any place on the planet certain lines of work, such as law enforcement, are going to be in the public sector. There is nothing requiring the training of nurses be conducted by a public entity and I doubt it would be difficult to find people doing the same job in the private sector. A degree in public works administration pretty much guarantees a public sector career but most fields of study have more options.

Just because the government has decided to extend its reach into an area that could be left entirely to the private sector, it doesn't mean the government has turned into a producer. Your daughter isn't productive because the government has created her workplace. She is productive because there is a market for nurses.

Posted by: Epobirs at May 07, 2014 04:13 PM (Icq+V)

97 #82

Consider the old Hebrew National ads: "We answer to a higher authority."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsthRP1pjs

Posted by: Epobirs at May 07, 2014 04:16 PM (Icq+V)

98 we should sell all teh National Parks or at least refrain from using/supporting them .

Posted by: righter at May 07, 2014 04:29 PM (zfptF)

99 Quick reminder--a job can be useful without being productive (the soldier and teacher examples, assuming both are reasonably competent).

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Cylon/Cetacian hybrid at May 07, 2014 04:32 PM (m9V0o)

100 /wanders off humming "99 Luftbaloons"

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Cylon/Cetacian hybrid at May 07, 2014 04:33 PM (m9V0o)

101 God works through our work. The left hates God. Ergo...

Posted by: The Mega Independent at May 07, 2014 04:34 PM (QCo5R)

102

DOOM! It's what's for dinner.

Posted by: steveegg at May 07, 2014 05:06 PM (o44nj)

103 Yo, have you all forgotten about the Cloward-Piven Strategy? Look it up on Google. It's all explained. In the late sixties, two Marxist sociology professor at Columbia University published an enormously influential paper. They advocated swelling the roles of Americans who get financial assistance from the government Â— food stamps, health care, welfare, etc., to the point where the government would be bankrupted by the sheer numbers and expense. This would collapse the "system," leading the populace to demand dramatic changes (like a guaranteed annual income) from the government. The aroused populace who elect those who would keep the free stuff coming, and reject anyone else. Anyone who can't see that this is happening right now is just not paying attention.

Posted by: Mystery Meat at May 07, 2014 05:15 PM (tvTBx)

104 Heh, I think I was "served" by that cat at a Post Office once.

Posted by: logprof at May 07, 2014 05:17 PM (un0yB)

105 We shouldn't privatize soldiering and policing because you don't want to incentivize incarceration and other coercion (e.g. forfeiture laws). Private security walks a fine line as passive "protection" rather than active policing. I don't know what to say about this other than to ask if it's a joke. We have publicly funded LEOs and judges now, and they're incredibly violent and corrupt. And forfeiture? It's abused constantly. Meanwhile, I've been to the mall many times and have never received a beatdown from the security guards. "Active policing," as you call it, can pretty much go to hell. It was a scheme of monarchs to begin with and is completely unneeded.

Posted by: rfichoke at May 07, 2014 05:19 PM (24sHa)

106

Shit. I missed a Monty thread. Hi Monty.... Miss your DOOOOOOM threads.

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at May 07, 2014 05:28 PM (jucos)

107 Actually, it is not exactly true to say: "The public sector (where many if not most leftists focus their lives, directly or indirectly) is not a productive enterprise. It consumes; it does not produce. It is a cost center, not a profit center." This is generally true overall, but there are times when government will produce a dam or a highway that the private sector would not, to the actual benefit of the people paying for it through taxes.

But the fundamental business of the private sector is creating wealth -- that is to say, making us all feel better off. To illustrate why, let us consider two beings in the deserts of Acturus Prime. They wander the desert, trying to find a particular type of pretty rock -- one likes red ones, the other blue. Every so often, they happen to meet....and, when they do, they invariably like to show off their rock collections to each other. The red-preferring one looks over all the blue rocks of the other and things "what a bunch of ugly rocks" while saying "very nice, very nice" -- and, contrariwise, the blue-preferring one does the same thing.

And, then, magic happens -- the blue-preferring one sees one in the red-preferring one's stash that's a little bluer than his least-blue stone....and the red-preferring one sees a much more beautiful stone in the blue-preferring one's stash than his ugliest stone. And, cautiously but almost inevitably, they arrange to swap -- and immediately part ways before the other chump realizes he's been taken. And the amount of wealth on Arcturus Prime has been increased because they both are happier and better-off.

And what if there had been no suitable stones to swap? No swap would have occurred. In other words, free trade itself creates wealth out of thin air with each and every transaction.

By comparison, governments act through coercion. You can't decide not to pay taxes, and bridges and dams are built all the time that individual taxpayers may never use in their lifetimes. And, because of this, they can create wealth, they can destroy wealth, they can apportion wealth from one party to another.

And the fastest way to destroy wealth is to build something that nobody wants....like, say, a nonfunctional Oregon Obamacare website.

Posted by: cthulhu at May 07, 2014 05:43 PM (T1005)

108 And the fastest way to destroy wealth is to build something that nobody wants....like, say, a nonfunctional Oregon Obamacare website.
Posted by: cthulhu at May 07, 2014 09:43 PM (T1005) Hide posts from (T1005)

Or a degree in Grievance Studies.

Posted by: cthulhu at May 07, 2014 05:56 PM (T1005)

109 Interesting. The post title "Does the Left hate work?" can be read two entirely different ways:

1. Do people on the Left despise labor/work/effort?

2. Is the hatred/contempt that the Left aims at the right effective?

Entirely different questions, but the answer to both is 'Yes'.

Posted by: Dr. Weevil at May 07, 2014 05:58 PM (g5mwZ)

110 The government doesn't even produce dams or highways though, cthulhu. It hires private sector contractors to do the work with money taken from private sector taxpayers. The public sector can never be anything more than a middle-man, at best. And there's actually quite a bit of history of private roads and other large infrastructure. You just don't get as much of it spread around because a free market tends to focus such capital where it's most useful. There are no "bridges to nowhere" in this scenario.

Posted by: rfichoke at May 07, 2014 06:01 PM (24sHa)

111 Work? What's that?

Posted by: UAW at May 07, 2014 06:08 PM (un0yB)

112 You know how much hard work it is trying to get fat teabaggers to eat right?

Posted by: Moochie at May 07, 2014 06:09 PM (un0yB)

113 110 The government doesn't even produce dams or highways though, cthulhu. It hires private sector contractors to do the work with money taken from private sector taxpayers. The public sector can never be anything more than a middle-man, at best.

And there's actually quite a bit of history of private roads and other large infrastructure. You just don't get as much of it spread around because a free market tends to focus such capital where it's most useful. There are no "bridges to nowhere" in this scenario. Posted by: rfichoke at May 07, 2014 10:01 PM (24sHa) Hide posts from (24sHa)

I hear this frequently, but it's not accurate. A General Contractor for a building is still the general even if he subs everything out; a movie producer is still a movie producer after he hires the director, and the government builds dams and bridges even if it farms out the part about actually going to the site and mucking around in the dirt.

Posted by: cthulhu at May 07, 2014 06:30 PM (T1005)

114 You used the "w" word. :/

Posted by: Moron Labe! at May 07, 2014 06:43 PM (KzHNA)

115 Examples of the public sector creating wealth are ubiquitous, only a blind ideologue could deny something so obvious. When a city or a country invests to build roads, sewers, schools, transit systems, airports, dams and flood control, etc.,etc. those are all examples of the public sector creating wealth. The very definition of a poor country is a place lacking in those kinds of civic wealth which serve to make human life more pleasant, safer, and longer. And many of these public goods, such as roads, sewers, and water systems cannot realistically be delivered by the private sector, which is why governments deliver these services http://tinyurl.com/n4yqxeu http://tinyurl.com/42omr8s "Take the public sector versus private sector trade-off. Some say that the public sector is a parasite that depends on the wealth generated by the private sector. And we can probably all agree that there is a point at which the public sector can overwhelm and crowd out the private sphere. But look at the problem from a different point in the circle. Who educates the private sector workers? Who keeps them healthy (in Europe at least)? Who provides the roads and public transport? Who provides the legal system that guarantees property rights or the police that patrol the streets? All functions provided by the public sector."

Posted by: TommyVee at May 07, 2014 07:06 PM (spnP+)

116 115 Examples of the public sector creating wealth are ubiquitous, only a blind ideologue could deny something so obvious.
When a city or a country invests to build roads, sewers, schools, transit systems, airports, dams and flood control, etc.,etc. those are all examples of the public sector creating wealth. The very definition of a poor country is a place lacking in those kinds of civic wealth which serve to make human life more pleasant, safer, and longer. And many of these public goods, such as roads, sewers, and water systems cannot realistically be delivered by the private sector, which is why governments deliver these services
http://tinyurl.com/n4yqxeu
http://tinyurl.com/42omr8s

"Take the public sector versus private sector trade-off. Some say that the public sector is a parasite that depends on the wealth generated by the private sector. And we can probably all agree that there is a point at which the public sector can overwhelm and crowd out the private sphere. But look at the problem from a different point in the circle. Who educates the private sector workers? Who keeps them healthy (in Europe at least)? Who provides the roads and public transport? Who provides the legal system that guarantees property rights or the police that patrol the streets? All functions provided by the public sector." Posted by: TommyVee at May 07, 2014 11:06 PM (spnP+) Hide posts from (spnP+)

But back to my original point....the private sector increases wealth with every transaction....where in the public sector, it's more a matter of luck.

Posted by: cthulhu at May 07, 2014 07:16 PM (T1005)

117 "But this is just another way of saying that the political left doesn't really understand basic economics, or the difference between wealth and money." They don't understand it at all. They think that simply money flowing from A to B means the economy is being productive, hence their obsession over taxing and spending and stimulus.

Posted by: Roadrunner at May 07, 2014 07:32 PM (xMSfj)

118 I hear this frequently, but it's not accurate. A General Contractor for a building is still the general even if he subs everything out; a movie producer is still a movie producer after he hires the director, and the government builds dams and bridges even if it farms out the part about actually going to the site and mucking around in the dirt. I guess there's some semantics involved. My point was that the actual work to accomplish something isn't done by a vague mysterious entity named The Government. That's the subtle claim that Leftists often make. "Without The Government, there wouldn't be any Internet!" Well that's nonsense. "The Government" didn't create the Internet. Individual human beings did. Researchers and engineers. People like you and me engaging in voluntary exchanges in the free market. Particularly, the engineers at Bolt, Beranek, and Newman were paid small green rectangles in exchange for their expertise in electronics engineering. That's not government. That's the free market at work. Voluntary exchange. That's my point. The only role this hallowed thing called The Government played in the saga was pushing funds around from one place to another. And that's hardly something that can't be done on a fully voluntary basis, which is the definition of private sector. And that's a lesson that TommyVee above never learned apparently.

Posted by: rfichoke at May 07, 2014 08:50 PM (24sHa)

119 118 I hear this frequently, but it's not accurate. A General Contractor for a building is still the general even if he subs everything out; a movie producer is still a movie producer after he hires the director, and the government builds dams and bridges even if it farms out the part about actually going to the site and mucking around in the dirt.

I guess there's some semantics involved. My point was that the actual work to accomplish something isn't done by a vague mysterious entity named The Government. That's the subtle claim that Leftists often make. "Without The Government, there wouldn't be any Internet!"

Well that's nonsense. "The Government" didn't create the Internet. Individual human beings did. Researchers and engineers. People like you and me engaging in voluntary exchanges in the free market. Particularly, the engineers at Bolt, Beranek, and Newman were paid small green rectangles in exchange for their expertise in electronics engineering.

That's not government. That's the free market at work. Voluntary exchange. That's my point. The only role this hallowed thing called The Government played in the saga was pushing funds around from one place to another. And that's hardly something that can't be done on a fully voluntary basis, which is the definition of private sector.

And that's a lesson that TommyVee above never learned apparently. Posted by: rfichoke at May 08, 2014 12:50 AM (24sHa) Hide posts from (24sHa)

It's very important to understand this correctly -- it is sometimes the most important part of something to decide to do it "just like this", and government will do that. That private companies then execute to that plan is less of an issue....though that execution is hard work and consumes the bulk of the budget.

Take a specific project -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oroville_Dam -- this had been mulled over and fussed over for 10 years before construction was started, and it was another seven years before it was complete. Where were the private construction firms before construction was initiated?

Posted by: cthulhu at May 07, 2014 11:30 PM (T1005)

120 Durn I missed a Monty

Posted by: Vic[/i] at May 08, 2014 02:20 AM (T2V/1)

121

"The problem isn't that the Left hates work; the problem is that they don't understand the difference between productive work and unproductive work."

Example: The can't understand why the are unable to get a job after getting a degree in Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Medival Poetry.

If they can't understand why THAT is then no amount of reasoning will work with them.

Posted by: jmm at May 08, 2014 03:15 AM (5ZsaL)

122 I thought the headline was about "does all the Leftist hating on America, conservatives, business etc. work for them politically or really change anything substantial." Does the Left hate (on everyone) work (for them in practical terms)?

Posted by: docweasel at May 08, 2014 04:41 AM (gW7Y2)

123 It's very important to understand this correctly -- it is sometimes the most important part of something to decide to do it "just like this", and government will do that. That private companies then execute to that plan is less of an issue....though that execution is hard work and consumes the bulk of the budget. Ah, but the "just like this" stuff came in the form of engineers experimenting with routing protocols though. Unless by "just like this" you mean "spend money on this project." But government doesn't do that part right either. The only reasonable way to define "correct allocation of funds" is one in which natural order arises from voluntary exchange in the marketplace. By definition, if private interactions don't provide it, it isn't really necessary. The TVA is a good example of this. There was no electricity there for a reason: not enough people lived there, and those who did had little need for electricity. It was a misallocation of resources. You might say they were better off afterward, but the people who lived there did not think it worth the excessive cost of running lines out so far for so few. It simply wasn't worth it, and that verdict stands on solid ground. You may make some argument about people being "better off" afterward, but the people who lived there made no such demand, given the cost, and you would be making a personal value judgement with other people's money. That's the problem. Take a specific project -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oroville_Dam -- this had been mulled over and fussed over for 10 years before construction was started, and it was another seven years before it was complete. Where were the private construction firms before construction was initiated? Working on projects that were truly needed. Projects in which real people were putting their own money on the line for things they cared about, and construction firms were doing that important work. Until government came along and stole some of that money, and the opportunity cost of the construction firms, to focus on a project whose benefits were outweighed by the costs to taxpayers (who also had no say in the matter). Dams have been built by private industry before. But it was in response to actual demand. Of course, sometimes there's demand and things don't get built. But that's because regulators come along and add so much in cost (or flat out denial of permits) that it no longer makes sense to build. Thus Reagan's famous line: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."

Posted by: rfichoke at May 08, 2014 06:49 AM (24sHa)

124 in the old days when 30% of workers where farmers if 25% of your kids went off to become social workers everyone would have starved ...

Posted by: JeffC at May 08, 2014 06:49 AM (A3tpD)

125 ace, I think you may have missed one major point in your analysis. The left does not believe that wealth can be created. They only believe that is can be extracted, either by "raping Gaia" and/or exploiting labor. Therefore in their view the public and private sectors are no different except in who controls the wealth distribution. They see the the public sector as being more noble because the supposed mission of the public sector is to serve the people while the private sector hidden motive is to exploit the people.

Posted by: Ken in NH at May 08, 2014 06:56 AM (pPNWy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled.

141kb generated in CPU 0.0941, elapsed 0.2838 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2528 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.