13 ms·
We all spend so much time focusing on the Federal Government but I doubt many of us will even notice the "shut down." Compare that with what would happen if yo
by nostromo 13y ago
We all spend so much time focusing on the Federal Government but I doubt many of us will even notice the "shut down."
Compare that with what would happen if your local and state governments shut down: Trash would pile up. Criminals would run free in the streets. Fires wouldn't be put out. Water and electricity would stop. Sewage systems would back up. Schools would close. We're talking about services that are the very cornerstones of modern society.
It really gives you an appreciation for what the state and local governments accomplish.
- clarky07 13y agowell, this is the case for DC. Also, there are a few things you might notice. If you are house hunting hoping for a FHA loan you are screwed for now. http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/23/politics/government-shutdown-daily-life/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/23/politics/government-shutdown-d...
- singlow 13y agoOr any loan. The IRS will not be providing your lender with a tax return transcript and your closing will be delayed. I just closed on a conventional loan and the sequester already was delaying the process.
- jbooth 13y agoOne facet of the 'shutdown' is that they're not authorized to hand out federal money to states anymore. The states and municipalities are feeling it for every day that this stupid theatre persists.
- superails 13y agoThey don't hand out money everyday to the same people. And it is not stupid theater. It is our government NOT at work. We may temporarily recover some of our debt. In fact, if they keep this going for an extended period of time, it might actually help- a lot. Our country has become much too dependent on our government, and now that the two political parties can't get along, there may actually be room for another socially moderate, somewhat fiscally-conservative, deficit hawk, constitutionalist, semi-libertarian party with common sense to come along and bring the country together. Unfortunately, it hasn't organized yet (and no, it isn't the Libertarian party- not with its current leaders- and even with better leadership, Libertarians are incapable of getting the debt under control because they won't allow raising taxes to cover for past debt).
- quanticle 13y agoAnd it is not stupid theater. It is our government NOT at work. We may temporarily recover some of our debt. In fact, if they keep this going for an extended period of time, it might actually help- a lot. Our country has become much too dependent on our government, And tell me, when was the nation not dependent on its government? When did this era of "rugged individualism" you speak of exist? Right from its very inception, the US government has been intervening in the economy and subsidizing things that the voters deemed desirable. If the US government has grown, it is because the US has grown. You need a larger government when there are 300 million people in the country than when there are 30 million. there may actually be room for another socially moderate, somewhat fiscally-conservative, deficit hawk, constitutionalist, semi-libertarian party So... you want a party of magic faerie unicorns to come along and set everything aright. Er, well, good luck with that.
- true_religion 13y agoI think many people understand the need for government at the local and state level, its when we get to the federal government that there's problems.
- singlow 13y agoNo debt will be recovered. They will include a back pay clause when the funding is finally passed and everyone will get payed as if they had worked anyway. Edit: spelling
- voxmatt 13y agoOne of the many ironies of a government shutdown is that it always increases debt (unless it were unprecedentedly long, which wouldn't necessarily decrease the debt either, it's just unknown). Think of it like a car on the freeway — you waste gas by slamming the breaks and then stomping on the gas to get back up to speed. Plus, the economic damage a shutdown does will result in suppressed tax incomes at the end of the year.
- jbooth 13y agoActually, I'm pretty sure it costs us money to shut down the government, what with all the disruptions. Less efficient.
- cantrevealname 13y agoIf what the state government is doing is useful and wanted, then the state should tax more and the federal government should tax less. This is yet another inefficiency of federal government to act as a middleman.
- jarek 13y agoState politicians and voters in state elections, particularly in states that are net beneficiaries of the federal contributions, are sure to like the idea.
- quanticle 13y agoOne of the roles of the federal government is to redistribute funds from states that have populations to tax to states that don't. It's difficult to "tax more", if there's no one to tax (e.g. Montana). It's no coincidence that the most rural, most Republican states are massive consumers of federal funds (via farm subsidies and transportation subsidies, mainly) and the most urban, most Democratic states are net producers of federal funds.
- ars 13y ago> via farm subsidies and transportation subsidies, mainly A transportation subsidy might be local (maybe - interstates are national, not local), but farm subsidies end up being distributed nationally since they basically just mean that certain types of food are cheaper than they otherwise might be. So you can't count farm subsidies as "consumers of federal funds". (It's definitely an artificial distortion of the market, but that's a different argument.)
- quanticle 13y agoA transportation subsidy might be local (maybe - interstates are national, not local), but farm subsidies end up being distributed nationally since they basically just mean that certain types of food are cheaper than they otherwise might be. So you can't count farm subsidies as "consumers of federal funds". I'm not sure how the conclusion follows from the premises. Farm subsidies do consume federal funds. Where do you think the funding for the massive pork-barrel farm bills comes from? Moreover, those dollars aren't necessarily passed on to consumers. In theory, the market for farm products is a perfectly competitive market and any subsidy to the market would result in cheaper prices for everyone. In practice, well, Cargill exists. Large agribusinesses are quite capable of taking subsidy rents and stashing them away as profit rather than using them to compete on prices if their market is more like a cartel and less like a perfectly competitive free market.
- gizmo686 13y agoSome people actually get paid by the federal government. When these people don't get paid, they are much less likely to spend money, hurting non-government businesses. And the parts of the government that are shutting down also won't be consuming from private business either, again hurting business and the economy.
- cantrevealname 13y agoYour making the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window If we didn't have these unwanted government services (or wanted services provided very poorly or at excessive cost), then the taxpayers would spent their money on something else -- something that is wanted -- and it would generate just as many jobs or economic activity in some other way.
- gizmo686 13y agoOver a sufficiently long term (and assuming that the government is actually less efficient than the market). In the short term, one of the biggest employer and consumer is shutting down for an undefined period of time. That causes real short term economic hardship.
- rob05c 13y agoThe broken window fallacy is only applicable in an economic environment where there is sufficient labor demand and insufficient product supply. America produces more than enough goods for everyone, but there aren't enough jobs. Besides, which services do you believe are "unwanted?" I agree there are many unnecessary "paper pushers" and managers, but the shutdown affects entire departments. One can't simply stop paying the redundant middle managers, and continue paying prison guards and air traffic controllers.
- pandaman 13y agoThere are no federal firefighters and beat cops outside DC.
- hellcow 13y agoIf the state and local governments gave sufficient notice, private businesses would snap up the new market opportunities. Everything worthwhile would continue as usual, albeit with less waste.
- jbooth 13y agoThat's gotta be about the least justifiable statement in political-economic commentating history.
- hellcow 13y ago1. Government is less efficient than a privately owned, profit-seeking company--at least in most cases. If a business is inefficient, an efficient competitor will wipe them out. The same cause and effect doesn't exist for governments, except in the most extreme cases (revolution). 2. Markets that state and local governments dominate are large. Do you really think Waste Management would hesitate to take new markets that were previously controlled via government contract? Or that private prisons wouldn't purchase and run ones that were previously state-controlled? Or that power and water companies wouldn't realize the incredible opportunity to expand into new areas that were previously monopolized through government interference?
- jahmed 13y agoYour first point is true in idealized situations. There are many circumstances which contribute to the benefit of incumbents. Regulatory capture, first-mover advantage, cartels, price collusion, asymmetric information are just a few tools inefficient incumbents use against new efficient competitors. Your example of waste, power, and water are a few cases where people, I think, support the government granted monopoly status. These industries have huge fixed costs and generate large externalities. Reliable waste management is a communal concern with clear risks to public health. I'd rather not have the trash company decide my neighborhood is too far to service weekly and switches to monthly pickup. Government exists as a function of the people to balance externalities. Does it go to far sometimes? Sure. But when people are actively engaged though government can be a force for good.
- nhaehnle 13y agoThe truly positive contribution of a federal government (besides the questionable benefit of military protection) comes in the form of automatic stabilizers for the economy. When there is a shock to the economy, social safety nets dampen the pain significantly. Local and state governments would never be able to provide a reliable social safety net, because they have to operate on the same principles as every other user of a currency. The federal government can operate on the principles of an issuer of the currency. That is a big difference. In fact, you can see this difference play out in slow motion in the Eurozone, which still has not recovered from the financial crisis. Things would have played out very different had their been a Eurozone federal government that provides at least the basic components of the social safety nets.
- scottjad 13y agoThis is basically argumentation by story. You told one of many possible stories as if it was obviously and indisputably true. You provided no support for it. What about all the other plausible stories that you ignored? What if these "stabilizers" (i.e. money creation) are doing more harm than good, or even causing the business cycle? What if social safety hammocks decrease growth? What if welfare provided by prudent local governments through savings, or even private means, are sufficient? What if there are a ton of differences between the Europe and America other than the Federal Reserve?
- wpietri 13y agoAnd argumentation by loaded, leading questions is better because...?
- scottjad 13y agoI'm not arguing the position, I was providing a few examples where people can reasonably disagree with the story that was presented as obvious and definitive and educational.
- nwzpaperman 13y agoFact 1: Government current expenditures directly contribute $5.621 trillion out of $16.6 trillion of US GDP. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W022RC1A027NBEA?cid=33024 http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W022RC1A027NBEA?... http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP Fact 2: State and municipal governments have subsidized borrowing costs via the federal tax exemption. I don't know where you live, but are your state and local governments borrowers? What about the road money from the Federal Government? Fact 3: Private savings come from public deficits http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=mzu http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=mzu What if, what if, what if... Well, you will discover in due time what all of this nets out to and no one will enjoy it. The forces of deflation are far mightier than the forces of inflation for inflation requires persistent and exponentially increasing consumption, fueled by net-borrowing of the combined public and private worlds. As it turns out, the zombie apocalypse isn't triggered by an infectious disease or rapidly mutating virus. Instead, it's capital destruction via chaining debt defaults.
- jMyles 13y agoOr, for students, their student government. For most US College Students, the student government likely makes more important decisions than any other.
- anigbrowl 13y agoOh, you will if it goes on more than a few days. I remember the 1995 one quite well; you may be surprised by the ripple effect.
- mkr-hn 13y agoI was 11 and busy with more important things (like video games) then, so this is all new to me. Exciting.
- clumsysmurf 13y agoMother Jones has a good summary of what this means for us http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/who-gets-screwed-shutdown-poor-people-old-people-basically-everyone http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/who-gets-screwed... Some things that surprised me: * Campers: People living (or vacationing) in national parks and forests will have 48 hours to relocate. * People who make money off tourists: Shuttered national parks are bad news for the hotels, restaurants, and other attractions that feed off them. * Employers: The Department of Homeland Security's e-Verify program will be offline for the duration of the shutdown. * @CuriosityRover: 98 percent of NASA's staff will be furloughed, and the agency's website and live-streams will go dark. and plenty of more serious things mentioned in the article like * People on food assistance: The USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) will stop making payments on October 1.
- base698 13y agoI keep wondering if the campers have to leave but the rangers aren't working, then how do they force them to leave?
- jlgreco 13y agoRangers are technically law enforcement right? They are probably "essential personnel".
- xerophtye 13y agoI thought the functions like MediCare and veteran's support program etc were still in effect because the yare paid out in advance. So doesn't that cover food assistance?
- joeyo 13y agoAlso NOAA: http://governmentshutdown.noaa.gov/ http://governmentshutdown.noaa.gov/