What is the private sector?

[Foxfyre]

If that dollar is borrowed money, it is not taken from the private sector today, so the private sector can use that dollar to expand the current economy.

If the government spends that borrowed dollar on a program such as the space program or the infrastructure, the payback to economy in the future can be far more than one dollar, making it a good investment. The fly in ointment is of course entitlements. The economic benefit here will be just one dollar.

Whether minted today or borrowed against the nation's future economy, the public sector dollar is removed from the economy and is not available to produce ANY benefit to the economy. That of course diminishes if not obliterates any benefit government spending might produce and sometimes will make the government benefit cost far more than it sppears. Also, that removed from the future economy is even more costly because it requires taking more from the economy to pay the interest on the debt created.

If you do not take that dollar from the taxpayer today that dollar still exist in the private sector today. You seem to make the assumption that all government spending does not lead to economic growth which is not so.

But the more the government borrows, the less the private sector money is worth today because of the huge debt being accumulated against it.

If you borrow and spend a hundred dollars today, do you feel that you are richer? You have a hundred dollars worth of stuff. But when you have to pay back that hundred dollars plus ten dollars more, are you richer or poorer? Every dollar you borrow and spend today is a dollar plus interest that you won't have in the bank to spend on down the line. And when you run out of ability to borrow, or the debts become due, you can be in a world of hurt no matter how much better off you felt at the time because you had extra money in your pocket or had bought some good stuff.

The same principle applies to countries.

I did not say that government dollar spent did not stimulate the economy. But what you seem to be unable to see, is that whatever government money is spent is removed from the private sector and is not available to be spent there. And, because the government has to use some of that dollar to fuel its own bureaucracy, you almost always get less value from money spent in the public sector than if the dollar had been left and spent in the private sector to begin with.

 

[Samson]

If that dollar is borrowed money, it is not taken from the private sector today, so the private sector can use that dollar to expand the current economy.

If the government spends that borrowed dollar on a program such as the space program or the infrastructure, the payback to economy in the future can be far more than one dollar, making it a good investment. The fly in ointment is of course entitlements. The economic benefit here will be just one dollar.

Whether minted today or borrowed against the nation's future economy, the public sector dollar is removed from the economy and is not available to produce ANY benefit to the economy. That of course diminishes if not obliterates any benefit government spending might produce and sometimes will make the government benefit cost far more than it sppears. Also, that removed from the future economy is even more costly because it requires taking more from the economy to pay the interest on the debt created.

If you do not take that dollar from the taxpayer today that dollar still exist in the private sector today. You seem to make the assumption that all government spending does not lead to economic growth which is not so.

And you seem to make the assumption that all government spending leads to economic growth, which is certainly not so.

All government spending doesn't come from Taxes (certainly not the Federal Government).

But let's imagine for a moment that it did.

You give $100 to a guy in The Government. He automatically takes $10 to go buy lunch at your hamburger stand, where you make a $5 profit.

If he visits your hamburger joint TEN times, you'll have Half the money you'll need the next time you'll need to give him $100.

Happy now?

 

[Navy1960]

OK I'll give you two cents:

The way I see it you have two extremes: An economy that is centralized and completely dependent on government spending, and an economy that is completely decentralized and completely independent of government spending: Either extreme has historically proven unsustainable (repectively, the initial 60 years of the USSR and, just to be even handed, the initial 60 years** of the USA).

Both systems gravitate towards an equilibrium.

The question is not whether or not they should: They WILL.

The only question is HOW: Does our country really need more USAF Tankers? Could, for example, the investment in these tankers have been made more wisely, in say, biodiesel refining technology that would make the USAF independent of fossil fuels?

The main issue for me is not that the decision is being made between the two scenarios, but that NO DECISION IS MADE. The US Gov. is simply buying EVERYTHING! It appears that no grant is too ridiculous, no project is not vital, and no budget is too large!

As these Boing workers pat their US Representatives on the back for spending that will stimulate the economy, I hope they are investing wisely for retirement. In the next 20 years, the dollar they are paid today will be worth about $0.10 because this is the only way the US Government will be able to pay for today's spending.



**Yeah, some idiot will want to debate US government spending between 1780-1840, so before you start, I'm refering to RELATIVE spending, m'k?

As pointed out, I would suggest that in the case of the USAF Tankers, a couple of thoughts on that one, one is the way in which the purchase and competetion was handled has been a 10 year long debacle. Why, well in my personal opinion it has more to do with institutionalized purchasing at DOD, in other words the inability to look beyond suppliers that are part of the inner-circle and promote healthy competetion that not only benefits the nation but the taxpayer as well. As for needing them or not, I would say that after flying for almost 50 years, the KC135 , the Govt. has gotten their monies worth out of it and there is and has been for more than 10 years a serious need to replace it if only in terms of safety alone. I do agree however, that as part of that healthy competetion thing above, factors such as bio-fuels, and other cost savings can be part of that.

I have long thought and still do , that a large degree of savings can be found simply in the way our Govt. does things such as purchasing for example. I'm sure many would agree that thing such as two engines for an aircraft when one was all the Military wanted and constantly building a Aircraft the USAF says it no longer wants is not a good or prudent way to spend our money. It's things such as these, if they remain constant, all the cost cutting in world is not going to change running up the bills of you do not change that.

The competitive nature between suppliers is another dimension, but I'm not addressing it: I'm addressing the fact that there are many projects that need attention, and that could also benefit the public: BUT THAT WE CANNOT CHOOSE ALL OF THEM.

For example; I'd be interested to know if the contract with Boeing will replace ALL the KC135 refueling capacity, plus more, or if it will only relace SOME.

In the past 50 years, the Cold war has ended: IMHO, we should not need as much refueling capacity today as we did 50 years ago.

Of course, defense spending is based on a FUTURE threat, but there again, realistically, is there any future threat that is as great as the nuclear armed Soviet Union? This will always be debateable, which means we will always be spending $$$ on defense systems which include KC135's and the like which become obsolete.

A few things , one the purchase rate on the tankers is not going to be on a 1-1 basis, they are buying just over a 100 of the tankers, however the refueling capacity will far exceed the KC-135. The other thing worth mentioning here is that as the KC-135 is a much older aircraft, it is not very fuel efficient and has much less range and in many ways is less environmentally friendly. As for planning, this aircraft is intended to meet current and future needs for what is deemed to be the same time period of the aircraft it replaces. While it's true we cannot select them all and I agree with you on that, but there are some we can, and I would submit that by being so bloated the DOD let 50 years pass by and now found themselves in a position they would not otherwise be in, had they replaced the aircraft when it was supposed to be replaced and ending up costing the taxpayer even more money.

 

[Samson]

As pointed out, I would suggest that in the case of the USAF Tankers, a couple of thoughts on that one, one is the way in which the purchase and competetion was handled has been a 10 year long debacle. Why, well in my personal opinion it has more to do with institutionalized purchasing at DOD, in other words the inability to look beyond suppliers that are part of the inner-circle and promote healthy competetion that not only benefits the nation but the taxpayer as well. As for needing them or not, I would say that after flying for almost 50 years, the KC135 , the Govt. has gotten their monies worth out of it and there is and has been for more than 10 years a serious need to replace it if only in terms of safety alone. I do agree however, that as part of that healthy competetion thing above, factors such as bio-fuels, and other cost savings can be part of that.

I have long thought and still do , that a large degree of savings can be found simply in the way our Govt. does things such as purchasing for example. I'm sure many would agree that thing such as two engines for an aircraft when one was all the Military wanted and constantly building a Aircraft the USAF says it no longer wants is not a good or prudent way to spend our money. It's things such as these, if they remain constant, all the cost cutting in world is not going to change running up the bills of you do not change that.

The competitive nature between suppliers is another dimension, but I'm not addressing it: I'm addressing the fact that there are many projects that need attention, and that could also benefit the public: BUT THAT WE CANNOT CHOOSE ALL OF THEM.

For example; I'd be interested to know if the contract with Boeing will replace ALL the KC135 refueling capacity, plus more, or if it will only relace SOME.

In the past 50 years, the Cold war has ended: IMHO, we should not need as much refueling capacity today as we did 50 years ago.

Of course, defense spending is based on a FUTURE threat, but there again, realistically, is there any future threat that is as great as the nuclear armed Soviet Union? This will always be debateable, which means we will always be spending $$$ on defense systems which include KC135's and the like which become obsolete.

A few things , one the purchase rate on the tankers is not going to be on a 1-1 basis, they are buying just over a 100 of the tankers, however the refueling capacity will far exceed the KC-135. The other thing worth mentioning here is that as the KC-135 is a much older aircraft, it is not very fuel efficient and has much less range and in many ways is less environmentally friendly. As for planning, this aircraft is intended to meet current and future needs for what is deemed to be the same time period of the aircraft it replaces. While it's true we cannot select them all and I agree with you on that, but there are some we can, and I would submit that by being so bloated the DOD let 50 years pass by and now found themselves in a position they would not otherwise be in, had they replaced the aircraft when it was supposed to be replaced and ending up costing the taxpayer even more money.

Well, that's OK then, I suppose.

I was really just using this expenditure as an example within the larger topic: "What is the Private Sector?"

Defense (the DOD) cannot be in the private sector.

The DOD buys goods and services from the Private Sector, however, the DOD also Taxes the private sector.

 

[Navy1960]

The competitive nature between suppliers is another dimension, but I'm not addressing it: I'm addressing the fact that there are many projects that need attention, and that could also benefit the public: BUT THAT WE CANNOT CHOOSE ALL OF THEM.

For example; I'd be interested to know if the contract with Boeing will replace ALL the KC135 refueling capacity, plus more, or if it will only relace SOME.

In the past 50 years, the Cold war has ended: IMHO, we should not need as much refueling capacity today as we did 50 years ago.

Of course, defense spending is based on a FUTURE threat, but there again, realistically, is there any future threat that is as great as the nuclear armed Soviet Union? This will always be debateable, which means we will always be spending $$$ on defense systems which include KC135's and the like which become obsolete.

A few things , one the purchase rate on the tankers is not going to be on a 1-1 basis, they are buying just over a 100 of the tankers, however the refueling capacity will far exceed the KC-135. The other thing worth mentioning here is that as the KC-135 is a much older aircraft, it is not very fuel efficient and has much less range and in many ways is less environmentally friendly. As for planning, this aircraft is intended to meet current and future needs for what is deemed to be the same time period of the aircraft it replaces. While it's true we cannot select them all and I agree with you on that, but there are some we can, and I would submit that by being so bloated the DOD let 50 years pass by and now found themselves in a position they would not otherwise be in, had they replaced the aircraft when it was supposed to be replaced and ending up costing the taxpayer even more money.

Well, that's OK then, I suppose.

I was really just using this expenditure as an example within the larger topic: "What is the Private Sector?"

Defense (the DOD) cannot be in the private sector.

The DOD buys goods and services from the Private Sector, however, the DOD also Taxes the private sector.

So then the money is cyclic, in so doing the monies collected by purchasing those goods and services from the Private Sector it goes right back to it, does it not ? I would never contend that DOD is in the private sector, although if anyone has ever had the chance to be around those in DOD purchasing, some of them think otherwise, and still some even have gone to prison, who thought so a little too much. ( i.e. back to theBoeing Tanker deal again ). My contention is that the "private sector" is simply that regardless of who the customer is, and money paid to it for goods and services by the Govt. are in the " private sector" .

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ahh, but the new programs at NASA are almost all run by Space X and Boeing, in fact if you look at it, NASA is even requiring Boeing and Space X to fly their own spacecraft to demonstrate them. So then by that measure, is this not a good example of promoting the "private sector" ?

I think you're way over-complicating this. A private sector job may be funded by sales to the governent, that doesn't make it a public sector job.

I suggest you Google Military Industrial Complex while you're at it.

I think you misunderstand me, I am not saying its a public sector job, in fact in my humble opinion its a private sector job no different than any other, the only difference is the source of the contract. That in and of itself does not change the fact that these jobs are all in the " private sector". Take Space X for example, before NASA had decided to end the Shuttle program Space X hardly existed as a company. The need for "private sector " launch services was only provided by one source and that was Boeing and Lockheed known as ULA. In that time Space X has developed 3 rockets and several services and launch systems that serive not only NASA but also offer private launch services as does Boeing. The point of this thread is simply to point out that , even though the Federal Govt. may create the need, that does not make the supplier any less of a " private sector" employer than the 7-11.

The job may be no different (other than Fund accounting vs. GAP accounting)whether I am an accountant for FDA or an accountant for IBM. The only difference is whether I work in the private sector or the public sector. It;s amatter of who you work for, a privately held company or the Taxpayer.

 

[Samson]

My contention is that the "private sector" is simply that regardless of who the customer is, and money paid to it for goods and services by the Govt. are in the " private sector" .

Yes then I agree: the "Private Sector" provides goods and services to customers, including the government.

The Private sector also provides the government with the funding to buy goods and services.

I wish I could ask McDonalds to send me a check on April 15: I'd make them feel better about losing the revenue paid me by letting them know I'd eat an extra portion of Large Fries the following year.

 

[Navy1960]

My contention is that the "private sector" is simply that regardless of who the customer is, and money paid to it for goods and services by the Govt. are in the " private sector" .

Yes then I agree: the "Private Sector" provides goods and services to customers, including the government.

The Private sector also provides the government with the funding to buy goods and services.

I wish I could ask McDonalds to send me a check on April 15: I'd make them feel better about losing the revenue paid me by letting them know I'd eat an extra portion of Large Fries the following year.

Keep in mind this is humor, but McDonalds is a Govt. contractor too, so next time your in there, you can suggest that? j/k

 

[Flopper]

And you seem to make the assumption that all government spending leads to economic growth, which is certainly not so.

All government spending contributes to growth simply because it's a component of GDP. The question is not whether it contributes but how much it contributes. Entitlement spending creates a minimum amount of growth. Government funding such as that leading to development of the Internet, transportation infrastructure, jet airframes, and GPS systems are just few of the government funded programs that have had a huge impact on economic growth. So no, I do not believe that all government spending leads to significant growth.

 

[Care4all]

A few things , one the purchase rate on the tankers is not going to be on a 1-1 basis, they are buying just over a 100 of the tankers, however the refueling capacity will far exceed the KC-135. The other thing worth mentioning here is that as the KC-135 is a much older aircraft, it is not very fuel efficient and has much less range and in many ways is less environmentally friendly. As for planning, this aircraft is intended to meet current and future needs for what is deemed to be the same time period of the aircraft it replaces. While it's true we cannot select them all and I agree with you on that, but there are some we can, and I would submit that by being so bloated the DOD let 50 years pass by and now found themselves in a position they would not otherwise be in, had they replaced the aircraft when it was supposed to be replaced and ending up costing the taxpayer even more money.

Well, that's OK then, I suppose.

I was really just using this expenditure as an example within the larger topic: "What is the Private Sector?"

Defense (the DOD) cannot be in the private sector.

The DOD buys goods and services from the Private Sector, however, the DOD also Taxes the private sector.

So then the money is cyclic, in so doing the monies collected by purchasing those goods and services from the Private Sector it goes right back to it, does it not ? I would never contend that DOD is in the private sector, although if anyone has ever had the chance to be around those in DOD purchasing, some of them think otherwise, and still some even have gone to prison, who thought so a little too much. ( i.e. back to theBoeing Tanker deal again ). My contention is that the "private sector" is simply that regardless of who the customer is, and money paid to it for goods and services by the Govt. are in the " private sector" .

yes, those jobs are in the private sector....they are not counted as public sector jobs in any analysis or reporting from our gvt either, even if our gvt is their only customer, they are still private sector jobs and private sector businesses.

However, it is very possible many of those jobs and many of those businesses involved with our defense contracting as just an example, would not be the businesses they are today or in business at all, without the government money/contracts over the years.

The only reason I am mentioning this is on various other threads, many people claim the gvt never creates jobs or even stimulates the economy through their spending....but in cases such as the defense contractors, they do indeed....

 

[Navy1960]

Well, that's OK then, I suppose.

I was really just using this expenditure as an example within the larger topic: "What is the Private Sector?"

Defense (the DOD) cannot be in the private sector.

The DOD buys goods and services from the Private Sector, however, the DOD also Taxes the private sector.

So then the money is cyclic, in so doing the monies collected by purchasing those goods and services from the Private Sector it goes right back to it, does it not ? I would never contend that DOD is in the private sector, although if anyone has ever had the chance to be around those in DOD purchasing, some of them think otherwise, and still some even have gone to prison, who thought so a little too much. ( i.e. back to theBoeing Tanker deal again ). My contention is that the "private sector" is simply that regardless of who the customer is, and money paid to it for goods and services by the Govt. are in the " private sector" .

yes, those jobs are in the private sector....they are not counted as public sector jobs in any analysis or reporting from our gvt either, even if our gvt is their only customer, they are still private sector jobs and private sector businesses.

However, it is very possible many of those jobs and many of those businesses involved with our defense contracting as just an example, would not be the businesses they are today or in business at all, without the government money/contracts over the years.

The only reason I am mentioning this is on various other threads, many people claim the gvt never creates jobs or even stimulates the economy through their spending....but in cases such as the defense contractors, they do indeed....

That's the point here Care, there are no absolutes, one cannot simply say, " The Govt. does not create jobs, the private sector does", then turn around in the next breath show anger over defense cuts because of all the displaced workers caused by those cuts. Of course companies like Boeing, General Dynamics, Dell, Apple, HP, and whole host of others are "private sector" and when the Federal Govt. buys from them, to argue by that purchasing from them does not create jobs, especailly if the contract is large enough, is wrong. Take Dell for instance, for many years now, the Federal Govt. has purchased pretty much the same desktop systems and even servers you and I can. I know most have seen on various web pages a section called Govt. Schools, etc. So it's a bit interesting at least to me to just believe that the private sector is the only one that can self create jobs when its clear customer demand drives that, even if that customer is the taxpayer.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The Private Sector is that area about 6 inches below your belly button and about a foot about your knees. It varies between people but this is correct for most people.

 

[Care4all]

So then the money is cyclic, in so doing the monies collected by purchasing those goods and services from the Private Sector it goes right back to it, does it not ? I would never contend that DOD is in the private sector, although if anyone has ever had the chance to be around those in DOD purchasing, some of them think otherwise, and still some even have gone to prison, who thought so a little too much. ( i.e. back to theBoeing Tanker deal again ). My contention is that the "private sector" is simply that regardless of who the customer is, and money paid to it for goods and services by the Govt. are in the " private sector" .

yes, those jobs are in the private sector....they are not counted as public sector jobs in any analysis or reporting from our gvt either, even if our gvt is their only customer, they are still private sector jobs and private sector businesses.

However, it is very possible many of those jobs and many of those businesses involved with our defense contracting as just an example, would not be the businesses they are today or in business at all, without the government money/contracts over the years.

The only reason I am mentioning this is on various other threads, many people claim the gvt never creates jobs or even stimulates the economy through their spending....but in cases such as the defense contractors, they do indeed....

That's the point here Care, there are no absolutes, one cannot simply say, " The Govt. does not create jobs, the private sector does", then turn around in the next breath show anger over defense cuts because of all the displaced workers caused by those cuts. Of course companies like Boeing, General Dynamics, Dell, Apple, HP, and whole host of others are "private sector" and when the Federal Govt. buys from them, to argue that that purchasing from them does not create jobs, especailly if the contract is large enough, is wrong. Take Dell for instance, for many years now, the Federal Govt. has purchased pretty much the same desktop systems and even servers you and I can. I know most have seen on various web pages a section called Govt. Schools, etc. So it's a bit interesting at least to me to just believe that the private sector is the only one that can self create jobs when its clear customer demand drives that, even if that customer is the taxpayer.

yes, cutting defense spending would reduce private sector jobs...let's just hope that cutting the defense spending will help make BETTER decisions on what they spend their money on, so those that do lose their jobs in the private sector military industrial complex, are jobs that were not really needed all along....

I know when i was a retail buyer, if the corporation decided to cut my "purchase to buy" dollars (open to buy money), while still expecting me to achieve an increase in retail sales over the previous year, I had to analyze my business from head to toe, before making the first purchase for the upcoming season...making certain that every dollar spent was for an item that i knew would give me a return....with less money to spend, while expecting increased sales volume.....I HAD TO BE SMARTER with my purchases....

Cutting the defense budget should make them smarter with their purchases as well...while still getting the same results, year end...

But it WILL hurt private sector jobs, and this may not be the best time to hack away at the defense budget....

 

[Samson]

yes, those jobs are in the private sector....they are not counted as public sector jobs in any analysis or reporting from our gvt either, even if our gvt is their only customer, they are still private sector jobs and private sector businesses.

However, it is very possible many of those jobs and many of those businesses involved with our defense contracting as just an example, would not be the businesses they are today or in business at all, without the government money/contracts over the years.

The only reason I am mentioning this is on various other threads, many people claim the gvt never creates jobs or even stimulates the economy through their spending....but in cases such as the defense contractors, they do indeed....

That's the point here Care, there are no absolutes, one cannot simply say, " The Govt. does not create jobs, the private sector does", then turn around in the next breath show anger over defense cuts because of all the displaced workers caused by those cuts. Of course companies like Boeing, General Dynamics, Dell, Apple, HP, and whole host of others are "private sector" and when the Federal Govt. buys from them, to argue that that purchasing from them does not create jobs, especailly if the contract is large enough, is wrong. Take Dell for instance, for many years now, the Federal Govt. has purchased pretty much the same desktop systems and even servers you and I can. I know most have seen on various web pages a section called Govt. Schools, etc. So it's a bit interesting at least to me to just believe that the private sector is the only one that can self create jobs when its clear customer demand drives that, even if that customer is the taxpayer.

yes, cutting defense spending would reduce private sector jobs...let's just hope that cutting the defense spending will help make BETTER decisions on what they spend their money on, so those that do lose their jobs in the private sector military industrial complex, are jobs that were not really needed all along....

I know when i was a retail buyer, if the corporation decided to cut my "purchase to buy" dollars (open to buy money), while still expecting me to achieve an increase in retail sales over the previous year, I had to analyze my business from head to toe, before making the first purchase for the upcoming season...making certain that every dollar spent was for an item that i knew would give me a return....with less money to spend, while expecting increased sales volume.....I HAD TO BE SMARTER with my purchases....

Cutting the defense budget should make them smarter with their purchases as well...while still getting the same results, year end...

But it WILL hurt private sector jobs, and this may not be the best time to hack away at the defense budget....

Instead we should increase government spending: Maybe a $100 Billion Buggy Whip Manufacturing Jobs Bill would help.

I understand the DOD is bringing back the Horse Calvery.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, that's OK then, I suppose.

I was really just using this expenditure as an example within the larger topic: "What is the Private Sector?"

Defense (the DOD) cannot be in the private sector.

The DOD buys goods and services from the Private Sector, however, the DOD also Taxes the private sector.

So then the money is cyclic, in so doing the monies collected by purchasing those goods and services from the Private Sector it goes right back to it, does it not ? I would never contend that DOD is in the private sector, although if anyone has ever had the chance to be around those in DOD purchasing, some of them think otherwise, and still some even have gone to prison, who thought so a little too much. ( i.e. back to theBoeing Tanker deal again ). My contention is that the "private sector" is simply that regardless of who the customer is, and money paid to it for goods and services by the Govt. are in the " private sector" .

yes, those jobs are in the private sector....they are not counted as public sector jobs in any analysis or reporting from our gvt either, even if our gvt is their only customer, they are still private sector jobs and private sector businesses.

However, it is very possible many of those jobs and many of those businesses involved with our defense contracting as just an example, would not be the businesses they are today or in business at all, without the government money/contracts over the years.

The only reason I am mentioning this is on various other threads, many people claim the gvt never creates jobs or even stimulates the economy through their spending....but in cases such as the defense contractors, they do indeed....

But they still have to take the money OUT of the economy via taxes in order to pay that guy working for the contractor and that means the money isn't available for the taxpayer to hire somebody else. AND, because the government has to use some of the tax money it collects to fund its own bureaucracy, it will require MORE tax dollars to hire that contractor guy than the contractor guy will get. One government job created less one private sector job that won't be created equals zero net jobs.

That isn't the only reason but is certainly one reason as government jobs were saved and created using he stimulus money, we saw private sector jobs dramatically decreasing. And no matter how much the government spent, the unemployment rate remained stuck.

If I, a private sector person, hire you, I am actually creating a job because I am using my own money and not taking the money away from anybody else. And because I am not taking money away from somebody else, unemployment is reduced by one person.

 

[Care4all]

So then the money is cyclic, in so doing the monies collected by purchasing those goods and services from the Private Sector it goes right back to it, does it not ? I would never contend that DOD is in the private sector, although if anyone has ever had the chance to be around those in DOD purchasing, some of them think otherwise, and still some even have gone to prison, who thought so a little too much. ( i.e. back to theBoeing Tanker deal again ). My contention is that the "private sector" is simply that regardless of who the customer is, and money paid to it for goods and services by the Govt. are in the " private sector" .

yes, those jobs are in the private sector....they are not counted as public sector jobs in any analysis or reporting from our gvt either, even if our gvt is their only customer, they are still private sector jobs and private sector businesses.

However, it is very possible many of those jobs and many of those businesses involved with our defense contracting as just an example, would not be the businesses they are today or in business at all, without the government money/contracts over the years.

The only reason I am mentioning this is on various other threads, many people claim the gvt never creates jobs or even stimulates the economy through their spending....but in cases such as the defense contractors, they do indeed....

But they still have to take the money OUT of the economy via taxes in order to pay that guy working for the contractor and that means the money isn't available for the taxpayer to hire somebody else. AND, because the government has to use some of the tax money it collects to fund its own bureaucracy, it will require MORE tax dollars to hire that contractor guy than the contractor guy will get. One government job created less one private sector job that won't be created equals zero net jobs.

If I, a private sector person, hire you, I am actually creating a job because I am using my own money and not taking the money away from anybody else.

yes, I agree Foxy....the money for gvt contract jobs does come from the tax payer and it still does take money out of the private sector, as in...our own hands....(while redistributing it to other private sectors)

but the contract job that taxes is paying for, is still counted as a private sector job on all the reporting on such and i suppose, even if inefficiently, it still is adding to the profitability and gdp of the private sector....via the hands of citizen's taxes.

 

[Foxfyre]

yes, those jobs are in the private sector....they are not counted as public sector jobs in any analysis or reporting from our gvt either, even if our gvt is their only customer, they are still private sector jobs and private sector businesses.

However, it is very possible many of those jobs and many of those businesses involved with our defense contracting as just an example, would not be the businesses they are today or in business at all, without the government money/contracts over the years.

The only reason I am mentioning this is on various other threads, many people claim the gvt never creates jobs or even stimulates the economy through their spending....but in cases such as the defense contractors, they do indeed....

But they still have to take the money OUT of the economy via taxes in order to pay that guy working for the contractor and that means the money isn't available for the taxpayer to hire somebody else. AND, because the government has to use some of the tax money it collects to fund its own bureaucracy, it will require MORE tax dollars to hire that contractor guy than the contractor guy will get. One government job created less one private sector job that won't be created equals zero net jobs.

If I, a private sector person, hire you, I am actually creating a job because I am using my own money and not taking the money away from anybody else.

yes, I agree Foxy....the money for gvt contract jobs does come from the tax payer and it still does take money out of the private sector, as in...our own hands....(while redistributing it to other private sectors)

but the contract job that taxes is paying for, is still counted as a private sector job on all the reporting on such and i suppose, even if inefficiently, it still is adding to the profitability and gdp of the private sector....via the hands of citizen's taxes.

I know, but in my opinion, because it has negative effect as much as positive effect, it is disingenuous to score it that way and it is just more smoke and mirrors to boost the positive reputation of whoever happens to be in power. Both parties do it. And both are furthering an untruth when they do.

 

[Care4all]

But they still have to take the money OUT of the economy via taxes in order to pay that guy working for the contractor and that means the money isn't available for the taxpayer to hire somebody else. AND, because the government has to use some of the tax money it collects to fund its own bureaucracy, it will require MORE tax dollars to hire that contractor guy than the contractor guy will get. One government job created less one private sector job that won't be created equals zero net jobs.

If I, a private sector person, hire you, I am actually creating a job because I am using my own money and not taking the money away from anybody else.

yes, I agree Foxy....the money for gvt contract jobs does come from the tax payer and it still does take money out of the private sector, as in...our own hands....(while redistributing it to other private sectors)

but the contract job that taxes is paying for, is still counted as a private sector job on all the reporting on such and i suppose, even if inefficiently, it still is adding to the profitability and gdp of the private sector....via the hands of citizen's taxes.

I know, but in my opinion, because it has negative effect as much as positive effect, it is disingenuous to score it that way and it is just more smoke and mirrors to boost the positive reputation of whoever happens to be in power. Both parties do it. And both are furthering an untruth when they do.

so, cut defense spending now, without worries of what those budget cuts will do to those jobs?

I think Navy is saying in so many words, it will hurt the economy or private sector jobs if we cut defense spending.

 

[Olivia]

Great question and thread. Simple as to the public/Gov sector a Military person is no different then a welfare person paying taxes - they both get paid by Federal taxes so they recycle the taxes at the end of the year. However there is a difference that one works verses one does not - the $ comes from the same place in the end.

Private sector is that - private they do not depend on Fed tax $, they set their own rules as long as they confirm to the State regulation's.

Both need each other to thrive and succeed.

 

[Navy1960]

yes, I agree Foxy....the money for gvt contract jobs does come from the tax payer and it still does take money out of the private sector, as in...our own hands....(while redistributing it to other private sectors)

but the contract job that taxes is paying for, is still counted as a private sector job on all the reporting on such and i suppose, even if inefficiently, it still is adding to the profitability and gdp of the private sector....via the hands of citizen's taxes.

I know, but in my opinion, because it has negative effect as much as positive effect, it is disingenuous to score it that way and it is just more smoke and mirrors to boost the positive reputation of whoever happens to be in power. Both parties do it. And both are furthering an untruth when they do.

so, cut defense spending now, without worries of what those budget cuts will do to those jobs?

I think Navy is saying in so many words, it will hurt the economy or private sector jobs if we cut defense spending.

Well actually what I am saying is this Care, that to deal in "absolutes" like, " the Govt doesn't create jobs only the private sector jobs", is to not really take the time to actually look at the impact of that statement and understand that regardless of how you look at it, "private sector jobs" do increase when these contracts are big enough to call of it. Further, sometimes, but not always this kind of spending has added benefits that cross over into the consumer market to the benefit of everyone, like for example the internet. Defense spending is a complete other matter, while I am all for Defense spending when spent properly, monitored closely, has strict limitations, and allows for open competition. I am not for this, what has been institutionalized Defense spending that has lead to so many cost overruns and massive increases in the budget that at this point its hard to keep track.