Hacker News Reader

Comment by gizmo686 | Hacker News Reader

Some 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.

View on HN

Your making the broken window fallacy:

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.

Over 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.

The 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.

There are no federal firefighters and beat cops outside DC.

I stand corrected. I've updated my post to note more common federal positions.

Isn't gov't breaking down actually the broken window? We have to spend more money because of backpay and inefficiencies of a sudden stoppage.

I don't see what that has to do with noticing the shut down over the next hours/days/etc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com