Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2(npr.org)
npr.org
Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/11/675923576/customs-border-and-protection-paid-a-firm-13-6-million-to-hire-recruits-it-hired
207 comments
The most appropriate word I think is "corporate welfare"
Except that this raises prices. For those on the outside who still need the product or service, the best "stimulus" is efficiency.
How can inefficiency help poor people in the long run? Your logic doesn't pass the common sense test.
How can inefficiency help poor people in the long run? Your logic doesn't pass the common sense test.
Reminds me of this FEMA contracting failure:
>FEMA Contract Called for 30 Million Meals for Puerto Ricans. 50,000 Were Delivered.
>For this huge task, FEMA tapped Tiffany Brown, an Atlanta entrepreneur with no experience in large-scale disaster relief and at least five canceled government contracts in her past. FEMA awarded her $156 million for the job, and Ms. Brown, who is the sole owner and employee of her company, Tribute Contracting LLC, set out to find some help.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/us/fema-contract-puerto-r...
>FEMA Contract Called for 30 Million Meals for Puerto Ricans. 50,000 Were Delivered.
>For this huge task, FEMA tapped Tiffany Brown, an Atlanta entrepreneur with no experience in large-scale disaster relief and at least five canceled government contracts in her past. FEMA awarded her $156 million for the job, and Ms. Brown, who is the sole owner and employee of her company, Tribute Contracting LLC, set out to find some help.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/us/fema-contract-puerto-r...
How do people like these not get prosecuted?
FEMA pays on delivery. If you fail to fulfil a contract, the FEMA keeps its money. In this case, that leaves the contractor holding the bag, as they subcontracted out for all of the work.
Unfortunately, the contractor can dispute the contract termination in a lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive, so this may force FEMA into a settlement. This happens all the time with government contracts. People that know the system can exploit it.
The FEMA contracting officer bears much of the blame for this outcome. The company had no prior experience in disaster relief, had a track record of failing to fulfil contracts, and did not have sufficient funds to fulfil the contract. These are all things that should have been considered before awarding the contract.
Unfortunately, the contractor can dispute the contract termination in a lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive, so this may force FEMA into a settlement. This happens all the time with government contracts. People that know the system can exploit it.
The FEMA contracting officer bears much of the blame for this outcome. The company had no prior experience in disaster relief, had a track record of failing to fulfil contracts, and did not have sufficient funds to fulfil the contract. These are all things that should have been considered before awarding the contract.
How does a government agency assign a $150m+ contract to a one man band?
If anything, the fault is more on the government than it is on the person bidding for the contract.
If anything, the fault is more on the government than it is on the person bidding for the contract.
Probably protected by the powerful friends that gave them the contract in the first place.
Worth comparing with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18679767 , where we actually had something resembling a discussion rather than just descending into government-is-bad tropes.
There are really three separate questions:
1) Whether the thing is worth doing at all
2) Having decided to do it, is there enough commitment and leadership to actually doing it properly?
3) Given the desire to do it properly, is that best served by doing it in-house through a line management system of control, or outsourcing it and running it through a contract management system of control?
There are really three separate questions:
1) Whether the thing is worth doing at all
2) Having decided to do it, is there enough commitment and leadership to actually doing it properly?
3) Given the desire to do it properly, is that best served by doing it in-house through a line management system of control, or outsourcing it and running it through a contract management system of control?
Accenture. Why am I not surprised?
This is par for the course for Accenture. I joined Accenture to work on a very interesting development project for a fortune 10 a few years ago. A project that could have been done in 6-8 months by a competent team in a reasonable budget. But being Accenture, it turned into a mess of epic proportions with the client threatening to sue.
In the end we ended up delivering this piece of software that I wouldn't touch again with a 10-foot pole, which didn't even satisfy most of the original business requirements. The exec from the client that hired us changed the narrative to his stakeholders to make this appear as a big success, and the project even got a lot of coverage on the internal newsletter when in reality it was just a smash and grab of a dozen or so million dollars from a client that got swindled so bad that they wouldn't even admit it.
I ended up being mostly on the bench for the rest of my stay at Accenture while watching every single one of the individuals that worked on that project leave for better pastures. A year in after the project started no one that worked on it was in Accenture anymore, except me. I was conflicted if I wanted to leave because I would hit the gym for two hours every day at around 2-3pm, then go home. My mornings were full of reading blogs, working on personal projects and just gossiping by the water cooler. In the end I decided to leave since I missed doing real work and working with a competent team. That year was one hell of a ride for me.
In the end we ended up delivering this piece of software that I wouldn't touch again with a 10-foot pole, which didn't even satisfy most of the original business requirements. The exec from the client that hired us changed the narrative to his stakeholders to make this appear as a big success, and the project even got a lot of coverage on the internal newsletter when in reality it was just a smash and grab of a dozen or so million dollars from a client that got swindled so bad that they wouldn't even admit it.
I ended up being mostly on the bench for the rest of my stay at Accenture while watching every single one of the individuals that worked on that project leave for better pastures. A year in after the project started no one that worked on it was in Accenture anymore, except me. I was conflicted if I wanted to leave because I would hit the gym for two hours every day at around 2-3pm, then go home. My mornings were full of reading blogs, working on personal projects and just gossiping by the water cooler. In the end I decided to leave since I missed doing real work and working with a competent team. That year was one hell of a ride for me.
I'm not.
If you want to spend millions and get no deliverables..Accenture is your answer.
If you want projects late and over budget...Accenture is your answer.
If you want to quickly build your resume with performing little work...Accenture is your answer.
If you want to spend millions and get no deliverables..Accenture is your answer.
If you want projects late and over budget...Accenture is your answer.
If you want to quickly build your resume with performing little work...Accenture is your answer.
I've worked with Accenture at various companies over the years, they have always had pretty decent teams, now the amount of overhead provided with a contract (delivery lead, delivery manager, client manager) is kind of overkill, but the developers we've brought on from them have been pretty good, but sticklers for scope and SOWs, even though we were paying hourly and not fixed.
pretty depressing that you're better off buying politicians rather than actually building a good business if you want to get rich
Yea. Even in aerospace and defense. Pretty important industries to long-term safety and success of our country. This led us to the F35 debacle and state of orbital launch services.
Should have gone with Blackwater instead
One of the reasons why CBP loves the current administration, their new policies effectively lifted any limits on overtime. For a person with ten years seniority, if they're bored and want some OT, border patrol guys can sit around in a pickup truck listening to the radio clocking those 150% wage hours.
It is not uncommon for a CBP or ICE officer, with OT, to be in the $130k+ salary range now.
And these are in places with relatively low cost of living, compared to a big city, like Ferry County, WA.
It is not uncommon for a CBP or ICE officer, with OT, to be in the $130k+ salary range now.
And these are in places with relatively low cost of living, compared to a big city, like Ferry County, WA.
I don't think it's fair to judge the "average" cost of living of a CBP officer, all ports of entry are staffed by CBP and the US has ports of entry all over the county. In fact, some of the busiest ports of entry are at airports located in major metropolitan areas with high costs of living.
I'd say this summarizes post-recession America pretty well. A demand for jobs that no one seems qualified and willing to do, and a bloated paycheck to the keepers of some "analysts" who scramble to keep doing what doesn't work.
The initial payment of ~$2000/recruit sounded reasonable, and then you realize that the total expenditure was for $40,000/recruit. Even if Accenture Federal Services delivered, is that price tag an accurate reflection of the true value of recruiting agents? What part of the recruitment process could warrant such a high price?
As a side-side note:
>Border Patrol jobs with the CBP have been notoriously difficult to fill, in large part because of the polygraph exam applicants are required to undergo. The AP reported that 2 out of 3 applicants fail the exam
Does that mean that the polygraph is extremely restrictive or that 66% of applicants are liars?
I mean, even if it is not applicable/valid in court, I believe most federal and government agencies use them internally, there was something on HN some time ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18431683
So, set aside how accurate it is, a number of people can pass it to get (or keep) a federal job, so it might be that the "quality" of people attemptng to enroll to CBP is "lower"?
>Border Patrol jobs with the CBP have been notoriously difficult to fill, in large part because of the polygraph exam applicants are required to undergo. The AP reported that 2 out of 3 applicants fail the exam
Does that mean that the polygraph is extremely restrictive or that 66% of applicants are liars?
I mean, even if it is not applicable/valid in court, I believe most federal and government agencies use them internally, there was something on HN some time ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18431683
So, set aside how accurate it is, a number of people can pass it to get (or keep) a federal job, so it might be that the "quality" of people attemptng to enroll to CBP is "lower"?
> Does that mean that the polygraph is extremely restrictive or that 66% of applicants are liars?
Polygraphs are about as good for what they pretend to do as phrenology is.
> I believe most federal and government agencies use them internally
They are used for positions with certain security clearance levels, despite having been repeatedly shown to be junk science, because they national security establishment is attached to security theater and/or full of people in decision-making positions that disrespect science when it disagrees with what they want to believe.
Or maybe because they are really good at detecting the degree to which people are susceptible to cracking under theatrical pressure, which isn't what they are advertised as being used for but is something that rationally matters to the national security establishment, and which they might actually be good at.
> So, set aside how accurate it is, a number of people can pass it to get (or keep) a federal job, so it might be that the "quality" of people attemptng to enroll to CBP is "lower
You can't set that aside: how accurate it is at assessing “quality”, however you define that, is the key thing you need to establish to justify that conclusion.
Polygraphs are about as good for what they pretend to do as phrenology is.
> I believe most federal and government agencies use them internally
They are used for positions with certain security clearance levels, despite having been repeatedly shown to be junk science, because they national security establishment is attached to security theater and/or full of people in decision-making positions that disrespect science when it disagrees with what they want to believe.
Or maybe because they are really good at detecting the degree to which people are susceptible to cracking under theatrical pressure, which isn't what they are advertised as being used for but is something that rationally matters to the national security establishment, and which they might actually be good at.
> So, set aside how accurate it is, a number of people can pass it to get (or keep) a federal job, so it might be that the "quality" of people attemptng to enroll to CBP is "lower
You can't set that aside: how accurate it is at assessing “quality”, however you define that, is the key thing you need to establish to justify that conclusion.
>Does that mean that the polygraph is extremely restrictive or that 66% of applicants are liars?
Polygraphs aren't remotely scientific or even accurate. False positives are EXTREMELY common, simply being nervous that you're hooked up to a strange contraption can cause false positives.
Police departments often use them for hiring too, the Indiana State Police does for example.
Polygraphs aren't remotely scientific or even accurate. False positives are EXTREMELY common, simply being nervous that you're hooked up to a strange contraption can cause false positives.
Police departments often use them for hiring too, the Indiana State Police does for example.
While true, that doesn't explain why the CBP polygraph fail rate is twice that of other police departments. (The CBP itself is a police department)
https://apnews.com/7e5bc0d98dd849a88043d8c40a74e56f
https://apnews.com/7e5bc0d98dd849a88043d8c40a74e56f
Yep, that is the question/doubt.
I personally believe that the polygraph is a senseless test, still when it is used to screen a "large" number of people more or less in the same field (LEO, federal agences, army or similar), it should give a similar number of positives and negatives.
If it is used only to verify if applicants are prone to "cracking under theatrical pressure", the result means that applicants for CBP are much more susceptible to that than most applicants to other police/security or similar jobs.
I personally believe that the polygraph is a senseless test, still when it is used to screen a "large" number of people more or less in the same field (LEO, federal agences, army or similar), it should give a similar number of positives and negatives.
If it is used only to verify if applicants are prone to "cracking under theatrical pressure", the result means that applicants for CBP are much more susceptible to that than most applicants to other police/security or similar jobs.
I read in another article couple years ago thag a lot of people taking the CBP polygraph actually admit to very serious illegal/disqualifying behaviours during the polygraph.
Here's the article: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/23/16511732/border-patrol-p...
>Polygraph results are of questionable scientific value, but the interviews have an unexpected benefit apart from their dubious powers of detection: under pressure from interviewers, applicants frequently admit to wrongdoing. The Verge obtained a document under the Freedom of Information Act that lists cases where CBP polygraph interviews were “referred” for further investigation. When a polygraph interviewer determines an applicant has done something potentially disqualifying, the information is referred to an “adjudicator.” The adjudicator is vested with the power to stop the applicant from being offered a job. The list of referrals for further investigation, produced by CBP’s Credibility Assessment Division, includes 205 cases over the course of last year, and highlight stunning admissions of crimes flagged by the division.
Here's the article: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/23/16511732/border-patrol-p...
>Polygraph results are of questionable scientific value, but the interviews have an unexpected benefit apart from their dubious powers of detection: under pressure from interviewers, applicants frequently admit to wrongdoing. The Verge obtained a document under the Freedom of Information Act that lists cases where CBP polygraph interviews were “referred” for further investigation. When a polygraph interviewer determines an applicant has done something potentially disqualifying, the information is referred to an “adjudicator.” The adjudicator is vested with the power to stop the applicant from being offered a job. The list of referrals for further investigation, produced by CBP’s Credibility Assessment Division, includes 205 cases over the course of last year, and highlight stunning admissions of crimes flagged by the division.
"CBP had paid Accenture Federal Services approximately $13.6 million of a $297 million contract to recruit and hire 7,500 applicants"
- $40k per hire
- $40k per hire
30-40k hiring bonuses to recruiters are not uncommon. Especially if it is the only income and competitive in nature.
Doing this under a fixed contract is however.
Doing this under a fixed contract is however.
According to this article, the contract amount to be paid to Accenture is USD $297,000,000 to help the Government hire 7,500 employees. Nearly USD $40,000 USD per hire. Definitely makes me think about going all in on turning pure Libertarian.
I'm interested to know what part of this story sparked your comment about Libertarianism?
Was it the use of taxpayer dollars to expand a border force that didn't seem understaffed to anyone but the Pres?
I ask because the other part, namely government contracting work to the "more efficient" private sector sounds perfectly in keeping with Libertarian principles.
Was it the use of taxpayer dollars to expand a border force that didn't seem understaffed to anyone but the Pres?
I ask because the other part, namely government contracting work to the "more efficient" private sector sounds perfectly in keeping with Libertarian principles.
Spending $40,000 USD per hire for a border patrol job, strikes me as inefficient, regardless of whether or not the private sector or Government is doing the hiring. But most likely, what sparked my comment about libertarianism, was simply the fact I'd visited the Libertarian party website earlier today at https://www.lp.org/ and happened to be thinking about their tagline "Libertarian Party | Minimum Government. Maximum Freedom." when I read this article.
I agree that $40k/hire cost is absurd. That being said, I hope you'll agree that actions matter more than words. Plenty of organizations make virtuous claims in public, and behave differently in private. Political slogans are no exception. I would encourage you to look at their political representatives' voting records and ask yourself if they are being consistent with their professed beliefs.
The absolutism of Libertarian theory doesn't translate well to politics and economics, as those require building relationships and cutting deals to make things happen.
The absolutism of Libertarian theory doesn't translate well to politics and economics, as those require building relationships and cutting deals to make things happen.
Libertarian as in you don’t believe it’s possible to scale government while keeping it efficient?
Ok, but we’re they the right hires?
“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.”
-Milton Friedman
-Milton Friedman
This is very elegant, and encapsulates the problem with America. Well, many other countries as well, but certainly us, America. Not government -- but our conception of "ourselves".
HN occasionally has articles about education and the comparison of, say, Finnish education and American education comes up. I am firmly of the opinions that Finnish education works, when it works, because it is a service that the population is providing for themselves via government. It is seen as spending their own money on themselves. These other social services are seen similarly: people are getting what they paid for. And they (Finns, in this example) are conscious of it: in large part, I lay this lingering national consciousness of the value of government at the Karelian refugee resettlement of the 1940s. My inner armchair historian/anthropologist sees this massive national effort from family level through the top of government as providing a bit of national glue that also led to feelings of agency and efficacy among the population.
The sense that government takes our money and gives it to someone else, or steals it, pervades the US discourse. Our efforts are focused on avoiding taxes, lessening taxes, eliminating services for those undeserving others. We don't want to pay for other peoples' kids; they shouldn't have had them and haven't they heard of birth control, which they should also be able to obtain on their own. Personal responsibility is king. It subtly pervades even how we teach reading -- if you read [1], you see that teachers were taught that kids learn from their parents reading to them, and it's also just a matter of parenting choices and personal responsibility. From the family to top levels of government in the US, there's now an anti-glue, the story that government is an adversary, that it's a wasteful theft of honest peoples' money.
They are both just stories that make themselves true through our behavior, the behavior of government officials, citizens, and contractors.
[1] https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-a...
HN occasionally has articles about education and the comparison of, say, Finnish education and American education comes up. I am firmly of the opinions that Finnish education works, when it works, because it is a service that the population is providing for themselves via government. It is seen as spending their own money on themselves. These other social services are seen similarly: people are getting what they paid for. And they (Finns, in this example) are conscious of it: in large part, I lay this lingering national consciousness of the value of government at the Karelian refugee resettlement of the 1940s. My inner armchair historian/anthropologist sees this massive national effort from family level through the top of government as providing a bit of national glue that also led to feelings of agency and efficacy among the population.
The sense that government takes our money and gives it to someone else, or steals it, pervades the US discourse. Our efforts are focused on avoiding taxes, lessening taxes, eliminating services for those undeserving others. We don't want to pay for other peoples' kids; they shouldn't have had them and haven't they heard of birth control, which they should also be able to obtain on their own. Personal responsibility is king. It subtly pervades even how we teach reading -- if you read [1], you see that teachers were taught that kids learn from their parents reading to them, and it's also just a matter of parenting choices and personal responsibility. From the family to top levels of government in the US, there's now an anti-glue, the story that government is an adversary, that it's a wasteful theft of honest peoples' money.
They are both just stories that make themselves true through our behavior, the behavior of government officials, citizens, and contractors.
[1] https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-a...
>"The sense that government takes our money and gives it to someone else"
If something else was going on, then taxes would be voluntary...
If something else was going on, then taxes would be voluntary...
An alternative would be a country full of people so similar to you that the average person would feel like their countrymen might as well be them. If the entire US was 100% aligned with your own politics then taxes wouldn't be very burdensome.
If my political faction ran the country like a dictatorship, I wouldn't mind them taking my money, because they'd spend it on getting me what I want (which may include "a better world," prioritized according to my subjective view of which world problems are the worst). However because there is more than one political faction in power, the money taken from me will sometimes be spent on things I don't want, including things that I am actually opposed to. Clearly the solution is either cough "greater unity," or the more practical answer which is having minimal taxes to fund only the lowest common denominator of services that everyone wants.
If my political faction ran the country like a dictatorship, I wouldn't mind them taking my money, because they'd spend it on getting me what I want (which may include "a better world," prioritized according to my subjective view of which world problems are the worst). However because there is more than one political faction in power, the money taken from me will sometimes be spent on things I don't want, including things that I am actually opposed to. Clearly the solution is either cough "greater unity," or the more practical answer which is having minimal taxes to fund only the lowest common denominator of services that everyone wants.
>"An alternative would be a country full of people so similar to you that the average person would feel like their countrymen might as well be them."
What? If people really felt that way there would be no need for taxes.
If you have a lack of self-interest (or the sense of "self" is altered to refer to the group) you would freely give money to each other.
The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government.
In fact, I was just thinking the other day that 50 million trump voters could donate $100 each to "build the wall" and be done with it. You could probably even donate $25/year for four years. $5 billion is nothing at those scales yet there is all this bickering (supposedly) about it.
What? If people really felt that way there would be no need for taxes.
If you have a lack of self-interest (or the sense of "self" is altered to refer to the group) you would freely give money to each other.
The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government.
In fact, I was just thinking the other day that 50 million trump voters could donate $100 each to "build the wall" and be done with it. You could probably even donate $25/year for four years. $5 billion is nothing at those scales yet there is all this bickering (supposedly) about it.
Just because everyone is like me is not enough to for voluntary payment to work. The issue is when people can not pay and get what they want they will simply not pay.
If me and 10,000 people want a waste treatment plant we can individually chip in. But, in that case defecting would be so common that it's unlikely to be built. Or, we can vote to make payment mandatory and get what most people want, but nobody wants to pay for.
Now, if you disagree feel free to start a build a wall fund. It can work for specific kinds of things where donations feel good.
If me and 10,000 people want a waste treatment plant we can individually chip in. But, in that case defecting would be so common that it's unlikely to be built. Or, we can vote to make payment mandatory and get what most people want, but nobody wants to pay for.
Now, if you disagree feel free to start a build a wall fund. It can work for specific kinds of things where donations feel good.
>"If me and 10,000 people want a waste treatment plant we can individually chip in. But, in that case defecting would be so common that it's unlikely to be built."
Ok, but my point is limited to the fact that taxes only serve a purpose when people will not voluntarily fund a project. So this agrees with me.
It delusional to think taxes are something more than a government taking your money and spending it on stuff (which may or may not benefit you).
>"Now, if you disagree feel free to start a build a wall fund. It can work for specific kinds of things where donations feel good."
I could personally care less whether there is a wall or not. It seems irrelevant beyond as a symbol that immigration laws are being enforced.
Ok, but my point is limited to the fact that taxes only serve a purpose when people will not voluntarily fund a project. So this agrees with me.
It delusional to think taxes are something more than a government taking your money and spending it on stuff (which may or may not benefit you).
>"Now, if you disagree feel free to start a build a wall fund. It can work for specific kinds of things where donations feel good."
I could personally care less whether there is a wall or not. It seems irrelevant beyond as a symbol that immigration laws are being enforced.
The distinction I am going for is people who would donate if and only if their donation makes a difference to project completion. If you can save your 100$ and still get what you want then that’s different than your 100$ being what allows something to happen.
My 100$ is not going to cure cancer so I don’t donate to cancer research. But, if I knew it would make the difference between a cure and no cure, then I would very much donate 100$ to end cancer.
My 100$ is not going to cure cancer so I don’t donate to cancer research. But, if I knew it would make the difference between a cure and no cure, then I would very much donate 100$ to end cancer.
>"The distinction I am going for is people who would donate if and only if their donation makes a difference to project completion. If you can save your 100$ and still get what you want then that’s different than your 100$ being what allows something to happen."
So you claim people won't voluntarily fund a project like a wastewater treatment plant since it doesn't make them feel rewarded or some other mental thing. Fine, doesn't matter why they won't do it. My point is that's the only time taxes are required to get a project done.
>"My 100$ is not going to cure cancer so I don’t donate to cancer research. But, if I knew it would make the difference between a cure and no cure, then I would very much donate 100$ to end cancer."
Even the NIH admits medical researchers waste 90% of the funds they pass out (I would put it much higher), so yea there really is no reason to give them any more money: https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3...
So you claim people won't voluntarily fund a project like a wastewater treatment plant since it doesn't make them feel rewarded or some other mental thing. Fine, doesn't matter why they won't do it. My point is that's the only time taxes are required to get a project done.
>"My 100$ is not going to cure cancer so I don’t donate to cancer research. But, if I knew it would make the difference between a cure and no cure, then I would very much donate 100$ to end cancer."
Even the NIH admits medical researchers waste 90% of the funds they pass out (I would put it much higher), so yea there really is no reason to give them any more money: https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3...
Cancer research is only one example, a new road also requires a minimum amount of money. Many people would happily pay for their chunk of a new road/bridge if it made the difference between having it and not because the cost is less than the utility. But, you don’t see charities to build roads because that model does not work in that context.
As to efficiency that’s not really relevant. What I pay to see a movie is divorced from what it takes to make the movie. All I care about is the utility.
As to efficiency that’s not really relevant. What I pay to see a movie is divorced from what it takes to make the movie. All I care about is the utility.
If taxes didn't fund roads, businesses would fund them to transport their stuff around. Since an empty road is wasteful, they would also likely be toll/subscription/customers-only based for whoever else. So you would need to pay if you wanted to use the road. Now if a bunch of people want to donate a road to the world (like open source, it would happen), that is great too.
That’s a theory, but in practice that’s not what you see happen. Companies build a lot of really bad roads when they need them to get from A - B for example logging.
But, individual roads fit into a larger context. If you want to get from A to B and there is a road from A to C and from C to B then the utility is limited to time saved. Companies rarely build such roads and it’s even rarer to see them turned into public toll roads.
The US interstate highway system for example provides minimal individual benefit over existing roads, but massive collective benefit. Worldwide you don’t see companies building such things even when the demand is there.
But, individual roads fit into a larger context. If you want to get from A to B and there is a road from A to C and from C to B then the utility is limited to time saved. Companies rarely build such roads and it’s even rarer to see them turned into public toll roads.
The US interstate highway system for example provides minimal individual benefit over existing roads, but massive collective benefit. Worldwide you don’t see companies building such things even when the demand is there.
>>The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government.
I like this point and I make it a lot to my Democrat friends who insist rich people should pay more taxes. These people use the fact that they are themselves rich to support their argument ("I should pay more taxes too, you see!"). I always ask them, "Then why don't you? The Treasury accepts donations, you know."
It would be a persuasive gesture for folks like Bill Gates and Bernie Sanders who are insisting their tax bracket should be higher to write big checks to the Treasury for what they think is morally right.
But of course, they won't. Nor should they -- top charities deliver much higher societal ROI than government, in my opinion. And apparently Gates et al. agree with me privately. Publicly... they are all for higher taxes as long as it's forced by threat of imprisonment, apparently.
I like this point and I make it a lot to my Democrat friends who insist rich people should pay more taxes. These people use the fact that they are themselves rich to support their argument ("I should pay more taxes too, you see!"). I always ask them, "Then why don't you? The Treasury accepts donations, you know."
It would be a persuasive gesture for folks like Bill Gates and Bernie Sanders who are insisting their tax bracket should be higher to write big checks to the Treasury for what they think is morally right.
But of course, they won't. Nor should they -- top charities deliver much higher societal ROI than government, in my opinion. And apparently Gates et al. agree with me privately. Publicly... they are all for higher taxes as long as it's forced by threat of imprisonment, apparently.
Taxes are more than just a revenue source, they also change people’s bahavor. So, donating money to the government and raising taxes results in different outcomes. I don’t think the US government needs more money, but the current tax structure distorts the economy and creates inefficiency.
Longer term, having the rich pay little taxes destabilizes the nation. Democratic rule is not perticularly stable over time and the US is heading down a very dark path.
In the end their are not enough billionaires where revenue from them really matters. Higher taxes on competent wealthy people has little real impact. However, ultra low capital gains is crital for creating a group of people who are incompetent, inherited lots of money, and stay powerful.
Longer term, having the rich pay little taxes destabilizes the nation. Democratic rule is not perticularly stable over time and the US is heading down a very dark path.
In the end their are not enough billionaires where revenue from them really matters. Higher taxes on competent wealthy people has little real impact. However, ultra low capital gains is crital for creating a group of people who are incompetent, inherited lots of money, and stay powerful.
Systemic issues are not solved by individual action. Software people (generally) seem to understand that in our field; it's why we have standards and code reviews. I don't understand why that understanding leaks out of one's brain when it's applied to the rest of the world.
The issues that proponents intend to address with greater taxation on the wealthy have remarkably little to do with "the government doesn't have enough money". They have to do with "taxes form economic incentives and the current set of incentives suck for everybody". An individual--yes, including Bill Gates--paying more taxes has marginal impact on the systemic issues of high-end under-taxation. Had the phrase not been co-opted by dirtbags, we'd probably file the act you are asking your "Democrat friends" about under...wait for it...virtue signaling.
The issues that proponents intend to address with greater taxation on the wealthy have remarkably little to do with "the government doesn't have enough money". They have to do with "taxes form economic incentives and the current set of incentives suck for everybody". An individual--yes, including Bill Gates--paying more taxes has marginal impact on the systemic issues of high-end under-taxation. Had the phrase not been co-opted by dirtbags, we'd probably file the act you are asking your "Democrat friends" about under...wait for it...virtue signaling.
[deleted]
> "The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government."
This really sounds true, but it disregards game theory. For concreteness, let's say the government proposes to upgrade a waste processing plant for $500 million, and you think it's a pretty good idea. There are varying levels of being willing to "freely give money":
1. You are willing to personally pay for the waste processing plant out of your own pocket. You happen to have $500 million, and regardless of what anyone else in the country thinks, you think the waste processing upgrade is badly needed and you're willing to devote your entire personal fortune to it. Maybe the waste processing plant will be named after you.
2. You are willing to pay for it, but only if your fellow citizens also pitch in. The waste processing plant serves 5 million people in the area. You aren't willing to personally pay $500 million, but you are willing to enter a contract with your 5 million fellows that you'll all pay $100 each.
3. You would be willing to join a pact to pay for it, but not if you can easily get away with being a free rider, where the plant gets built without your support. If a generous billionaire will personally donate to the government to pay for the entire thing, then why should you pay anything? Or, if 1 million of your fellow citizens will happily pay $500 each, then why should you pay anything? But that's not to say you don't think the plant is worth the money. You'd even be willing to pay for it if there were no other way to get it built. You'd just prefer not to waste your own money on it if the plant gets built even when you opt out of the payment contract.
Unfortunately, the common mentality of option (3) usually prevents options (1) and (2) from being feasible, because anyone who doesn't agree to pay still gets the benefit of the plant upgrades. Option (1) can still work for very prestigious projects that make a good legacy-building donation, but probably not waste processing plant upgrades. The free rider problem prevents almost anyone from voluntarily forming a pact to share the cost burden even when the plant upgrades are direly needed.
Fortunately there is a fourth option.
4. You would be willing to pay for it conditional on your fellow citizens fairly sharing the bill. Thus you support entering a mutually-binding pact which will also bind any potential free riders in the municipality who also benefit from the waste processing plant. The pact takes force as long as the motion to upgrade the waste processing plant wins majority support. In order for this kind of pact to be possible, you all (even the free riders) voluntarily agree ahead of time to support the legally-binding force of these kinds of pacts, and the conditions under which the majority will be determined. In other words, you choose to live under a democratic government.
Of course there's also a fifth option:
5. You don't think the waste processing plant needs upgrades, and you don't support yourself or anyone else paying for it.
I often hear from Americans that taxation equates to theft, or slavery, or being held at gunpoint to pay for other peoples' things. But this naively assumes that anyone who doesn't have opinion (1) must have opinion (5). In fact, I think the vast majority of people have opinion (4), because it's the Nash equilibrium for people who support a public works project, but I never hear opponents of taxation even talk about the existence of opinion (4).
Perhaps they haven't imagined that someone would be unwilling to donate $100 to the government, but be enthusiastically willing to have that same $100 forcibly taken from them (as long as it's also taken from their fellows)? I certainly am. That's why I vote to raise taxes even though I wouldn't donate to the government.
This really sounds true, but it disregards game theory. For concreteness, let's say the government proposes to upgrade a waste processing plant for $500 million, and you think it's a pretty good idea. There are varying levels of being willing to "freely give money":
1. You are willing to personally pay for the waste processing plant out of your own pocket. You happen to have $500 million, and regardless of what anyone else in the country thinks, you think the waste processing upgrade is badly needed and you're willing to devote your entire personal fortune to it. Maybe the waste processing plant will be named after you.
2. You are willing to pay for it, but only if your fellow citizens also pitch in. The waste processing plant serves 5 million people in the area. You aren't willing to personally pay $500 million, but you are willing to enter a contract with your 5 million fellows that you'll all pay $100 each.
3. You would be willing to join a pact to pay for it, but not if you can easily get away with being a free rider, where the plant gets built without your support. If a generous billionaire will personally donate to the government to pay for the entire thing, then why should you pay anything? Or, if 1 million of your fellow citizens will happily pay $500 each, then why should you pay anything? But that's not to say you don't think the plant is worth the money. You'd even be willing to pay for it if there were no other way to get it built. You'd just prefer not to waste your own money on it if the plant gets built even when you opt out of the payment contract.
Unfortunately, the common mentality of option (3) usually prevents options (1) and (2) from being feasible, because anyone who doesn't agree to pay still gets the benefit of the plant upgrades. Option (1) can still work for very prestigious projects that make a good legacy-building donation, but probably not waste processing plant upgrades. The free rider problem prevents almost anyone from voluntarily forming a pact to share the cost burden even when the plant upgrades are direly needed.
Fortunately there is a fourth option.
4. You would be willing to pay for it conditional on your fellow citizens fairly sharing the bill. Thus you support entering a mutually-binding pact which will also bind any potential free riders in the municipality who also benefit from the waste processing plant. The pact takes force as long as the motion to upgrade the waste processing plant wins majority support. In order for this kind of pact to be possible, you all (even the free riders) voluntarily agree ahead of time to support the legally-binding force of these kinds of pacts, and the conditions under which the majority will be determined. In other words, you choose to live under a democratic government.
Of course there's also a fifth option:
5. You don't think the waste processing plant needs upgrades, and you don't support yourself or anyone else paying for it.
I often hear from Americans that taxation equates to theft, or slavery, or being held at gunpoint to pay for other peoples' things. But this naively assumes that anyone who doesn't have opinion (1) must have opinion (5). In fact, I think the vast majority of people have opinion (4), because it's the Nash equilibrium for people who support a public works project, but I never hear opponents of taxation even talk about the existence of opinion (4).
Perhaps they haven't imagined that someone would be unwilling to donate $100 to the government, but be enthusiastically willing to have that same $100 forcibly taken from them (as long as it's also taken from their fellows)? I certainly am. That's why I vote to raise taxes even though I wouldn't donate to the government.
This concern for "free riders" doesn't seem appropriate to me. Who cares as long as you get your waste treatment plant (or whatever) for the stated price?
Was my explanation inadequate? We're not the people in category (2) who are concerned about free riders; we're all the people in category (3) who would be free riders. But we also want our water treatment plant. And we are willing to pay for it, but only if we have no way to personally avoid the obligation ourselves. And the same is true of our peers. We're an entire civilization of would-be free riders. So we're stuck because nobody will personally commit to pay unilaterally, even though we all want to. So how do we make ourselves happy? How do we get together and sign a contract to pay for it, without defecting on each other?
That's what taxes are. They're not there to coerce payment from people who aren't willing to donate. They exist to coordinate payments from a bunch of people who want to get things done but don't want to be the only sucker left with the bill. That's the whole point. And we get our schools and water treatment and garbage pickup and nobody has to make personal donations to the government to make it happen. We won't get our treatment plant any other way.
That's what taxes are. They're not there to coerce payment from people who aren't willing to donate. They exist to coordinate payments from a bunch of people who want to get things done but don't want to be the only sucker left with the bill. That's the whole point. And we get our schools and water treatment and garbage pickup and nobody has to make personal donations to the government to make it happen. We won't get our treatment plant any other way.
>"And we are willing to pay for it, but only if we have no way to personally avoid the obligation ourselves. And the same is true of our peers. We're an entire civilization of would-be free riders. So we're stuck because nobody will personally commit to pay unilaterally, even though we all want to. So how do we make ourselves happy? How do we get together and sign a contract to pay for it, without defecting on each other?"
How do people get together to invest in anything in this world you describe? How do you get 100 people to invest in your real estate venture without defecting on each other?
Sorry, but I don't see it. It seems like a solved "problem", even when there is no desire guaranteed to be fulfilled at the end.
How do people get together to invest in anything in this world you describe? How do you get 100 people to invest in your real estate venture without defecting on each other?
Sorry, but I don't see it. It seems like a solved "problem", even when there is no desire guaranteed to be fulfilled at the end.
In my real estate venture, the dividends are paid exclusively to the investors who are my shareholders. So there are no free riders; the people who don't invest don't get the same benefits as those who do. For ventures like this, we don't need the government to coordinate anything.
For projects like waste treatment plants, it's very hard or impossible to ensure that only the "investors" (ie, people who volunteered to fund it) get the benefit. If the waste gets treated, the tapwater is safe to drink, that weird smell in the streets goes away, the coliform count goes down, the beaches are open for swimming in the summer, and fewer people get sick. That's wonderful but how do we limit the benefits to the shareholders of the waste treatment plant, so as to convince people to invest in it?
For projects like waste treatment plants, it's very hard or impossible to ensure that only the "investors" (ie, people who volunteered to fund it) get the benefit. If the waste gets treated, the tapwater is safe to drink, that weird smell in the streets goes away, the coliform count goes down, the beaches are open for swimming in the summer, and fewer people get sick. That's wonderful but how do we limit the benefits to the shareholders of the waste treatment plant, so as to convince people to invest in it?
>"In my real estate venture, the dividends are paid exclusively to the investors who are my shareholders. So there are no free riders; the people who don't invest don't get the same benefits as those who do."
The investors don't care if there are free riders as long as they get the expected benefits. The neighboring property values may rise, for example.
>"That's wonderful but how do we limit the benefits to the shareholders of the waste treatment plant, so as to convince people to invest in it?"
I just can't get past this. This is just not something I consider in any way when choosing to make an investment/donation. I simply do not care if other people may benefit, that is not my concern.
I mean lets take a smaller task:
Say I feel like doing the dishes so I can have a clean plate later in the day. Once I get going with doing dishes, its not a hassle to finish them.
Should I be upset if someone else uses one of the dishes I cleaned? Should I not do the dishes, even if I want to, because eventually someone else may do them? If it was likely for someone else to take care of it, why hasn't it already been done?
The investors don't care if there are free riders as long as they get the expected benefits. The neighboring property values may rise, for example.
>"That's wonderful but how do we limit the benefits to the shareholders of the waste treatment plant, so as to convince people to invest in it?"
I just can't get past this. This is just not something I consider in any way when choosing to make an investment/donation. I simply do not care if other people may benefit, that is not my concern.
I mean lets take a smaller task:
Say I feel like doing the dishes so I can have a clean plate later in the day. Once I get going with doing dishes, its not a hassle to finish them.
Should I be upset if someone else uses one of the dishes I cleaned? Should I not do the dishes, even if I want to, because eventually someone else may do them? If it was likely for someone else to take care of it, why hasn't it already been done?
I'm not sure why this concept is such a challenge for me to convey. I'm probably not doing a very good job of it.
The investors aren't particularly concerned about small positive externalities such as the increase in surrounding property values. (If the positive externalities are very large, they would probably attempt to capture them somehow -- such as buying up the whole neighbourhood before proceeding with the development. This is why profitable train companies in Asia build train lines to where they own the land, and develop the area around their stations into shopping malls and residential complexes).
That's very different than having free riders. If you give your investors the option of paying $100 per share, or $0 per share, and in either case they'll get the same number of shares, then you suddenly won't find any investors willing to pay. Even if it's a profitable endeavour at $100 per share!
Why would you be offering such a strange deal to your investors? Well, you wouldn't, because it would totally undermine your ability to get your project funded. But it's exactly the model you're proposing when you suggest that private citizens might donate to the government if they really want public infrastructure to get funded! The ones who don't donate are paying $0/share, and the ones who do are paying $100/share, and they all get equal use of the infrastructure.
The free rider problem is not when you try to get investors to buy into your project, even though a few people who don't buy in will also benefit slightly. It's when you try to get investors to buy into your project, even though anybody who doesn't buy in benefits just as much.
Having said this, now let me put it in the context of your quote:
> "This is just not something I consider in any way when choosing to make an investment"
When you consider purchasing shares of a company for $100/share, do you not consider in any way the possibility that these shares might be available for a lower price from another seller? I would expect you would do research and pay the lowest price that is on offer. And if someone is offering them for $0/share, wouldn't you consider that when deciding whether or not to pay $100?
edit: Let me bring this back to the example. How are you going to pitch investors to pay to upgrade a water treatment plant, when they'll reap exactly the same gains from it as their neighbours who didn't contribute a dime? Or, after attempting this and failing to raise any funds whatsoever, let alone the required $500 million, how might you alter your fundraising strategy to make it more successful?
To simplify, let's assume that every one of the 5 million citizens has equal wealth, and the identical preferences, and is willing contribute up to at most $200 for this project, but prefers to pay the minimum possible amount and will always opt to pay $0 if the treatment plant gets built regardless.
The investors aren't particularly concerned about small positive externalities such as the increase in surrounding property values. (If the positive externalities are very large, they would probably attempt to capture them somehow -- such as buying up the whole neighbourhood before proceeding with the development. This is why profitable train companies in Asia build train lines to where they own the land, and develop the area around their stations into shopping malls and residential complexes).
That's very different than having free riders. If you give your investors the option of paying $100 per share, or $0 per share, and in either case they'll get the same number of shares, then you suddenly won't find any investors willing to pay. Even if it's a profitable endeavour at $100 per share!
Why would you be offering such a strange deal to your investors? Well, you wouldn't, because it would totally undermine your ability to get your project funded. But it's exactly the model you're proposing when you suggest that private citizens might donate to the government if they really want public infrastructure to get funded! The ones who don't donate are paying $0/share, and the ones who do are paying $100/share, and they all get equal use of the infrastructure.
The free rider problem is not when you try to get investors to buy into your project, even though a few people who don't buy in will also benefit slightly. It's when you try to get investors to buy into your project, even though anybody who doesn't buy in benefits just as much.
Having said this, now let me put it in the context of your quote:
> "This is just not something I consider in any way when choosing to make an investment"
When you consider purchasing shares of a company for $100/share, do you not consider in any way the possibility that these shares might be available for a lower price from another seller? I would expect you would do research and pay the lowest price that is on offer. And if someone is offering them for $0/share, wouldn't you consider that when deciding whether or not to pay $100?
edit: Let me bring this back to the example. How are you going to pitch investors to pay to upgrade a water treatment plant, when they'll reap exactly the same gains from it as their neighbours who didn't contribute a dime? Or, after attempting this and failing to raise any funds whatsoever, let alone the required $500 million, how might you alter your fundraising strategy to make it more successful?
To simplify, let's assume that every one of the 5 million citizens has equal wealth, and the identical preferences, and is willing contribute up to at most $200 for this project, but prefers to pay the minimum possible amount and will always opt to pay $0 if the treatment plant gets built regardless.
The price per person goes down if everyone pays.
The European interpretation is closer to "everyone pays into a big pot and we collectively decide how to spend it to make our country better"
Even if I don't get that money directly, I benefit massively because fire brigades prevent fires from burning down entire neighborhoods, health insurance keeps the work force healthy, unemployment programs keep crime rates low and provide training, free education attracts profitable industries etc.
I don't need to have a child to benefit from free education, and I don't need to be unemployed to benefit from unemployment programs. I'm very much spending all that tax money on myself.
Even if I don't get that money directly, I benefit massively because fire brigades prevent fires from burning down entire neighborhoods, health insurance keeps the work force healthy, unemployment programs keep crime rates low and provide training, free education attracts profitable industries etc.
I don't need to have a child to benefit from free education, and I don't need to be unemployed to benefit from unemployment programs. I'm very much spending all that tax money on myself.
>'The European interpretation is closer to "everyone pays into a big pot and we collectively decide how to spend it to make our country better"'
This sounds great, but if everyone was in favor of it there would be no reason to make this payment mandatory.
This sounds great, but if everyone was in favor of it there would be no reason to make this payment mandatory.
Game theory tells us why it has to be mandatory: if everyone pays everyone profits, but for any one individual it pays off to stop paying as long as everyone else keeps paying (because they still receive roughly the same benefits). So most people stop paying, and everyone is worse off. It's basically the prisoner's dilemma.
Note how even denying non-payers all public services doesn't work. If you don't pay for the fire brigade but your neighbor does you profit (since a fire in his house is less likely to go out of control and jump over to your house). The resulting situation would be less fair than just forcing everyone to pay for firefighting services.
Note how even denying non-payers all public services doesn't work. If you don't pay for the fire brigade but your neighbor does you profit (since a fire in his house is less likely to go out of control and jump over to your house). The resulting situation would be less fair than just forcing everyone to pay for firefighting services.
See my other discussion in this thread. I don't accept this "game theory" theory.
The problem with American opposition to government, especially Federal government, is that it's inextricable from the outcomes of the civil war.
> The problem with American opposition to government, especially Federal government, is that it's inextricable from the outcomes of the civil war.
Even that is sanitizing it, it predates the Civil War and is inextricable from the cause of the Confederacy in the Civil War, perhaps best articulated in Confederate Vice President Stephens famous Cornerstone speech:
---[quote]---
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
---[end quote]---
Even that is sanitizing it, it predates the Civil War and is inextricable from the cause of the Confederacy in the Civil War, perhaps best articulated in Confederate Vice President Stephens famous Cornerstone speech:
---[quote]---
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
---[end quote]---
So we should mitigate the problem by making more of the stuff government does happen at the state level instead of the federal level.
There's no inherent reason something like healthcare or net neutrality needs to be done nationally.
There's no inherent reason something like healthcare or net neutrality needs to be done nationally.
50 different rule books for 50 different locations of doing business sounds like an inherent reason.
I think the main reason is that Finland is also a very homogeneous country. There's much less of a concern for "paying for other people's kids".
Except diverse communities in Finland do not have significant achievement gaps with non-diverse communities.
Edit: After looking into it PISA stats, this is inaccurate. Must have heard this in a news story.
Edit 2: They do seem to do better than us with diversity - http://www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa/country/fin - but worse than OECD average.
Edit: After looking into it PISA stats, this is inaccurate. Must have heard this in a news story.
Edit 2: They do seem to do better than us with diversity - http://www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa/country/fin - but worse than OECD average.
That seems like an odd tangent rather than a rebuttal, but it would still be interesting to see such data.
I think that brings up the question, does the homogeneity of a country really mean less concern for "paying for other people's kids", and how do we define homogeneity: culture? income level? family size? ethnic background? net wealth?
What do you mean by homogeneous?
It means people view each other as being part of the same tribe, or network. People (and many other animals) don't mind helping people in their "closer" networks, but the further away you get in the network, the less you care about someone else. Perhaps it is because there is an assumption that there is less reciprocation the further out you go in the network.
I'm not sure what it says about me or Friedman, but if I'm choosing to buy someone a gift I don't care about the cost but I will attempt to make it something they like, and refrain from gift-giving if I don't think I can do that. (Or give money, I suppose.)
On the other hand, when spending other people's money on myself, for example lunches for business travel, I am incredibly cost conscious. I've skipped dinner a couple times because I felt the airport meals were too expensive. (The same was true when I was a child and spending my parents' money.)
Clearly they should put me in charge of governement budgets.
On the other hand, when spending other people's money on myself, for example lunches for business travel, I am incredibly cost conscious. I've skipped dinner a couple times because I felt the airport meals were too expensive. (The same was true when I was a child and spending my parents' money.)
Clearly they should put me in charge of governement budgets.
MF's classifications appear to not be universal. People do exist that are more careful with other people's money than with their own, because they feel empathy and/or wish to cultivate a professional reputation. I imagine such people would be very sought after and highly paid as fiduciaries and managers.
I too have been frugal with an expense account, but that may have been more out of a general mistrust of the employer, who might not reimburse in a timely and convenient fashion, rather than out of concern for their financial well-being. If my brother-in-law were to offer my entire family dinner, on him, at a restaurant of our choice, we would be eating at a strip-mall taqueria, for less than at McDonald's; whereas if my parents are buying, it's gonna be sushi, with a bunch of the fancy rolls. I know what they can each afford. Also, when I am shopping, I take it personal when I feel like I am getting ripped off, even if I am buying on behalf of someone else. If buying is a game, I want to win it.
For instance, I am super pissed about the F-35. I don't fly it, build it, maintain it, develop for it, see it, or even hear it. But it seems like maybe the government spent at least 5 times as much on it as it should have. Same with Boston's Big Dig. I don't live there or drive through it, but we all got ripped off on that one. That deal where Chicago sold its public parking meters and the Skyway Bridge? Pissed. People who don't care about other people's money when they spend it should not be allowed to spend other people's money. But there is way too much money that needs to be spent, and not enough conscientious spenders to do all of it. Thus, we end up with the yahoos that allow other people to be ripped off.
I too have been frugal with an expense account, but that may have been more out of a general mistrust of the employer, who might not reimburse in a timely and convenient fashion, rather than out of concern for their financial well-being. If my brother-in-law were to offer my entire family dinner, on him, at a restaurant of our choice, we would be eating at a strip-mall taqueria, for less than at McDonald's; whereas if my parents are buying, it's gonna be sushi, with a bunch of the fancy rolls. I know what they can each afford. Also, when I am shopping, I take it personal when I feel like I am getting ripped off, even if I am buying on behalf of someone else. If buying is a game, I want to win it.
For instance, I am super pissed about the F-35. I don't fly it, build it, maintain it, develop for it, see it, or even hear it. But it seems like maybe the government spent at least 5 times as much on it as it should have. Same with Boston's Big Dig. I don't live there or drive through it, but we all got ripped off on that one. That deal where Chicago sold its public parking meters and the Skyway Bridge? Pissed. People who don't care about other people's money when they spend it should not be allowed to spend other people's money. But there is way too much money that needs to be spent, and not enough conscientious spenders to do all of it. Thus, we end up with the yahoos that allow other people to be ripped off.
Do you work for the Boy Scouts?
I am not going to spend in excess, but if a company is paying for me to fly somewhere, I doubt a $30 airport meal is going to break them.
Now there have been times on site with a client, and I had a $120 per diem, where I might eat breakfast and lunch from a vending machine so that I can have a nice dinner, but I would never skip a meal at an airport if I had enough money left for it, and even if I didn't, I'd still charge the company and hope it flies under the radar.
Again $30 isn't going to bankrupt any company that can afford to fly you around.
I am not going to spend in excess, but if a company is paying for me to fly somewhere, I doubt a $30 airport meal is going to break them.
Now there have been times on site with a client, and I had a $120 per diem, where I might eat breakfast and lunch from a vending machine so that I can have a nice dinner, but I would never skip a meal at an airport if I had enough money left for it, and even if I didn't, I'd still charge the company and hope it flies under the radar.
Again $30 isn't going to bankrupt any company that can afford to fly you around.
It's not that I actually think the company will go bankrupt. It's just I am more concerned about how others will think of my spending, than my own comfort. There are plenty of cultures where this is the case, and people feel uncomfortable indulging in luxury, especially when other people (fellow employees in my case) are not.
I was thinking of a reimbursement policy where there is no per diem, and they'll reimburse all meals and alcohol "within reason" (meaning so long as you indulge less than the VPs), but I just thought about it, and if I had a per diem I would also keep costs low. When others are paying, and you keep costs low, it's kind of signaling that you value them paying enough that you are willing to do the job of picking the most efficient resource allocation, just like they would do for themselves. I think of it as showing goodwill and that you are on the same side. I was raised in a business culture that is more relationship oriented than the US.
I was thinking of a reimbursement policy where there is no per diem, and they'll reimburse all meals and alcohol "within reason" (meaning so long as you indulge less than the VPs), but I just thought about it, and if I had a per diem I would also keep costs low. When others are paying, and you keep costs low, it's kind of signaling that you value them paying enough that you are willing to do the job of picking the most efficient resource allocation, just like they would do for themselves. I think of it as showing goodwill and that you are on the same side. I was raised in a business culture that is more relationship oriented than the US.
I'd argue there's a big difference between my company paying for dinner and a friend or family member taking me out to dinner. In the latter case I'm definitely not going to run up a huge bill. Looking back to the quote, I suppose the definition of "someone else" can mean a lot.
Same, when out to dinner with friends, if I pay for everyone I will nag them to order the steak and every extra they might want, and if someone is paying for me I will try to pick something worth less than what they would have picked for themselves. I'm pretty sure they used to make menus with no prices for people like me. (It is common for my friends to also be generous and constantly try to get people to order more when they're the one paying. So I don't think this is a case of me being a Christlike figure of self-denial and the world being full of sharks. Economists just may not know enough good people.)
I wish I had more friends like you, then ;)
The kind of company culture that doesn't have an opinion on spending $30 for fast food... can eventually have a real impact on profitability eventually.
And when the attitude and behavior you just described is scaled throughout an organization you wind up bleeding money everywhere.
I think that, depending on culture, people like you are actually in the majority. How vast that majority is, is still very relevant to government efficiency however. Regulations on spending can also be quite successful in nudging people in the right direction.
All in all, it's IMO a very undifferentiated, ultra-libertarian point of view that Friedman's quote is displaying. I'd rather have somewhat inefficient government services than private monopolies, wherever market forces are not strong enough to create good competition. That applies to things like health care, the electrical grid, drinking water and a reasonable social safety net.
All in all, it's IMO a very undifferentiated, ultra-libertarian point of view that Friedman's quote is displaying. I'd rather have somewhat inefficient government services than private monopolies, wherever market forces are not strong enough to create good competition. That applies to things like health care, the electrical grid, drinking water and a reasonable social safety net.
I'm the same way, most of the time. But I think many (most?) people are not. Also, even if they are, it's really hard to visualize large sums of money, so spending $1B on something is really hard to reason about.
But I think it makes sense in general. If I were to buy something with someone else's money for someone else, I honestly wouldn't care too much about either the cost or the gift, I'd get the thing that seemed reasonable to both parties. For example, if I bought gift for someone who performed a service for my company, using my company's money, I would not be very cost conscious, and I'd only put minimal effort in (after all, it's just a task I need to complete). I don't want to be stingy (we want the person to like us), but I also don't want to get flak from accounting.
But I think it makes sense in general. If I were to buy something with someone else's money for someone else, I honestly wouldn't care too much about either the cost or the gift, I'd get the thing that seemed reasonable to both parties. For example, if I bought gift for someone who performed a service for my company, using my company's money, I would not be very cost conscious, and I'd only put minimal effort in (after all, it's just a task I need to complete). I don't want to be stingy (we want the person to like us), but I also don't want to get flak from accounting.
Yes, one of the problems with Friedman and his adherents is that they take the most cynical view of any situation, and assume everyone thinks like they do. So real, complex problems get reduced to a joke about how everyone else is an asshole and shouldn’t be trusted.
It’s a cute quip, but if you presented the opposite political viewpoint with an equally cute quip from a liberal, these Friedman acolytes would be the first to yell at you about “anecdotes vs evidence.”
I personally think that all forms of this style of comment are lowbrow-highbrow, contribute nothing but a sense of self-satisfaction to the poster, and should be voted down.
It’s a cute quip, but if you presented the opposite political viewpoint with an equally cute quip from a liberal, these Friedman acolytes would be the first to yell at you about “anecdotes vs evidence.”
I personally think that all forms of this style of comment are lowbrow-highbrow, contribute nothing but a sense of self-satisfaction to the poster, and should be voted down.
This is a good quote and I like it, but it's funny- I feel like what this quote best demonstrates is a basic difference in conscientiousness between the Chicago school folks and the Keynes folks.
If I buy a birthday present for someone, I care very much about the content of the present.
If I buy a birthday present for someone, I care very much about the content of the present.
The majority of gifts, and thus their aggregate, are worth less than their cost to the receiver.
This is because if the receiver can afford it and thought it was good, he would already have it. Because he doesn't, getting it as a gift is worse than getting money.
Alternative economic interpretation: if you gave someone the choice between item X and money worth X, the gift is good only if the recipient would choose item. If they were to choose the money, then they are always short-changed.
Gifting is economically inefficient.
This is because if the receiver can afford it and thought it was good, he would already have it. Because he doesn't, getting it as a gift is worse than getting money.
Alternative economic interpretation: if you gave someone the choice between item X and money worth X, the gift is good only if the recipient would choose item. If they were to choose the money, then they are always short-changed.
Gifting is economically inefficient.
I think you are missing the sentimental aspect of gift giving. It is not purely price/utility value. Emotions attached to gift giving have value for both the giver and the receiver.
I feel pretty good giving money away as well!
That may be so, but it doesn't generalize to the whole population.
> This is because if the receiver can afford it and thought it was good, he would already have it.
Assuming they a) know about it and its qualities, b) know how to get it, c) can do so without hassle, and d) truly know what they want and need.
Then there are people who hate to choose, but trust certain others to make a good choice for them.
> This is because if the receiver can afford it and thought it was good, he would already have it.
Assuming they a) know about it and its qualities, b) know how to get it, c) can do so without hassle, and d) truly know what they want and need.
Then there are people who hate to choose, but trust certain others to make a good choice for them.
I felt the same way on first reading, but then decided that I misinterpreted "someone" to mean "someone really close to me": spouse, kids, parents, etc. This is similar to buying things for myself.
I believe in MF quote "someone" is better described as "someone you do not personally know or maybe see once". A model for that is buying a gift for a Yankee Swap party. Or for a child I do not know: something to cheer them up, but as I do not know if (s)he likes dolls or trucks I can go with a safe, generic choice, e.g., a book.
That is, I am still trying to do a good thing, but am not too worried that I will guess incorrectly.
I believe in MF quote "someone" is better described as "someone you do not personally know or maybe see once". A model for that is buying a gift for a Yankee Swap party. Or for a child I do not know: something to cheer them up, but as I do not know if (s)he likes dolls or trucks I can go with a safe, generic choice, e.g., a book.
That is, I am still trying to do a good thing, but am not too worried that I will guess incorrectly.
Seems that this is the problem empathy was meant to solve.
I am not sure I understand. My claim is the situation where you spend your money on someone else is not that "I do not care" (which the empathy can help solve), but "I do not know", so I will make an optimal choice: decent gift at reasonable cost; paying more can give poor ROI since I do not know what exactly to spend more money on.
What I'm saying is that empathy is completely useless... other than the fact that it allows you to turn "someone I don't care about" into "someone I don't know, but care about enough to make meaningful sacrifices for." So the whole point of empathy is that it allows you to avoid a frame of mind where you're spending other peoples' money on things that don't benefit anybody.
One could hypothesize that the character traits which lead someone to become a respected economist do not lend themselves to adept gift-giving.
;)
;)
I wonder the extent to which the problem is merely "Government should have moral people." (With the obvious caveat that those who proclaim their morality loudly are probably not the most moral.)
In the private sector there are plenty of cases where you're spending someone else's money on someone else and you care about doing a good job of it—and often without the requirement of personal mores as motivation. Banks and investment managers, for instance, basically do this. Some of course are awful, but some (loosely correlated with the ones who have been around for a while and built a reputation) actually do care about getting good results without excessive risk and without deception. Do the people who agree with Friedman's statement about government also conclude that private banks are bad too and people need to look out for their own money?
In the private sector there are plenty of cases where you're spending someone else's money on someone else and you care about doing a good job of it—and often without the requirement of personal mores as motivation. Banks and investment managers, for instance, basically do this. Some of course are awful, but some (loosely correlated with the ones who have been around for a while and built a reputation) actually do care about getting good results without excessive risk and without deception. Do the people who agree with Friedman's statement about government also conclude that private banks are bad too and people need to look out for their own money?
...implying that the Keynesians are really empathetic and that the Chicago school folks are cold-hearted technocrats.
That kind of emotionality is what keeps people from making reasonable decisions on economic policy. It would be nice if the kind of naive Keynesianism that politicians love to apply actually worked. It would be nice if you could spend yourself out of a recession. Unfortunately, politicians only like the spending part of the equation, not the savings part.
It's important to note that the Chicago school does build on Keynesian insights. It's an attempt at improving upon its failures.
That kind of emotionality is what keeps people from making reasonable decisions on economic policy. It would be nice if the kind of naive Keynesianism that politicians love to apply actually worked. It would be nice if you could spend yourself out of a recession. Unfortunately, politicians only like the spending part of the equation, not the savings part.
It's important to note that the Chicago school does build on Keynesian insights. It's an attempt at improving upon its failures.
Do you mean the Keynesianism that is commonly applied, also known as 'let's increase spending on random shit that will benefit by stakeholders, but will have minimal impact on the overall health of the economy?'. Keynesians haven't been in a position to dictate fiscal policy (as opposed to monetary policy, aka the Fed) for at least the past 3 decades.
I’ll ignore the greentext style intro.
I suspect that the truth of the matter is that conscientiousness varies across the human population and that the best analysis takes into account this fact.
To ignore rational self interest is naive and plainly wrong- but it is also wrong to ignore the impact of high conscientiousness on decision-making. I say this without condoning or condemning either configuration.
I suspect that the truth of the matter is that conscientiousness varies across the human population and that the best analysis takes into account this fact.
To ignore rational self interest is naive and plainly wrong- but it is also wrong to ignore the impact of high conscientiousness on decision-making. I say this without condoning or condemning either configuration.
I do too, but I'm probably going to do less research into it. I may spend a little more on a single item instead of buying two less expensive "diamonds in the rough" like I would for myself.
When buying for someone else, my biggest concern is to not look cheap. When buying for myself, my biggest concern is getting the best value. When using someone else's money, I'd be less cost conscious because I'm not feeling the hit.
I definitely care about what I give someone, but I care about different things than when buying for myself. You can see this in politics. Politicians have the best benefits in government, and when they pass a bill, they want to significantly affect the most people, even if the impact isn't as good as a better thought out system. Case in point: the ACA impacts most Americans, but prices for medical care overall have gone up. For those 87%, it sure seems like a good deal because they don't see the true cost (lots of deficit spending and worse care than a single payer system).
When buying for someone else, my biggest concern is to not look cheap. When buying for myself, my biggest concern is getting the best value. When using someone else's money, I'd be less cost conscious because I'm not feeling the hit.
I definitely care about what I give someone, but I care about different things than when buying for myself. You can see this in politics. Politicians have the best benefits in government, and when they pass a bill, they want to significantly affect the most people, even if the impact isn't as good as a better thought out system. Case in point: the ACA impacts most Americans, but prices for medical care overall have gone up. For those 87%, it sure seems like a good deal because they don't see the true cost (lots of deficit spending and worse care than a single payer system).
It's not about conscientiousness, it's about quality of information.
When you buy something for you, you know your exact needs and how to evaluate compromises. For gifts you care, but not as much since you lack significant information. You get something that is "good enough". For close friends you'll land a great gift in value and cost, but when you don't know the person very much, the gift usually tends to become an Amazon gift card or the like, since any guess may be a poor choice.
For example, many years ago I bought a projector with all the money I had saved (still student, at my parents), and I projected films on the wall, which was suboptimal but I was fine with that. On my birthday my friends got a sliding screen to hang from the ceiling! And I thank them very much for it! But even if they took the measures and all while visiting me, they missed the fact that the ceiling was ultra light drywall, rendering the gift useless.
When you buy something for you, you know your exact needs and how to evaluate compromises. For gifts you care, but not as much since you lack significant information. You get something that is "good enough". For close friends you'll land a great gift in value and cost, but when you don't know the person very much, the gift usually tends to become an Amazon gift card or the like, since any guess may be a poor choice.
For example, many years ago I bought a projector with all the money I had saved (still student, at my parents), and I projected films on the wall, which was suboptimal but I was fine with that. On my birthday my friends got a sliding screen to hang from the ceiling! And I thank them very much for it! But even if they took the measures and all while visiting me, they missed the fact that the ceiling was ultra light drywall, rendering the gift useless.
> you know your exact needs and how to evaluate compromises.
This is one of the premises underlying rational choice theory that doesn't hold up to empirical investigation.
This is one of the premises underlying rational choice theory that doesn't hold up to empirical investigation.
Friedman had a talent for conveying these ideas simply.
The problem with these economicist "stories," as they call them, is that people (including economists themselves) believe them too much.
Once stories like this are embedded in the way we think, we constantly see ways of interpreting the world in a reinforcing way. Every case of inefficiency is found to be an example of principal-agent problems.
Not specifically a Friedman problem or a laissez-faire problem.
The problem with these economicist "stories," as they call them, is that people (including economists themselves) believe them too much.
Once stories like this are embedded in the way we think, we constantly see ways of interpreting the world in a reinforcing way. Every case of inefficiency is found to be an example of principal-agent problems.
Not specifically a Friedman problem or a laissez-faire problem.
> believe them too much
I definitely agree. The public reaction to how "someone else's money is spent on someone else" is sometimes very passionate.
e.g. feelings about government funding for the proposed border wall, support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, Planned Parenthood, prisons, police military-grade weaponry, etc
At the very least, in cases where value systems and ethical considerations come into play, people are extremely concerned about how government spends other people's money on other people.
Furthermore, people have efficiency concerns: plenty of people in big cities like Los Angeles are very concerned about the way the city spends its money in general, given the state of the roads and streets, levels of crime and traffic, mediocre education, etc
I definitely agree. The public reaction to how "someone else's money is spent on someone else" is sometimes very passionate.
e.g. feelings about government funding for the proposed border wall, support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, Planned Parenthood, prisons, police military-grade weaponry, etc
At the very least, in cases where value systems and ethical considerations come into play, people are extremely concerned about how government spends other people's money on other people.
Furthermore, people have efficiency concerns: plenty of people in big cities like Los Angeles are very concerned about the way the city spends its money in general, given the state of the roads and streets, levels of crime and traffic, mediocre education, etc
It's so true. People take these stories as hard truth, when in fact many studies on economics (and social sciences in general) are hard to replicate. [1]
1. https://www.nber.org/papers/w13026
1. https://www.nber.org/papers/w13026
Friedman's quote is particularly ironic considering his Chicago Boys were particularly notorious for "spending somebody else’s money on themselves" by shifting public money to their own pockets, often by awarding ridiculous contracts.
I’m sold, let’s get rid of the part of the government that costs the most and delivers the least. I’m talking about the military, of course.
Military in the US is 18% of the budget. SS and medicare are something like 70%.
If you want to live in a country without a military there are a bunch of them. I wouldn't personally want to live in any of them, but of course everyone is free to do as they see fit.
If you want to live in a country without a military there are a bunch of them. I wouldn't personally want to live in any of them, but of course everyone is free to do as they see fit.
Iceland has no military spending
Ireland spends 0.4% of it's GDP on military
Switzerland 0.7%
Sweden 1%
Finland (who have actually been invaded in living memory) 1.4%
The U.S. spent $574b on defence and $79b on veterans last year, both increased way above inflation - total of $57b. Education by comparision dropped by 14%, or $9b. Health by 18% or $15b.
The largest slice of the U.S. budget is healthcare (mainly medicare/medicaid). This cost $5,500 per citizen, despite only covering 1/3rd of the population. This is because the U.S. health care system is fundamentally broken, and costs about 3 times as much per person in europe.
The U.S. spent $574b on defence and $79b on veterans last year, both increased way above inflation - total of $57b. Education by comparision dropped by 14%, or $9b. Health by 18% or $15b.
The largest slice of the U.S. budget is healthcare (mainly medicare/medicaid). This cost $5,500 per citizen, despite only covering 1/3rd of the population. This is because the U.S. health care system is fundamentally broken, and costs about 3 times as much per person in europe.
Without the US military all of these countries would be required to fund a large military to avoid being conquered. Pax Americana has allowed Europe to shirk their responsibilities, but some people would argue its worth it to the US.
i keep seeing this canard whenever military spending arises.
tell me: who would invade?
germany has no ambition to conquer france. poland has a buffer to protect it from the russians. estonia is in NATO.
seriously, what threat is going to suddenly gobble up europe?
oh yeah, and where are the millions of US troops currently stationed in europe that would supposedly stop the threat?
tell me: who would invade?
germany has no ambition to conquer france. poland has a buffer to protect it from the russians. estonia is in NATO.
seriously, what threat is going to suddenly gobble up europe?
oh yeah, and where are the millions of US troops currently stationed in europe that would supposedly stop the threat?
Russia would absolutely invade / interfere with ex-Soviet states if they didn’t have the protection of NATO. See: Ukraine.
I believe you are quite foolish if you think an opportunistic power wouldn't invade if they had the opportunity.
It doesn't take millions to make that kind of aggression politically unpalatable.
Iceland has no military spending
Not entirely true. It has no standing army, but it does have a militarized coast guard, air defense systems and an air force base it maintains, as well as a small Crisis Response Unit that can be deployed internationally. In addition it is a full NATO member for which it has certain costs.
Not entirely true. It has no standing army, but it does have a militarized coast guard, air defense systems and an air force base it maintains, as well as a small Crisis Response Unit that can be deployed internationally. In addition it is a full NATO member for which it has certain costs.
That's an incredibly naïve view of military spending since those countries are subsided by the American military.
You get to have that system because the US has taken on the role of global police and funds our military at a level commensurate to that role.
If you funded your military appropriately, we wouldn't have to fund your defense.
Your comment about healthcare is so simplistic it's not even worth a reply, but I'll simply note that the vast majority are not on medicare or medicaid and are covered by private insurance. Your assertion that the system is broken is simplistic and uninformed (ETA, I'm not saying the system isn't broken, there are many issues with healthcare in the US, but "just be like Europe" isn't going to work for so many reasons it's not really feasible to list them here).
If you funded your military appropriately, we wouldn't have to fund your defense.
Your comment about healthcare is so simplistic it's not even worth a reply, but I'll simply note that the vast majority are not on medicare or medicaid and are covered by private insurance. Your assertion that the system is broken is simplistic and uninformed (ETA, I'm not saying the system isn't broken, there are many issues with healthcare in the US, but "just be like Europe" isn't going to work for so many reasons it's not really feasible to list them here).
The US spends $10200 a year per head on healthcare, most of it ($8k a year) government or compulsory spending.
Canada spends $4800 a year on healthcare in total -- under half that of the U.S. Israel spends $2800.
That's a sign of a broken system.
Use Canada's system, cut your mediacare/aid tax, and your companies no longer need to spend money on healthcare when employing them. Using Canada's system removes the tax on jobs that the U.S. loves so much.
> You get to have that system because the US has taken on the role of global police
Why? Who benefitted from invading Iraq? Who benefits from a dozen different aircraft carrier groups around the world?
Canada spends $4800 a year on healthcare in total -- under half that of the U.S. Israel spends $2800.
That's a sign of a broken system.
Use Canada's system, cut your mediacare/aid tax, and your companies no longer need to spend money on healthcare when employing them. Using Canada's system removes the tax on jobs that the U.S. loves so much.
> You get to have that system because the US has taken on the role of global police
Why? Who benefitted from invading Iraq? Who benefits from a dozen different aircraft carrier groups around the world?
You act as though "invading Iraq" is the only thing the US military has ever done. That's a little myopic, don't you think?
Again, your numbers don't really have any meaning on the healthcare thing. It's a far more complex discussion than you are attempting to make it.
Again, your numbers don't really have any meaning on the healthcare thing. It's a far more complex discussion than you are attempting to make it.
No country in the world comes close to health spending as the US. I'm sure that's american exceptionalism though.
The U.S. military doesn't seem to protect anyone against modern threats - terrorism, propaganda, rigging elections, etc.
The U.S. military doesn't seem to protect anyone against modern threats - terrorism, propaganda, rigging elections, etc.
Fortunately for you, you will never understand the threats you never saw.
IIRC The stated goal of our (Sweden) armed forces is something like the ability to defend 1-2 regions for a single week if we are faced with an invasion.
Our defence budget is 1% of GDP because we are betting on the US (and a few others) continuing to spend as it does, and that it will be in their national interest to help us if the time comes.
If the US slashed its defence budget to a 'reasonable' level, we would have to increase ours in turn to the best of our abilities. If the US brought theirs down all the way to 1%, the only people laughing would be the PLA and Putin himself.
Our defence budget is 1% of GDP because we are betting on the US (and a few others) continuing to spend as it does, and that it will be in their national interest to help us if the time comes.
If the US slashed its defence budget to a 'reasonable' level, we would have to increase ours in turn to the best of our abilities. If the US brought theirs down all the way to 1%, the only people laughing would be the PLA and Putin himself.
Switzerland has no military, it's not that bad.
Switzerland not only has a military, it has mandatory military service for all males.
Switzerland definitely does have a military.
Fun fact, though: their air force has office hours.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/feb/19/swis...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/feb/19/swis...
Switzerland has mandatory conscription.
Switzerland actually even has military ships. [1]
[1] Patrol boats of the Grenzwachtkorps.
[1] Patrol boats of the Grenzwachtkorps.
There hasn't been a world war for two thirds of a century now, and US and their trade partners enjoy safe trade routes.
I wouldn't call it "not delivering".
I wouldn't call it "not delivering".
The mess the US foreign policy of the previous administration caused in Middle East alone ( not counting Ukraine and Libya ) has an immense cost and no real benefit. Of course others are left alone to pay the bill.
I would call that a total failure by any possible interpretation.
I would call that a total failure by any possible interpretation.
You can only call that a total failure if you ignore the entirety of human history and compare it to some fantasy of world peace instead. It's good to thrive for a better world, and notice when things go worse, but when evaluating effectiveness of american military as a whole, you should compare it to a time before Pax Americana.
Also, did I understand you correctly: you not only want to cut american military spending, but also keep US morally responsible for situation in Ukraine?... Now, both these viewpoints are to some extent reasonable, if they come from corresponding first principles. But I can't possibly imagine how the same person can hold these two views at the same time: they completely contradict each other. Either US is responsible for events across the globe, OR it shouldn't have a huge military - how on Earth can you believe both?!
Also, did I understand you correctly: you not only want to cut american military spending, but also keep US morally responsible for situation in Ukraine?... Now, both these viewpoints are to some extent reasonable, if they come from corresponding first principles. But I can't possibly imagine how the same person can hold these two views at the same time: they completely contradict each other. Either US is responsible for events across the globe, OR it shouldn't have a huge military - how on Earth can you believe both?!
What is the US supposed to do? You literally cited two cases, Ukraine and Libya, which are polar opposites. Ukraine the US is criticized for NOT intervening, middle east and Libya US is criticized FOR intervening.
And now we have Myanmar muslim situation and Yemen where people are begging for US intervention, but in all probability if we intervened we would be getting criticized for it by the same people asking us to intervene in a few years
And now we have Myanmar muslim situation and Yemen where people are begging for US intervention, but in all probability if we intervened we would be getting criticized for it by the same people asking us to intervene in a few years
The US is intervening in Yemen; without our support for the Saudis incinerating people there, there wouldn't be a war.
We also certainly intervened in Ukraine by fomenting a coup there. Rolling tanks there would probably be WW-3.
None of these interventions has made life better for anyone other than the evil ding dongs at Brookings and in the Pentagon.
We also certainly intervened in Ukraine by fomenting a coup there. Rolling tanks there would probably be WW-3.
None of these interventions has made life better for anyone other than the evil ding dongs at Brookings and in the Pentagon.
> There hasn't been a world war for two thirds of a century now
African World War (1998-2003). Five million people killed. With nine countries fighting, I think that it qualifies perfectly as a world war.
African World War (1998-2003). Five million people killed. With nine countries fighting, I think that it qualifies perfectly as a world war.
>and US and their trade partners enjoy safe trade routes
Bingo, and that's from the Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard actively patrolling GLOBAL waters.
Maritime piracy alone is a considerable economic threat, yes in the 21st century. An estimated 2 BILLION dollars a year is spent on naval operations just off the coast of Somalia (PDF WARNING - PDF WARNING - PDF WARNING http://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/default-source/Piracy-Docs/... )
In this article from 2014 ( https://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/134829/annual-global-... ), again just Somalia, "The OEF estimates the total cost of piracy off the coast of Somalia at US$7–US$12 billion in 2010; US$6.6–US$6.9 billion in 2011 42 and US$5.7–US$6.1 billion in 2012".
Between 2008 and 2012 alone JUST the U.S. Navy responded to 1139 piracy incidents https://www.navy.mil/ah_online/antipiracy/index.html that's an average of 0.78 incidents a day.
It's not just the U.S. patrolling either. China has launched at least 20 anti-piracy floatillas since 2009 http://cimsec.org/chinas-anti-piracy-flotillas-by-the-number...
Bingo, and that's from the Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard actively patrolling GLOBAL waters.
Maritime piracy alone is a considerable economic threat, yes in the 21st century. An estimated 2 BILLION dollars a year is spent on naval operations just off the coast of Somalia (PDF WARNING - PDF WARNING - PDF WARNING http://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/default-source/Piracy-Docs/... )
In this article from 2014 ( https://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/134829/annual-global-... ), again just Somalia, "The OEF estimates the total cost of piracy off the coast of Somalia at US$7–US$12 billion in 2010; US$6.6–US$6.9 billion in 2011 42 and US$5.7–US$6.1 billion in 2012".
Between 2008 and 2012 alone JUST the U.S. Navy responded to 1139 piracy incidents https://www.navy.mil/ah_online/antipiracy/index.html that's an average of 0.78 incidents a day.
It's not just the U.S. patrolling either. China has launched at least 20 anti-piracy floatillas since 2009 http://cimsec.org/chinas-anti-piracy-flotillas-by-the-number...
> I’m sold, let’s get rid of the part of the government that costs the most and delivers the least. I’m talking about the military, of course.
This is the same tortured logic that leads to cost-cutting with regards to IT security expenditures.
This is the same tortured logic that leads to cost-cutting with regards to IT security expenditures.
1. US military is only 16-18% of federal spending. Entitlements like social security, medicaid, and welfare make up 65-70% of federal spending. The majority of military spending is on salaries and benefits anyway, it's essentially a welfare program itself
>delivers the least
2. most major advancements in tech and healthcare are due to the military. Silicon Valley was built on military spending. Self driving cars were initially funded by DARPA. AI was funded by military. If you have a job in the tech industry you can thank the US military
There's also the minor detail of the US navy making global trade possible and the strength of the US military making traditional war pointless which has resulted in the last few decades being the most peaceful in human history in terms of probability of dying in combat
>delivers the least
2. most major advancements in tech and healthcare are due to the military. Silicon Valley was built on military spending. Self driving cars were initially funded by DARPA. AI was funded by military. If you have a job in the tech industry you can thank the US military
There's also the minor detail of the US navy making global trade possible and the strength of the US military making traditional war pointless which has resulted in the last few decades being the most peaceful in human history in terms of probability of dying in combat
> 2. most major advancements in tech and healthcare are due to the military.
Can you back that up? That military spending has been high gives no guarantee that having spent the same money in the private sector wouldn't have led to even better results and advancements.
Can you back that up? That military spending has been high gives no guarantee that having spent the same money in the private sector wouldn't have led to even better results and advancements.
https://steveblank.com/secret-history/
The military spends on R&D where it makes zero business sense for a for-profit company to spend. Private companies must be profitable.
The military spends on R&D where it makes zero business sense for a for-profit company to spend. Private companies must be profitable.
Still, the question remains: Can we say a priori that the funds for R&D military spending wouldn't have been spent better by the private sector?
private sector doesnt do basic research and has a short view of things because of the drive towards profitability.
gov't-funded R&D is why we have nice things. everyone strategically forgets that silicon valley exists because of bottomless cold war spending, so silicon valley's obsession with the superiority of the private sector is ever ironic
gov't-funded R&D is why we have nice things. everyone strategically forgets that silicon valley exists because of bottomless cold war spending, so silicon valley's obsession with the superiority of the private sector is ever ironic
Honestly, no.
The private sector is generally very, very heavy on short-termism. Even when companies do have internal long-term research initiatives, there is often a strong aversion to pursuing research that could cannibalize high-margin products.
The private sector is generally very, very heavy on short-termism. Even when companies do have internal long-term research initiatives, there is often a strong aversion to pursuing research that could cannibalize high-margin products.
Unequivocally, no, the reasons are stated in the post you're replying to.
Which private, for profit, company would spend five (5) billion dollars (unadjusted for inflation) to launch GPS satellites into space and then allow their unlimited use free of cost to anyone in the world who has a receiver? That cost doesn't even account for ongoing maintenance.
Which private, for profit, company would spend five (5) billion dollars (unadjusted for inflation) to launch GPS satellites into space and then allow their unlimited use free of cost to anyone in the world who has a receiver? That cost doesn't even account for ongoing maintenance.
Maybe no company would do exactly that, but that is irrelevant. Companies would do other things with that money. Maybe they would have cured some disease instead. Maybe they would have found another breakthrough technology. Who knows.
And there is nothing free about using those satellites. Tax payers pay for their launch and subsequent maintenance and running costs.
And there is nothing free about using those satellites. Tax payers pay for their launch and subsequent maintenance and running costs.
From an economics point of view, an unnecessary job is inefficient not because it gives people money (they can spend it efficiently on themselves), but because it wastes people's time when they could be doing something else. (Not to mention other wasted resources.)
Social security is efficient because it doesn't have this problem.
Social security is efficient because it doesn't have this problem.
There are two sorts of efficiency percentage and wisdom - one can heat their house at greater than 100% efficiency by burning money and priceless.
However you really shouldn't be using them that way since there are far better uses for the value.
However you really shouldn't be using them that way since there are far better uses for the value.
Ok, do you need to maintain 1,000 military bases around the globe? 500 wouldn't do it?
What about the F-35?
What about the F-35?
I don't know how much Milton Friedman applies here. It's not like the government is being wantonly careless. They are investigating, after all. This is partly a consequence of the bidding process and the push to keep costs as low as possible-- there could also be a bit of crony-ism here.
These kinds of stories usually start out with some bidders putting together a killer power point deck and making a pitch, just like that LLC of TWO people that won that disastrous contract to rebuild Puerto Rico's power grid, or those guys that the movie "War Dogs" is about.
Sometimes they're upstanding folks who do a good job, sometimes they're fraudsters, sometimes they mean well but just can't deliver, sometimes they deliver but with comical cost overruns (name your favorite defense contractor).
These kinds of stories usually start out with some bidders putting together a killer power point deck and making a pitch, just like that LLC of TWO people that won that disastrous contract to rebuild Puerto Rico's power grid, or those guys that the movie "War Dogs" is about.
Sometimes they're upstanding folks who do a good job, sometimes they're fraudsters, sometimes they mean well but just can't deliver, sometimes they deliver but with comical cost overruns (name your favorite defense contractor).
> It's not like the government is being wantonly careless. They are investigating, after all.
So, if someone does something seemingly egregiously careless, but they investigate after being found out, that nullifies the carelessness, in your mind?
I think we may agree to disagree on that point.
So, if someone does something seemingly egregiously careless, but they investigate after being found out, that nullifies the carelessness, in your mind?
I think we may agree to disagree on that point.
Well, the government is made up of humans after all. These things are _always_ going to happen.
The questions now are who screwed up the oversight, whether or not there was fraud or crony-ism, and what actions can be taken against this contractor in terms of cancelling/auditing their other contracts.
The questions now are who screwed up the oversight, whether or not there was fraud or crony-ism, and what actions can be taken against this contractor in terms of cancelling/auditing their other contracts.
That's why many mature governments have an office whose job it is to care about those things, e.g. [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Offi...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Offi...
It's much easier to quote Milton Friedman and wave your hands, though.
True, but you're not taking into account the government budgeting model. Organizations in government budgets' are based on last year's budget. If the OU spends last year's budget or more, their budget is increased (because they account for inflation). If they spend less, their budget is decreased. In other words, there is a built in incentive to spend money, and anyone can find ways to justify spending money "to improve their OU". GAOs merely verify the paperwork is in order.
Don't misunderstand me. This isn't an argument against government; it's an argument against this budgeting model. There has to be a way they to structure private sector budgeting efficiency into public organizations.
Don't misunderstand me. This isn't an argument against government; it's an argument against this budgeting model. There has to be a way they to structure private sector budgeting efficiency into public organizations.
Large corporations stuff from this problem too, with middle managers maxing their budgets out on mousepads or whatever to make sure their departments budget doesn't get cut. Its just that their better at hiding it.
It's a very pervasive problem; I'm sure whoever figures out a finance structure that minimizes it without breaking anything else will win a novel prize
It's a very pervasive problem; I'm sure whoever figures out a finance structure that minimizes it without breaking anything else will win a novel prize
Having worked as an actual Fed, I think there is a bit more complication to this.
I know that I and the people around me worked hard to do a good job on our project. I would hire any of those people. I also saw a great deal of the government is run by MVPs built by Feds on their own initiative.
On the other hand, the projects (including ours) I saw to replace those MVPs were largely staffed by incompetent or unfocused contractors, and I believe that is where a huge amount of waste comes in.
These contractors are once removed from even government and the waste results from this Milton Friedman push for privatization of government functions to organizations just trying to log billable hours.
I know that I and the people around me worked hard to do a good job on our project. I would hire any of those people. I also saw a great deal of the government is run by MVPs built by Feds on their own initiative.
On the other hand, the projects (including ours) I saw to replace those MVPs were largely staffed by incompetent or unfocused contractors, and I believe that is where a huge amount of waste comes in.
These contractors are once removed from even government and the waste results from this Milton Friedman push for privatization of government functions to organizations just trying to log billable hours.
Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist, but I don't understand a perception of the government that isn't in the first category. It's my money and I'm reaping the benefit, both through direct benefits and through the overall improvement of society.
And I realize that it's partly that not everyone in government shares that sentiment, which is probably where a big part of the problem comes in, but that's another thing I don't understand. How can people not care so much?
And I realize that it's partly that not everyone in government shares that sentiment, which is probably where a big part of the problem comes in, but that's another thing I don't understand. How can people not care so much?
“Teldar Paper has 33 different vice presidents each earning over 200 thousand dollars a year. Now, I have spent the last two months analyzing what all these guys do, and I still can't figure it out. One thing I do know is that our paper company lost 110 million dollars last year, and I'll bet that half of that was spent in all the paperwork going back and forth between all these vice presidents. The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest... The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms: greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.”
-Gordon Gekko
-Gordon Gekko
I like this quote ... and agree with the spirit of it.
That said, some central governing body does need to make sure certain needs of the community are taken care of. That way, we ensure that the whole community is taken care of and we're not in an every man for himself scenario where the "strong" prevail and the "weak" die off. When the government provides military to protect it's citizens, it does so for all citizens, not just the rich, not just the city dwellers. I guess the question is -to what else does this apply and to what extent?
That said, some central governing body does need to make sure certain needs of the community are taken care of. That way, we ensure that the whole community is taken care of and we're not in an every man for himself scenario where the "strong" prevail and the "weak" die off. When the government provides military to protect it's citizens, it does so for all citizens, not just the rich, not just the city dwellers. I guess the question is -to what else does this apply and to what extent?
Can we really say that government changes this? The powerful in this case is government itself and lobbyists. They are taken care of. We do not ensure in general that the weak are taken care of.
Furthermore, government uses the military for anything else than the protection of its citizens. How many of US military campaigns are for protection and how many is to support the military industrial complex?
Furthermore, government uses the military for anything else than the protection of its citizens. How many of US military campaigns are for protection and how many is to support the military industrial complex?
Someone wondered publicly how the economics of Starbuck's recently-announced coffee delivery service are going to work. They don't think it will.
But it's probably going to be very easy easy. Police or Fire or other public departments order the coffee every day which gets buried as an office expense and taxpayers foot the bill. The bureaucracies are happy. Starbucks is happy. No one else, uh, notices.
But it's probably going to be very easy easy. Police or Fire or other public departments order the coffee every day which gets buried as an office expense and taxpayers foot the bill. The bureaucracies are happy. Starbucks is happy. No one else, uh, notices.
Eloquently put but I do not appreciate the conclusion the rhetoric is driving. It is not impossible to structure these efforts in way which maintains effeciency and performance:$. How? Accountability and a payout which rewards good performance and punishes bad performance.
This goes along with another current top story on HN.
I wonder whose money Verizon spent to purchase Yahoo.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18662822
I wonder whose money Verizon spent to purchase Yahoo.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18662822
I personally enjoyed this quote from Ken Burns' Civil War.
"You can sell anything to the government at almost any price you've got the guts to ask".
"You can sell anything to the government at almost any price you've got the guts to ask".
-- Jim Fisk ( War Profiteer )It's not true because when you spend somebody else's money on a third party, that third party can pay you back with future favors so there is a huge long term career incentive for you to give out a lot.
> ... if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get.
what about when you're spending your parents' money on a cell phone for them?
what about when you're spending your parents' money on a cell phone for them?
And if the government were a business with actual competition, no one would do business with them. It's a great example of how monopolies reduce quality and increase waste.
It is a funny quote, but obviously not true. Anyone who has worked in, and for, government will tell you that:
"And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government."
Is 100% incorrect. In fact, much of the bureaucracy we have in government is used for ensuring these types of things don't happen. It's why there are committees, reviews, approval chains out the wazoo, etc.
"And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government."
Is 100% incorrect. In fact, much of the bureaucracy we have in government is used for ensuring these types of things don't happen. It's why there are committees, reviews, approval chains out the wazoo, etc.
My experience is that because we can’t trust people in government to act responsibly, we create these committees/reviews/approvals ensuring that government moves slowly and ineffectively
It's a great generality, but it's not only 100% correct, your example of bureaucracy PROVES it is correct.
Those committees, reviews, and approval chains are just distributed responsibility mechanisms to remove the responsibility to think critically about the entire expenditure, which is Friedman's point.
10 people thinking about narrow, nonoverlapping aspects of a large thing will never be as effective as less people considering all aspects of that large thing.
Those committees, reviews, and approval chains are just distributed responsibility mechanisms to remove the responsibility to think critically about the entire expenditure, which is Friedman's point.
10 people thinking about narrow, nonoverlapping aspects of a large thing will never be as effective as less people considering all aspects of that large thing.
Ten functions performing narrow, non-overlapping aspects of a large program is pretty decent design, so that you can change/update/troubleshoot one function without affecting too much of your whole system.
Your alternative has been tried and fails when you have to replace that all-considering function with another at the end of its life and the other one isn’t so good. It’s a less robust system.
Bureaucracy isn’t inherently bad, it’s just like, a model of designing complex systems.
Your alternative has been tried and fails when you have to replace that all-considering function with another at the end of its life and the other one isn’t so good. It’s a less robust system.
Bureaucracy isn’t inherently bad, it’s just like, a model of designing complex systems.
Just because more than one person/group of people looks at something does not mean they are all looking at non-overlapping aspects of a large thing.
the bureaucracy we have in government is used for ensuring these types of things don't happen. It's why there are committees, reviews, approval chains out the wazoo
Those committees are very expensive, tho'. Every one of them is an example of a bureaucrat spending money on his or her colleagues, and in return they will be appointed to committees and boards and fact-finding junkets and all the rest.
Those committees are very expensive, tho'. Every one of them is an example of a bureaucrat spending money on his or her colleagues, and in return they will be appointed to committees and boards and fact-finding junkets and all the rest.
You have to much faith in those processes. Organizations in government budgets' are based on last year's budget. If the OU spends last year's budget or more, their budget is increased (because they account for inflation). If they spend less, their budget is decreased. So there is a built in incentive to spend money, and anyone can find ways to justify spending money to improve their OU. GAOs merely verify the paperwork is in order.
Don't misunderstand me. This isn't an argument against government; it's an argument against this budgeting model. There has to be a way they to structure private sector budgeting efficiency into public organizations.
Don't misunderstand me. This isn't an argument against government; it's an argument against this budgeting model. There has to be a way they to structure private sector budgeting efficiency into public organizations.
Yes. In some cases it feels as government procurement agencies exist specifically NOT to procure things, there are so many checks and balances.
Indeed. The government process will often spend $10 to save $1 - because doing otherwise would be condemned as "waste" by the Friedmanites from the sidelines.
Edit: in fact downthread we have someone literally arguing that it would be good to cut the IRS budget despite every $1 cut costing $7 in tax evasion.
Edit: in fact downthread we have someone literally arguing that it would be good to cut the IRS budget despite every $1 cut costing $7 in tax evasion.
mkirklions(4)
robertsd247(1)
What you have to ask yourself is who, in the Trump crime family, is making bank off of this.
Did NPR finally stop tracking its users? It didn't display its usual GDPR banner!
However, those still doubting should probably use: https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=675923576
However, those still doubting should probably use: https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=675923576
Government is nearly always the least effective use of a citizen's money. Huge discussion on HN a few days ago about the IRS barely making $7 for every $1 spent. Before than we discussed the astronomically comical cost of healthcare.gov.
It's good that people are demanding social change and action; the answer should bbe private charity and community leadership, as the current system just funnels money into contractors pockets.
It's good that people are demanding social change and action; the answer should bbe private charity and community leadership, as the current system just funnels money into contractors pockets.
> making $7 for every $1 spent
This is tremendously effective and a good argument for spending more on the IRS.
Demanding that border patrol be moved to private charity is an .. entertaining idea. Would be interesting to see people take up a collection for the "wall".
This is tremendously effective and a good argument for spending more on the IRS.
Demanding that border patrol be moved to private charity is an .. entertaining idea. Would be interesting to see people take up a collection for the "wall".
I would say government run and government funded is actually best. Government applied, government funded, contractor executed is garbage and a rort.
Why would private charities be any less corrupt than public ones?
Because private charities rely on someone making an affirmative choice to give them money. In theory, if they are corrupt or incompetent enough the flow of money dries up.
If the government is corrupt or incompetent, people get angry at them and then ... nothing changes. The flow of money isn't stopping, in fact the most likely outcome is their budgets keep going up year after year.
If the government is corrupt or incompetent, people get angry at them and then ... nothing changes. The flow of money isn't stopping, in fact the most likely outcome is their budgets keep going up year after year.
That sounds the exact opposite really - one is answerable to voters and while the other is capable of acting like a MLM organization that does nothing for the nominal cause except marketting.
Look at the old institutional system - they had loads of bad PR and were killed off - there may have been cynical reasons for doing so but it was held accountable.
Then look at all of the private "reparative therapy" and other opposite of helpful private organizations still around.
Not that being able to opt out isn't a big advantage but private bad ones can stick around way longer than public ones.
Look at the old institutional system - they had loads of bad PR and were killed off - there may have been cynical reasons for doing so but it was held accountable.
Then look at all of the private "reparative therapy" and other opposite of helpful private organizations still around.
Not that being able to opt out isn't a big advantage but private bad ones can stick around way longer than public ones.
But then you have to accept a situation where only the people who have money (or those on their payroll) can implement policy. You might improve the efficiency that way but it doesn't sound much better to me, especially in communities with a history of discrimination.
> It's good that people are demanding social change and action; the answer should bbe private charity and community leadership, as the current system just funnels money into contractors pockets.
I agree. But a democratic government is not necessarily bad; it is only as bad as the democratic majority that voted for it and not against it.
> Government is nearly always the least effective use of a citizen's money.
I do not agree. All depends on the government.
A government is typically the worst as "minimalist" government that seeks:
- to promote austerity and thus poverty for the masses and the government. Typically enforced by harmful taxes as only money source for the government in a currency union.
- to promote certain evil ideologies (e.g. austerity and poverty and military) and elite interests by law and policies. The government is currently (and maybe only theoretically) the only force of the masses against the few at the top.
- to act as evil global night-watchman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
Clear proof from the USA and Europe:
https://www.newsweek.com/us-spent-six-trillion-wars-killed-h...
https://juliareda.eu/2018/08/censorship-machines-gonna-censo...
https://juliareda.eu/2018/12/article-13-mess/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1jZNepTx80&t=35
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-s...
Regarding public and private morality and charity:
No government and no economy respects the human rights. Obviously no charity of millionaires and billionaires tries enough to help. http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/homelessness-chris...
I agree. But a democratic government is not necessarily bad; it is only as bad as the democratic majority that voted for it and not against it.
> Government is nearly always the least effective use of a citizen's money.
I do not agree. All depends on the government.
A government is typically the worst as "minimalist" government that seeks:
- to promote austerity and thus poverty for the masses and the government. Typically enforced by harmful taxes as only money source for the government in a currency union.
- to promote certain evil ideologies (e.g. austerity and poverty and military) and elite interests by law and policies. The government is currently (and maybe only theoretically) the only force of the masses against the few at the top.
- to act as evil global night-watchman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
Clear proof from the USA and Europe:
https://www.newsweek.com/us-spent-six-trillion-wars-killed-h...
https://juliareda.eu/2018/08/censorship-machines-gonna-censo...
https://juliareda.eu/2018/12/article-13-mess/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1jZNepTx80&t=35
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-s...
Regarding public and private morality and charity:
No government and no economy respects the human rights. Obviously no charity of millionaires and billionaires tries enough to help. http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/homelessness-chris...
> Government is nearly always the least effective use of a citizen's money
These kinds of broad, factless statements do not deserve to be on HN.
> Huge discussion on HN a few days ago about the IRS barely making $7 for every $1 spent
Are you suggesting that the totality of taxes we pay to the IRS are only 1/7 of the IRS cost? What are we... paying for roads with? The military? Is the entire government going down in flames solely because of the IRS?
These kinds of broad, factless statements do not deserve to be on HN.
> Huge discussion on HN a few days ago about the IRS barely making $7 for every $1 spent
Are you suggesting that the totality of taxes we pay to the IRS are only 1/7 of the IRS cost? What are we... paying for roads with? The military? Is the entire government going down in flames solely because of the IRS?
Why, because the facts don't conveniently align with your world view? Because you completely misunderstood my comment?
Here, take a moment to read: https://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2017/0...
Here, take a moment to read: https://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2017/0...
So the IRS makes a 700% return on investment, and you are suggesting that means government is wasteful? Sounds like more of the government needs to run like the IRS.
Also trusting stories published through PR Newswire is unwise if not corroborated by other journals. PR Newswire is a pay for distribution service. Anyone can publish through it.
Also trusting stories published through PR Newswire is unwise if not corroborated by other journals. PR Newswire is a pay for distribution service. Anyone can publish through it.
[0] http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf