6 ms·

> cost for society You meant "cost for government," right? It sounds like the slice of society that gets the cash discount is benefiting greatly from this "hi

> cost for society You meant "cost for government," right? It sounds like the slice of society that gets the cash discount is benefiting greatly from this "hidden economy." Saving 50% on a venue is a big win for the newlywed's pocketbook, leaving more money in their pocket to buy goods for their new household.

zzalpha 11y ago
True. If you don't believe the government has any role to play in, say, paving roads, maintaining bridges, etc, then there's no "cost for society". Well, until the bridges start falling down, anyway...
- clarkmoody 11y ago
  Ah, the tried-and-true roads & bridges argument. No, I don't believe the government is necessary to do those things. But if you look at actual government spending, these sorts of infrastructure projects are dwarfed by things like military spending, which could use a reduction.
  - pc86 11y ago
    Let's keep in mind we're talking about Italy here. So the knee-jerk "BUT DRONES" response is probably less accurate than if we were talking about the US or the UK or something.
    - mseebach 11y ago
      Yes, let's indeed keep in mind that we're talking about Italy here. http://www.voxeu.org/article/public-sector-inefficiency-and-firm-productivity-italy http://www.voxeu.org/article/public-sector-inefficiency-and-...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - rsync 11y ago
    "No, I don't believe the government is necessary to do those things." I live on a very long (two miles) private road that I jointly build and maintain with an association, etc. There is no government role whatsoever, and we even have bridges. So it would appear that my experience validates your libertarian fantasy world. Look - we're actually doing it! I've got sour news for you. Even a wealthy, well educated collection of fair minded and well intentioned people find it very difficult to maintain a dirt/gravel road to an acceptable condition. It's very difficult and costly. We are right on the edge of success or failure in this maintenance. Further, if we were to actually pave the road (a true fantasy) it would be completely, totally unthinkable with regard to cost. Asphalt is paid for by the square foot and it isn't cheap. When you drive by a very quick section of asphalt road being resurfaced ... say 200-400 meters or something - very short ... understand that that is millions of dollars in asphalt work. Millions. Can you build some roads and bridges without the government ? Sure, of course you can. Will they approach, in any category, even the bare minimum acceptable standard that you hold ? No.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Hm. I understood that freeway (one of the most expensive roads in the world) was $1000 per foot. $5M per mile. I would expect asphalt to be much less. Here's a link: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/costs-D7.pdf http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/costs-D7.pd... Florida says 2-lane roadway is $3.3M per mile. So a few hundred feed, costing millions? Nonsense.
      - nmrm2 11y ago
        > So a few hundred feed, costing millions? Nonsense. 1. Your parent actually actively maintains a private road, and has probably done their research... 2. It costs them so much because they just have a single road, so they can't amortize the cost over an entire city or country of roadway. Public utilities tend toward monopoly for exactly this reason -- providing the utility to any small fraction of society is enormously expensive. Make no mistake, natural monopoly is what happens when you privatize utilities. Ever met a Comcast customer who feels anything short of contempt toward Comcast? Now imagine dealing with Comcast any time you need to drive to the grocery store. Or even leave your house. 3. Parent's numbers actually make sense when compared to Florida's, once you realize Florida has an entire state over which it can amortize costs.
- jqm 11y ago
  Roads and bridges are fine. 700 hammers for the military maybe not. I worked as project manager for a contractor doing public works at one point. The government (at least in the US and probably everywhere) wastes a staggering amount of money. Not saying the government doesn't need funding. They do. But they could certainly do a lot more with less.
  - cmurf 11y ago
    They need better internal auditors. If you just cut their budget alone, it doesn't decrease waste or fraud. To change the percentage of waste requires accountability for wasting.
    - clarkmoody 11y ago
      Accountability must come from outside government for it to be effective.
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        Not necessarily, you just need the internal auditors to have independence and the right incentives. And actually-enforced penalties for individuals in government who stonewall the auditors because they know an honest auditor would want to reduce their budget.
        newjersey 11y ago
        Also I absolutely hate how people think cutting government income is a good way to cut wasteful spending because it is immediately obvious it doesn't work. It can't work. We cheered when that scumbag Reagan talked about starving the beast. It was clear that even George HW Bush, Reagan's running mate knew it was a stupid idea. The problem that neocons won't talk about is that we don't have a single preferential way of allocating budget. Imagine we shrunk government income by one trillion dollars. That's the easy part but where will we cut our expenses? We haven't dealt with the difficult problem at all. Remember that every dollar "wasted" goes to someone. If they are loud and influential, they will probably get to keep their money/credit. So basically the rebalancing brought upon by starving the beast is nothing more than a cash grab by the more powerful more influential over those less so. I invite anyone who talks about cutting taxes to first come up with a plan to cut government spending. If the spending cut is palatable and can survive the mobs, I am in favor of starving our babies to cut taxes for the wealthy. But we can't put the cart before the horse. No new tax cuts without at least a matching spending cut that we can keep for at least a decade or so.
- mason240 11y ago
  No one takes this argument seriously because the people who use that argument usually want the government to do so much that roads are tiny fraction of what they do, or in a lot of cases, are outright hostile to roads altogether.
fweespee_ch 11y ago
> You meant "cost for government," right? Well, depends on if you want a government capable of affording to pay for public education, roads, military, etc. I mean if you care about none of these things and want the government completely destroyed, a 50% revenue cut might seem okay to you.
- clarkmoody 11y ago
  Of course I care about those things. I simply think that government is not required to provide them.
  - cmurf 11y ago
    Sounds good in theory, but practice that's silly. No business buys $5 billion bridges, like the new one being built now in NY cruising the Hudson. No business buys $5 billion airports, like Denver International, and the latest estimate to renovate LaGuardia. That requires a sovereign to borrow that much money in a way that lenders trust will be repaid. If you want to argue governments act in part to facilitate waste and fraud, i.e. those airports and bridges don't really cost that much, I agree, but unless there's aggressive auditing attached to every project, I see no way around it. Enough people are sufficiently dishonest and greedy they will take if they can get away with it.
  - fweespee_ch 11y ago
    So who provides them if the government does not without falling into the tragedy of the commons and/or cutting off the poor from access to such services?
    - clarkmoody 11y ago
      James Tooley has done fascinating work on private education for the poor around the world, putting the lie to the myths that private education is only for the wealthy and that the government must provide education. There is an excellent EconTalk expisode[1] with Tooley, as well as a lengthy article here[2] by the author. [1] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.htm... [2] http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/ http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/
ithkuil 11y ago
Well, it's also a cost for private society: Imagine you're an IT contractor that needs to bill international customers for your services. In Italy you have to pay very high taxes since being an independent worker you fall in the same category of those who can easily dodge taxes although you're not in exactly the same position: the government treats you as a thief by default and puts you up to a taxation level that makes sense only once that it's assumed that you will only declare about half of your revenue. This is actually a big problem and has severe repercussions on the ability to spawn new businesses in Italy.

zzalpha 11y ago

True. If you don't believe the government has any role to play in, say, paving roads, maintaining bridges, etc, then there's no "cost for society". Well, until the bridges start falling down, anyway...

clarkmoody 11y ago
Ah, the tried-and-true roads & bridges argument. No, I don't believe the government is necessary to do those things. But if you look at actual government spending, these sorts of infrastructure projects are dwarfed by things like military spending, which could use a reduction.
- pc86 11y ago
  Let's keep in mind we're talking about Italy here. So the knee-jerk "BUT DRONES" response is probably less accurate than if we were talking about the US or the UK or something.
  - mseebach 11y ago
    Yes, let's indeed keep in mind that we're talking about Italy here. http://www.voxeu.org/article/public-sector-inefficiency-and-firm-productivity-italy http://www.voxeu.org/article/public-sector-inefficiency-and-...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rsync 11y ago
  "No, I don't believe the government is necessary to do those things." I live on a very long (two miles) private road that I jointly build and maintain with an association, etc. There is no government role whatsoever, and we even have bridges. So it would appear that my experience validates your libertarian fantasy world. Look - we're actually doing it! I've got sour news for you. Even a wealthy, well educated collection of fair minded and well intentioned people find it very difficult to maintain a dirt/gravel road to an acceptable condition. It's very difficult and costly. We are right on the edge of success or failure in this maintenance. Further, if we were to actually pave the road (a true fantasy) it would be completely, totally unthinkable with regard to cost. Asphalt is paid for by the square foot and it isn't cheap. When you drive by a very quick section of asphalt road being resurfaced ... say 200-400 meters or something - very short ... understand that that is millions of dollars in asphalt work. Millions. Can you build some roads and bridges without the government ? Sure, of course you can. Will they approach, in any category, even the bare minimum acceptable standard that you hold ? No.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Hm. I understood that freeway (one of the most expensive roads in the world) was $1000 per foot. $5M per mile. I would expect asphalt to be much less. Here's a link: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/costs-D7.pdf http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/costs-D7.pd... Florida says 2-lane roadway is $3.3M per mile. So a few hundred feed, costing millions? Nonsense.
    - nmrm2 11y ago
      > So a few hundred feed, costing millions? Nonsense. 1. Your parent actually actively maintains a private road, and has probably done their research... 2. It costs them so much because they just have a single road, so they can't amortize the cost over an entire city or country of roadway. Public utilities tend toward monopoly for exactly this reason -- providing the utility to any small fraction of society is enormously expensive. Make no mistake, natural monopoly is what happens when you privatize utilities. Ever met a Comcast customer who feels anything short of contempt toward Comcast? Now imagine dealing with Comcast any time you need to drive to the grocery store. Or even leave your house. 3. Parent's numbers actually make sense when compared to Florida's, once you realize Florida has an entire state over which it can amortize costs.
jqm 11y ago
Roads and bridges are fine. 700 hammers for the military maybe not. I worked as project manager for a contractor doing public works at one point. The government (at least in the US and probably everywhere) wastes a staggering amount of money. Not saying the government doesn't need funding. They do. But they could certainly do a lot more with less.
- cmurf 11y ago
  They need better internal auditors. If you just cut their budget alone, it doesn't decrease waste or fraud. To change the percentage of waste requires accountability for wasting.
  - clarkmoody 11y ago
    Accountability must come from outside government for it to be effective.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      Not necessarily, you just need the internal auditors to have independence and the right incentives. And actually-enforced penalties for individuals in government who stonewall the auditors because they know an honest auditor would want to reduce their budget.
      - newjersey 11y ago
        Also I absolutely hate how people think cutting government income is a good way to cut wasteful spending because it is immediately obvious it doesn't work. It can't work. We cheered when that scumbag Reagan talked about starving the beast. It was clear that even George HW Bush, Reagan's running mate knew it was a stupid idea. The problem that neocons won't talk about is that we don't have a single preferential way of allocating budget. Imagine we shrunk government income by one trillion dollars. That's the easy part but where will we cut our expenses? We haven't dealt with the difficult problem at all. Remember that every dollar "wasted" goes to someone. If they are loud and influential, they will probably get to keep their money/credit. So basically the rebalancing brought upon by starving the beast is nothing more than a cash grab by the more powerful more influential over those less so. I invite anyone who talks about cutting taxes to first come up with a plan to cut government spending. If the spending cut is palatable and can survive the mobs, I am in favor of starving our babies to cut taxes for the wealthy. But we can't put the cart before the horse. No new tax cuts without at least a matching spending cut that we can keep for at least a decade or so.
mason240 11y ago
No one takes this argument seriously because the people who use that argument usually want the government to do so much that roads are tiny fraction of what they do, or in a lot of cases, are outright hostile to roads altogether.

fweespee_ch 11y ago

> You meant "cost for government," right? Well, depends on if you want a government capable of affording to pay for public education, roads, military, etc. I mean if you care about none of these things and want the government completely destroyed, a 50% revenue cut might seem okay to you.

clarkmoody 11y ago
Of course I care about those things. I simply think that government is not required to provide them.
- cmurf 11y ago
  Sounds good in theory, but practice that's silly. No business buys $5 billion bridges, like the new one being built now in NY cruising the Hudson. No business buys $5 billion airports, like Denver International, and the latest estimate to renovate LaGuardia. That requires a sovereign to borrow that much money in a way that lenders trust will be repaid. If you want to argue governments act in part to facilitate waste and fraud, i.e. those airports and bridges don't really cost that much, I agree, but unless there's aggressive auditing attached to every project, I see no way around it. Enough people are sufficiently dishonest and greedy they will take if they can get away with it.
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  So who provides them if the government does not without falling into the tragedy of the commons and/or cutting off the poor from access to such services?
  - clarkmoody 11y ago
    James Tooley has done fascinating work on private education for the poor around the world, putting the lie to the myths that private education is only for the wealthy and that the government must provide education. There is an excellent EconTalk expisode[1] with Tooley, as well as a lengthy article here[2] by the author. [1] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.htm... [2] http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/ http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/

ithkuil 11y ago

Well, it's also a cost for private society: Imagine you're an IT contractor that needs to bill international customers for your services. In Italy you have to pay very high taxes since being an independent worker you fall in the same category of those who can easily dodge taxes although you're not in exactly the same position: the government treats you as a thief by default and puts you up to a taxation level that makes sense only once that it's assumed that you will only declare about half of your revenue. This is actually a big problem and has severe repercussions on the ability to spawn new businesses in Italy.