4 ms·

It's a good point that solid debate at the federal level prevents them from moving too quickly. But I would counter by saying that if their debate is consuming

It's a good point that solid debate at the federal level prevents them from moving too quickly. But I would counter by saying that if their debate is consuming a large portion of our GDP, the infighting alone holds us back and I'd prefer they just went home and did something else: 3.8T fed budget / 16.8T US GDP ~= 22% being consumed by them. If 10% of that is waste (~2% of GDP) and we're growing at 2% GDP/year, the difference is doubling in 30 years (which might not even show in GDP/person due to population growth) vs a 3.7X increase in 30 years, which is a strong and innovative nation. In short, even just a 10% waste on their part might be holding back the whole nation. I bet the overhead waste of the feds is 10%. I don't even want to think about how much the military waste is holding us back.

sdenton4 11y ago
Yeah, we should have some kind of central authority figure to just make the right decisions instead of wasting all this time and effort on debate. What could go wrong?
- studentrob 11y ago
  I hear China has one of those, maybe they will share their guy with us. It's all rainbows and unicorns over there.
- criddell 11y ago
  If the central authority figure is an algorithm, I could be persuaded to support that. It's probably too soon, but I think one day having near real-time information on the state of the economy could enable a central controller that is more efficient than the markets. In any system, every decision is about trade-offs. I could see elections being created where individuals vote for algorithmic priorities (ie rank education, law enforcement, r&d spending, etc...).
merpnderp 11y ago
Vitally important programs like Medicare have an acknowledged ~10% fraudulent payment rate. And that isn't counting inefficiencies, just outright fraud. So programs with less oversight, and less importance, are likely to have just as much if not more fraud. A lot of it perfectly legal and baked into the system like military contracts. Not embracing a culture of harsh punishment and strong public shaming of even the hint of corruption has cost this country trillions over the years. Trillions which would have compounded results (like maybe smaller classrooms with better educated teachers).

sdenton4 11y ago

Yeah, we should have some kind of central authority figure to just make the right decisions instead of wasting all this time and effort on debate. What could go wrong?

studentrob 11y ago
I hear China has one of those, maybe they will share their guy with us. It's all rainbows and unicorns over there.
criddell 11y ago
If the central authority figure is an algorithm, I could be persuaded to support that. It's probably too soon, but I think one day having near real-time information on the state of the economy could enable a central controller that is more efficient than the markets. In any system, every decision is about trade-offs. I could see elections being created where individuals vote for algorithmic priorities (ie rank education, law enforcement, r&d spending, etc...).

merpnderp 11y ago

Vitally important programs like Medicare have an acknowledged ~10% fraudulent payment rate. And that isn't counting inefficiencies, just outright fraud. So programs with less oversight, and less importance, are likely to have just as much if not more fraud. A lot of it perfectly legal and baked into the system like military contracts. Not embracing a culture of harsh punishment and strong public shaming of even the hint of corruption has cost this country trillions over the years. Trillions which would have compounded results (like maybe smaller classrooms with better educated teachers).