5 ms·

The government isn't the most efficient organization in the world, but for some problems it's the only kind of organization that can reasonably address the prob

by entee 11y ago

The government isn't the most efficient organization in the world, but for some problems it's the only kind of organization that can reasonably address the problem. If there isn't a plausible alternative organizational structure to solve a problem, then by definition and despite its problems government is the most efficient organization we have. Take for example national infrastructure, it's hard to imagine a way for private corporations to be incentivized to create roads to even the smallest communities. The individual roads aren't going to be profitable enough on a reasonable timescale. However the value of the whole network of roads is greater than the sum of its parts. Even if you had a private corporation that was willing, in infrastructure you have essentially natural monopolies. It's very valuable to build the first road from A to B. It's far less valuable to build the second. Look at how we've done internet infrastructure, and how little competition there is to a single one or two providers in most areas. Observe how it's hard to get high speed internet to rural locations. Tons of problems fit this structure, probably the best example is water infrastructure. Build once, use forever, structural challenges to competition. Government is essentially the only solution to these kinds of natural monopolies that ensures that more than a tiny population benefits from their services at a reasonable price. Other things government does that no private system is able to replicate at the same scale: - Funding of basic (not obviously practical in any timeline) research - National defense - Enforcement of contracts - Mitigating environmental externalities Government sucks. But let's make it better. We need good government not minimal government, those two things aren't always the same thing.

notahacker 11y ago
It's also worth pointing out that private corporations with sufficient scale to plan and build road networks are also fantastically inefficient organizations in many respects...
- entee 11y ago
  Very much agreed! I've rarely heard people working at big corporations say, "Wow everything we do is so free or red tape and full of efficiency!"
- frogpelt 11y ago
  You're right, bureaucracy/red tape generally increases with size. But the federal government is distinctly different in one major way: private corporations must make money. The federal government is immune to going out of business.
allemagne 11y ago
I'll point out that the parent comment was specifically targeted at federal government and not government as a concept. Many of your arguments may still hold true but at least some can be reasonably painted as responsibilities for state governments, not Washington. That was presumably the desired (tired, 200-year-old) sentiment.
- entee 11y ago
  Possibly, but particularly for interstate issues it's hard to see how that works. And even where it does, it's usually slow and difficult to scale. The first thing that comes to mind is environmental issues. These have national implications that it's hard to see how even coalitions of states can have the same kind of impact. And if they did, you'd end up with a patchwork of regulations that makes it harder for business to work. I'm a proponent of relatively stronger central government, but I know that's not a universal belief. After all, the national government is a coalition of all the states :)
randyrand 11y ago
> it's the only kind of organization that can reasonably address the problem. I agree with your broad point. Which is why we should let the gov do whats necessary, and get it out of everything else because of how wildly it is inefficient. We need to get it out of: - health care - education - providing pensions Its no coincidence that the areas were there is the biggest mix of gov and private are also some of the worst industries to deal with.
- entee 11y ago
  I think I can see a case for getting out of providing pensions, but I would respectfully disagree about broadly getting out of healthcare and education. Certainly in certain subsections of those areas there is much to improve and perhaps less government involvement would be good, but I think overall it's not a great plan. My reasoning is as follows: For healthcare it's hard to see how a system that is even more privatized than the one in the US would do well. Healthcare is an area where there are massive information asymmetries and where price discovery is hard to do. If I need a trauma surgeon or a broken leg fixed, then I'm not going to "shop around" for the best one. For less time sensitive problems you end up with issue 2: It's a sector where it's not obvious how to measure quality. Is the doc with the fewest patients that die the best one? Maybe he's the guy who gets the sickest patients because he's actually the best at handling the complicated cases, so more of his patients die because they start out sicker! Education faces some of the same problems. It's notoriously hard to measure great teaching, though I'm sure we've had great teachers and "we'd know it when we see it". It's also an area where the feedback between the service you buy and the result of the service is highly decoupled in time. It can take years after you've finished your education to figure out if it was a good deal or not. Now I'm sure there are ways in which government should leave these sectors. I have heard interesting arguments (though personally I don't agree with them) about getting out of financing student loans, or doing it differently (those I'm usually more in agreement). It's harder for me to see how I would want less government in my healthcare, I think we have a far too private system as it stands, but maybe in terms of HIPAA. I think medical data should have strong privacy protections, but I've definitely seen how the protections currently enforced are counterproductive. I also think it makes it way too hard to get a hold of your own data for personal use. Anyway, these are issues where plenty of people have different opinions. It's good to talk them out and debate :)

by entee 11y ago

notahacker 11y ago

It's also worth pointing out that private corporations with sufficient scale to plan and build road networks are also fantastically inefficient organizations in many respects...

entee 11y ago
Very much agreed! I've rarely heard people working at big corporations say, "Wow everything we do is so free or red tape and full of efficiency!"
frogpelt 11y ago
You're right, bureaucracy/red tape generally increases with size. But the federal government is distinctly different in one major way: private corporations must make money. The federal government is immune to going out of business.

allemagne 11y ago

I'll point out that the parent comment was specifically targeted at federal government and not government as a concept. Many of your arguments may still hold true but at least some can be reasonably painted as responsibilities for state governments, not Washington. That was presumably the desired (tired, 200-year-old) sentiment.

entee 11y ago
Possibly, but particularly for interstate issues it's hard to see how that works. And even where it does, it's usually slow and difficult to scale. The first thing that comes to mind is environmental issues. These have national implications that it's hard to see how even coalitions of states can have the same kind of impact. And if they did, you'd end up with a patchwork of regulations that makes it harder for business to work. I'm a proponent of relatively stronger central government, but I know that's not a universal belief. After all, the national government is a coalition of all the states :)

randyrand 11y ago

> it's the only kind of organization that can reasonably address the problem. I agree with your broad point. Which is why we should let the gov do whats necessary, and get it out of everything else because of how wildly it is inefficient. We need to get it out of: - health care - education - providing pensions Its no coincidence that the areas were there is the biggest mix of gov and private are also some of the worst industries to deal with.

entee 11y ago
I think I can see a case for getting out of providing pensions, but I would respectfully disagree about broadly getting out of healthcare and education. Certainly in certain subsections of those areas there is much to improve and perhaps less government involvement would be good, but I think overall it's not a great plan. My reasoning is as follows: For healthcare it's hard to see how a system that is even more privatized than the one in the US would do well. Healthcare is an area where there are massive information asymmetries and where price discovery is hard to do. If I need a trauma surgeon or a broken leg fixed, then I'm not going to "shop around" for the best one. For less time sensitive problems you end up with issue 2: It's a sector where it's not obvious how to measure quality. Is the doc with the fewest patients that die the best one? Maybe he's the guy who gets the sickest patients because he's actually the best at handling the complicated cases, so more of his patients die because they start out sicker! Education faces some of the same problems. It's notoriously hard to measure great teaching, though I'm sure we've had great teachers and "we'd know it when we see it". It's also an area where the feedback between the service you buy and the result of the service is highly decoupled in time. It can take years after you've finished your education to figure out if it was a good deal or not. Now I'm sure there are ways in which government should leave these sectors. I have heard interesting arguments (though personally I don't agree with them) about getting out of financing student loans, or doing it differently (those I'm usually more in agreement). It's harder for me to see how I would want less government in my healthcare, I think we have a far too private system as it stands, but maybe in terms of HIPAA. I think medical data should have strong privacy protections, but I've definitely seen how the protections currently enforced are counterproductive. I also think it makes it way too hard to get a hold of your own data for personal use. Anyway, these are issues where plenty of people have different opinions. It's good to talk them out and debate :)