4 ms·

>With an unlimited budget, he went about hiring a team of researchers in Seattle and made a grant to the University of Pennsylvania to help his staff put the in

>With an unlimited budget, he went about hiring a team of researchers in Seattle and made a grant to the University of Pennsylvania to help his staff put the information together. Altogether, he has spent more than $10 million between direct funding and grants. $10 million spent so far just trying to figure out what the collective governments in the US is spending money on. Is this an argument for privatization or a failure of government to provide this information succinctly itself?

rjtavares 10y ago
Why do you believe an equivalent effort to figure out what the private sector is spending money on would be cheaper?
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  I don't; it was meant to be a jab at privatization worshippers since the second part of that, "the government has failed by not providing this information" had more meat to it.
- Zak 10y ago
  When it comes to publicly-traded companies, it probably would be because they're required to make specific, comprehensive disclosures about their income and spending on a regular basis. Governments, especially local governments are much less consistent about such disclosures. It's also reasonable to expect that a government that is elected by the public and funded by taxation provide an accounting to voters and taxpayers.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    He's only using government provided data for this site, so it's not like the data isn't available.
ridgeguy 10y ago
I don't see that it's either. If it were privatized, it would suffer from economic pressure to suppress data that conflicts with its economic incentives. And we don't pay government (i.e., tax ourselves to provide funds) to do this. No money, no results. That's not a failure of government, it's taxpayers deciding not to have the government provide this service.
- DougWebb 10y ago
  I don't remember voting for that, or having the opportunity to do so. This isn't a democracy, it's a representative republic. We vote for our representatives, and trust them to make decisions we'd agree with (or at least agree to go along with.) In turn, they appoint and hire people to make the more detailed decisions needed for day-to-day operations. A failure to keep track of the government's books is absolutely a failure of the government, and not a result of taxpayers "deciding" that the government shouldn't do it. The representatives and their appointees/hires should have performed that task without being micro-managed to do so, because it's the responsible thing to do. (Not to mention that they require all of us to do it for our own finances.) They've failed to do it, and will probably avoid responsibility for it by using the complex structure of the government to point blame away from themselves. Yes, we can make a big deal out of this and eventually vote to replace our representatives, who can then replace appointees/hires, and change the rules to make sure the accounting is done. My point is that we, the citizens, should not have to micromanage the government this way. That's the whole point of a representative republic; pure democracies don't scale.
  - ridgeguy 10y ago
    I think our main difference turns on private vs. public sector. I don't see a real difference on this issue. Private sector: Shareholders elect Board of Directors, who hire management. Shareholders don't micromanage management decisions. If management doesn't direct staff to implement a company-wide spending database, the corrective chain traces back to management, then the Board, then the shareholders. Government: Voters elect Congress and some of the Executive and (some state) Judiciary posts. These elected positions hire staff and tell them to do stuff. Voters don't micromanage government operations. If government doesn't implement a government-wide spending database, the corrective chain traces back to elected positions, then to the voters who elected them. In both spheres, what gets assigned and measured, gets done. Tasks not assigned and measured don't get done. This is human behavior, pretty much the same in private or public sectors. Not assigning a specific task may or may not be a failure. If it is a failure, it traces back to the empowered owners (shareholders and voters) in either sector. Ultimately, shareholders have to fix the corporation they own. Ultimately, voters have to fix their country's government. Who else can, in either case? Regardless, I'm glad Balmer sees this database as a needed resource and is willing to fund its creation.
foxhedgehog 10y ago
$!0M relative to the size of the federal budget is infinitesimal.
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  Not to me or to your average taxpayer though. And, if it's truly not a big deal to the feds, this is data they should compile themselves.
spcelzrd 10y ago
Privatization only works if multiple companies are competing for customers. Privatization of prisons, for example, results in increased spending because the "customer" in this case is elected representatives.

rjtavares 10y ago

Why do you believe an equivalent effort to figure out what the private sector is spending money on would be cheaper?

24gttghh 10y ago
I don't; it was meant to be a jab at privatization worshippers since the second part of that, "the government has failed by not providing this information" had more meat to it.
Zak 10y ago
When it comes to publicly-traded companies, it probably would be because they're required to make specific, comprehensive disclosures about their income and spending on a regular basis. Governments, especially local governments are much less consistent about such disclosures. It's also reasonable to expect that a government that is elected by the public and funded by taxation provide an accounting to voters and taxpayers.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  He's only using government provided data for this site, so it's not like the data isn't available.

ridgeguy 10y ago

I don't see that it's either. If it were privatized, it would suffer from economic pressure to suppress data that conflicts with its economic incentives. And we don't pay government (i.e., tax ourselves to provide funds) to do this. No money, no results. That's not a failure of government, it's taxpayers deciding not to have the government provide this service.

DougWebb 10y ago
I don't remember voting for that, or having the opportunity to do so. This isn't a democracy, it's a representative republic. We vote for our representatives, and trust them to make decisions we'd agree with (or at least agree to go along with.) In turn, they appoint and hire people to make the more detailed decisions needed for day-to-day operations. A failure to keep track of the government's books is absolutely a failure of the government, and not a result of taxpayers "deciding" that the government shouldn't do it. The representatives and their appointees/hires should have performed that task without being micro-managed to do so, because it's the responsible thing to do. (Not to mention that they require all of us to do it for our own finances.) They've failed to do it, and will probably avoid responsibility for it by using the complex structure of the government to point blame away from themselves. Yes, we can make a big deal out of this and eventually vote to replace our representatives, who can then replace appointees/hires, and change the rules to make sure the accounting is done. My point is that we, the citizens, should not have to micromanage the government this way. That's the whole point of a representative republic; pure democracies don't scale.
- ridgeguy 10y ago
  I think our main difference turns on private vs. public sector. I don't see a real difference on this issue. Private sector: Shareholders elect Board of Directors, who hire management. Shareholders don't micromanage management decisions. If management doesn't direct staff to implement a company-wide spending database, the corrective chain traces back to management, then the Board, then the shareholders. Government: Voters elect Congress and some of the Executive and (some state) Judiciary posts. These elected positions hire staff and tell them to do stuff. Voters don't micromanage government operations. If government doesn't implement a government-wide spending database, the corrective chain traces back to elected positions, then to the voters who elected them. In both spheres, what gets assigned and measured, gets done. Tasks not assigned and measured don't get done. This is human behavior, pretty much the same in private or public sectors. Not assigning a specific task may or may not be a failure. If it is a failure, it traces back to the empowered owners (shareholders and voters) in either sector. Ultimately, shareholders have to fix the corporation they own. Ultimately, voters have to fix their country's government. Who else can, in either case? Regardless, I'm glad Balmer sees this database as a needed resource and is willing to fund its creation.

foxhedgehog 10y ago

$!0M relative to the size of the federal budget is infinitesimal.

24gttghh 10y ago
Not to me or to your average taxpayer though. And, if it's truly not a big deal to the feds, this is data they should compile themselves.

spcelzrd 10y ago

Privatization only works if multiple companies are competing for customers. Privatization of prisons, for example, results in increased spending because the "customer" in this case is elected representatives.