2 ms·

> if you think you can manage and allocate resources better than your government. This phrase gets used from time to time to give some moral or net efficiency

> if you think you can manage and allocate resources better than your government. This phrase gets used from time to time to give some moral or net efficiency argument for avoiding taxes. I don't think it's useful. A corporation and government have completely different responsibilities and constituencies. Of course Apple can allocate resources better for Apple than the government would choose to, because Apple has no duty to care about most of the issues the government is tasked with. > And rest assured: somebody always does. We only have to consider the bizarrely inefficient US healthcare system compared to the rest of the developed world to see that 'always' is not true.

luxuryballs 9y ago
The other side of the coin is that regardless of who is holding the money the government not being able to spend it could be considered a better allocation just because they are so damn wasteful. Just because the government SHOULD be correct doesn't mean it actually is, and just because a law says money shall be allocated for X doesn't mean any real value is coming out of X, and the work the money is doing by being kept away from the government should also be considered as a loss when paying for X (so more than just the cost of X is spent).
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  Again, that claim is easily refuted by considering the state of medical spending in the US. Unless by 'government' you mean only the US government. Many other governments are daily demonstrating their ability to deliver more affordable and cost-effective healthcare than the US.
  - briandear 9y ago
    How much medical/pharma R&D spending happens in the U.K.? How much happens in the US? It’s an apples and oranges comparison because The US effectively subsidizes the advances enjoyed by other countries.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > Again, that claim is easily refuted by considering the state of medical spending in the US One could argue that the medical system the us has right now is inefficient BECAUSE of the current legislation. It is a very regulated industry, it hasnt gotten to this point because of its unregulated capitalism.

luxuryballs 9y ago

The other side of the coin is that regardless of who is holding the money the government not being able to spend it could be considered a better allocation just because they are so damn wasteful. Just because the government SHOULD be correct doesn't mean it actually is, and just because a law says money shall be allocated for X doesn't mean any real value is coming out of X, and the work the money is doing by being kept away from the government should also be considered as a loss when paying for X (so more than just the cost of X is spent).

robotresearcher 9y ago
Again, that claim is easily refuted by considering the state of medical spending in the US. Unless by 'government' you mean only the US government. Many other governments are daily demonstrating their ability to deliver more affordable and cost-effective healthcare than the US.
- briandear 9y ago
  How much medical/pharma R&D spending happens in the U.K.? How much happens in the US? It’s an apples and oranges comparison because The US effectively subsidizes the advances enjoyed by other countries.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > Again, that claim is easily refuted by considering the state of medical spending in the US One could argue that the medical system the us has right now is inefficient BECAUSE of the current legislation. It is a very regulated industry, it hasnt gotten to this point because of its unregulated capitalism.