5 ms·

The government is the only entity that does not have to (and never should) follow capitalistic rules. The government is for the people, and capitalism, by defin

The government is the only entity that does not have to (and never should) follow capitalistic rules. The government is for the people, and capitalism, by definition, is not.

maxerickson 8y ago
What are "capitalistic rules"? Governments absolutely should be looking to make profits, it's just that they don't necessarily have to make them in dollars. So say you were able to objectively measure the value a program produced (costs are usually already known). If a program costs 10 units for every unit of value it produces, maybe it isn't a good program. If it produces modestly more value than it costs, it's making society a profit.
- tremon 8y ago
  What are "capitalistic rules"? In this case, the dogmatic assumption that every endeavour should be financially profitable.
  - chrismeller 8y ago
    I would actually counter with the assumption that every endeavor should not be financially unprofitable. Like it or not, governments work on a budget. Aside from the federal one they’re also usually required to stick to it. I was in no way implying the government was trying to make money off increased fines (quite the opposite with the last paragraph), simply that it would very likely end up costing them more than it saved the taxpayers to support such an initiative at a larger scale, and that would have a very nebulous gain. Can you imagine being the Mayor of your department at work and proposing to your board of directors a multi-million dollar budget for next year that includes a huge carve out for evaluating all the petty fines and late fees you collected from customers because it’ll make them happier? Goodwill is one thing, but who is ever going to approve that?
    - tremon 8y ago
      and that would have a very nebulous gain. You've stumbled upon another capitalist dogma: that if you can't measure it (like, for instance in this case, the happiness of your road users), it has no value. I would argue that his numbers show that his efforts have prevented 600 fits of rage among the citizenry. That's gotta be worth something, right? Can you imagine [spending money] because it’ll make [people] happier? Again, government is not a business and should not be run as one. So yes, I can.
- macintux 8y ago
  > Governments absolutely should be looking to make profits I understand what you're saying, but I think you're stretching the common understanding of "profits" and risking confusion because of it. Absolutely, government should try to measure the impact of its actions, but expressing that in terms like profit can lead to undesirable consequences like the expectation that a successful self-promoter pretending to be a successful businessman can also be a successful president.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    The common understanding of profit is confused!
chrismeller 8y ago
You will note that I did not say “earn a profit”. There is still a cost center here, and even governments (at least those at the local and usually state level) have to abide by a budget. Spending money one year that results in less money the next doesn’t fit into that model in most budgets. I’m sorry for the confusion, I thought that was blatantly self-obvious.
- fbender 8y ago
  It‘s not even about earning a profit. It should not be the goal of the government to collect (part of) its budget via fines, i.e. citizens breaking rules. Instead, it should always be the goal to have no need to fine. And we can actually estimate how much the government actually saves if it does not need to fine (that much). Let‘s first look at the costs of the status quo: - it costs X to check rules are followed (here: no cars park where they must not); this is mostly personnel costs\* but note that we may be talking about „manhours spent that could have been spent doing more sensitive/productive things“ - it costs Y to maintain the infrastructure to process and follow up on the fines (here: the $190 million IBM contract\* ) - it costs Z to collect the fines, process the payments (personnel costs), follow up on those that do not pay, court fees (process & personnel costs), jail costs (cause it‘s ’murica), and whatnot. Now, if there are no\* fines to prosecute, here‘s a few ways the state can gain money: - Citizens spend less time and money with unproductive work (here: paying fines), leaving more time for work (or relaxation which again increases productivity) and money to spend (raising economic output + sales tax). - Officers, beuracrats, and judges can spend their time dealing with more important work. - E.g. in the case of parking fines, businesses affected by cars parking in their way can instead do their business unhampered, i.e. be productive and this increases, again, economic output. All of that increases tax returns (or reduces tax money spent for dealing with the fines). \* Obviously, there‘s no way fines will drop to zero, because humans. But minimizing fines allows to minimize capital and infrastructure costs and increases economical output, thus there‘s a net gain that can offset the costs to reach that goal, if not immediately then within a few years.
ekianjo 8y ago
> The government is for the people No, the government should be "THE people", not "for" or "by". We introduce many issues with representation of larger groups by very few individuals, that is precisely why democracy/government works best at a local scale rather than State or Nation-wide. It's not very hard to grasp why.

The government is the only entity that does not have to (and never should) follow capitalistic rules. The government is for the people, and capitalism, by definition, is not.

maxerickson 8y ago

What are "capitalistic rules"? Governments absolutely should be looking to make profits, it's just that they don't necessarily have to make them in dollars. So say you were able to objectively measure the value a program produced (costs are usually already known). If a program costs 10 units for every unit of value it produces, maybe it isn't a good program. If it produces modestly more value than it costs, it's making society a profit.

tremon 8y ago
What are "capitalistic rules"? In this case, the dogmatic assumption that every endeavour should be financially profitable.
- chrismeller 8y ago
  I would actually counter with the assumption that every endeavor should not be financially unprofitable. Like it or not, governments work on a budget. Aside from the federal one they’re also usually required to stick to it. I was in no way implying the government was trying to make money off increased fines (quite the opposite with the last paragraph), simply that it would very likely end up costing them more than it saved the taxpayers to support such an initiative at a larger scale, and that would have a very nebulous gain. Can you imagine being the Mayor of your department at work and proposing to your board of directors a multi-million dollar budget for next year that includes a huge carve out for evaluating all the petty fines and late fees you collected from customers because it’ll make them happier? Goodwill is one thing, but who is ever going to approve that?
  - tremon 8y ago
    and that would have a very nebulous gain. You've stumbled upon another capitalist dogma: that if you can't measure it (like, for instance in this case, the happiness of your road users), it has no value. I would argue that his numbers show that his efforts have prevented 600 fits of rage among the citizenry. That's gotta be worth something, right? Can you imagine [spending money] because it’ll make [people] happier? Again, government is not a business and should not be run as one. So yes, I can.
macintux 8y ago
> Governments absolutely should be looking to make profits I understand what you're saying, but I think you're stretching the common understanding of "profits" and risking confusion because of it. Absolutely, government should try to measure the impact of its actions, but expressing that in terms like profit can lead to undesirable consequences like the expectation that a successful self-promoter pretending to be a successful businessman can also be a successful president.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  The common understanding of profit is confused!

chrismeller 8y ago

You will note that I did not say “earn a profit”. There is still a cost center here, and even governments (at least those at the local and usually state level) have to abide by a budget. Spending money one year that results in less money the next doesn’t fit into that model in most budgets. I’m sorry for the confusion, I thought that was blatantly self-obvious.

fbender 8y ago
It‘s not even about earning a profit. It should not be the goal of the government to collect (part of) its budget via fines, i.e. citizens breaking rules. Instead, it should always be the goal to have no need to fine. And we can actually estimate how much the government actually saves if it does not need to fine (that much). Let‘s first look at the costs of the status quo: - it costs X to check rules are followed (here: no cars park where they must not); this is mostly personnel costs\* but note that we may be talking about „manhours spent that could have been spent doing more sensitive/productive things“ - it costs Y to maintain the infrastructure to process and follow up on the fines (here: the $190 million IBM contract\* ) - it costs Z to collect the fines, process the payments (personnel costs), follow up on those that do not pay, court fees (process & personnel costs), jail costs (cause it‘s ’murica), and whatnot. Now, if there are no\* fines to prosecute, here‘s a few ways the state can gain money: - Citizens spend less time and money with unproductive work (here: paying fines), leaving more time for work (or relaxation which again increases productivity) and money to spend (raising economic output + sales tax). - Officers, beuracrats, and judges can spend their time dealing with more important work. - E.g. in the case of parking fines, businesses affected by cars parking in their way can instead do their business unhampered, i.e. be productive and this increases, again, economic output. All of that increases tax returns (or reduces tax money spent for dealing with the fines). \* Obviously, there‘s no way fines will drop to zero, because humans. But minimizing fines allows to minimize capital and infrastructure costs and increases economical output, thus there‘s a net gain that can offset the costs to reach that goal, if not immediately then within a few years.

ekianjo 8y ago

> The government is for the people No, the government should be "THE people", not "for" or "by". We introduce many issues with representation of larger groups by very few individuals, that is precisely why democracy/government works best at a local scale rather than State or Nation-wide. It's not very hard to grasp why.