4 ms·
"So, however inefficient a government job might be, so long as something gets accomplished, it's less inefficient than one alternative." Not true at all. If a
by barmstrong 16y ago
"So, however inefficient a government job might be, so long as something gets accomplished, it's less inefficient than one alternative."
Not true at all. If a government employee is paid $100k and only delivers $50k worth of value, it would have been better if he remained unemployed. The citizens would have keep their $100k and presumably invested it in something with a higher return.
- skybrian 16y agoA few things wrong with that: - Since inflation is so low, the government doesn't actually have to raise taxes. (This is the part people don't seem to get - taxes are to prevent inflation, so when there's no inflation, there's no reason for a tax increase.) - Currently, money is not the limiting factor for investment. Savings are up, investment is down, and money can be borrowed at very low interest rates. If investors wanted to invest more, they could, but they aren't. Your example is the same (economically) as paying one person $50k and giving away $50k to someone else. Capacity is standing idle due to lack of demand. It's the sort of thing that makes economists joke about burying cash in mines for people to dig up (Keynes) or dropping money from helicopters (Bernanke). Of course, it all changes if the economy picks up again.