4 ms·

It is a funny quote, but obviously not true. Anyone who has worked in, and for, government will tell you that: "And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebod

It is a funny quote, but obviously not true. Anyone who has worked in, and for, government will tell you that: "And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government." Is 100% incorrect. In fact, much of the bureaucracy we have in government is used for ensuring these types of things don't happen. It's why there are committees, reviews, approval chains out the wazoo, etc.

cascom 8y ago
My experience is that because we can’t trust people in government to act responsibly, we create these committees/reviews/approvals ensuring that government moves slowly and ineffectively
arcbyte 8y ago
It's a great generality, but it's not only 100% correct, your example of bureaucracy PROVES it is correct. Those committees, reviews, and approval chains are just distributed responsibility mechanisms to remove the responsibility to think critically about the entire expenditure, which is Friedman's point. 10 people thinking about narrow, nonoverlapping aspects of a large thing will never be as effective as less people considering all aspects of that large thing.
- eastWestMath 8y ago
  Just because more than one person/group of people looks at something does not mean they are all looking at non-overlapping aspects of a large thing.
- pesmhey 8y ago
  Ten functions performing narrow, non-overlapping aspects of a large program is pretty decent design, so that you can change/update/troubleshoot one function without affecting too much of your whole system. Your alternative has been tried and fails when you have to replace that all-considering function with another at the end of its life and the other one isn’t so good. It’s a less robust system. Bureaucracy isn’t inherently bad, it’s just like, a model of designing complex systems.
gaius 8y ago
the bureaucracy we have in government is used for ensuring these types of things don't happen. It's why there are committees, reviews, approval chains out the wazoo Those committees are very expensive, tho'. Every one of them is an example of a bureaucrat spending money on his or her colleagues, and in return they will be appointed to committees and boards and fact-finding junkets and all the rest.
Mary-Jane 8y ago
You have to much faith in those processes. Organizations in government budgets' are based on last year's budget. If the OU spends last year's budget or more, their budget is increased (because they account for inflation). If they spend less, their budget is decreased. So there is a built in incentive to spend money, and anyone can find ways to justify spending money to improve their OU. GAOs merely verify the paperwork is in order. Don't misunderstand me. This isn't an argument against government; it's an argument against this budgeting model. There has to be a way they to structure private sector budgeting efficiency into public organizations.
KineticLensman 8y ago
Yes. In some cases it feels as government procurement agencies exist specifically NOT to procure things, there are so many checks and balances.
pjc50 8y ago
Indeed. The government process will often spend $10 to save $1 - because doing otherwise would be condemned as "waste" by the Friedmanites from the sidelines. Edit: in fact downthread we have someone literally arguing that it would be good to cut the IRS budget despite every $1 cut costing $7 in tax evasion.

cascom 8y ago

My experience is that because we can’t trust people in government to act responsibly, we create these committees/reviews/approvals ensuring that government moves slowly and ineffectively

arcbyte 8y ago

It's a great generality, but it's not only 100% correct, your example of bureaucracy PROVES it is correct. Those committees, reviews, and approval chains are just distributed responsibility mechanisms to remove the responsibility to think critically about the entire expenditure, which is Friedman's point. 10 people thinking about narrow, nonoverlapping aspects of a large thing will never be as effective as less people considering all aspects of that large thing.

eastWestMath 8y ago
Just because more than one person/group of people looks at something does not mean they are all looking at non-overlapping aspects of a large thing.
pesmhey 8y ago
Ten functions performing narrow, non-overlapping aspects of a large program is pretty decent design, so that you can change/update/troubleshoot one function without affecting too much of your whole system. Your alternative has been tried and fails when you have to replace that all-considering function with another at the end of its life and the other one isn’t so good. It’s a less robust system. Bureaucracy isn’t inherently bad, it’s just like, a model of designing complex systems.

gaius 8y ago

the bureaucracy we have in government is used for ensuring these types of things don't happen. It's why there are committees, reviews, approval chains out the wazoo Those committees are very expensive, tho'. Every one of them is an example of a bureaucrat spending money on his or her colleagues, and in return they will be appointed to committees and boards and fact-finding junkets and all the rest.

Mary-Jane 8y ago

You have to much faith in those processes. Organizations in government budgets' are based on last year's budget. If the OU spends last year's budget or more, their budget is increased (because they account for inflation). If they spend less, their budget is decreased. So there is a built in incentive to spend money, and anyone can find ways to justify spending money to improve their OU. GAOs merely verify the paperwork is in order. Don't misunderstand me. This isn't an argument against government; it's an argument against this budgeting model. There has to be a way they to structure private sector budgeting efficiency into public organizations.

KineticLensman 8y ago

Yes. In some cases it feels as government procurement agencies exist specifically NOT to procure things, there are so many checks and balances.

pjc50 8y ago

Indeed. The government process will often spend $10 to save $1 - because doing otherwise would be condemned as "waste" by the Friedmanites from the sidelines. Edit: in fact downthread we have someone literally arguing that it would be good to cut the IRS budget despite every $1 cut costing $7 in tax evasion.