4 ms·
Yeah, that's just the old and cynical "everyone-is-corrupt" talking-point. It fails rather obviously because (a) the article is comparing costs across countrie
by IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
Yeah, that's just the old and cynical "everyone-is-corrupt" talking-point.
It fails rather obviously because (a) the article is comparing costs across countries, and other countries haven't found some magic system to increase accountability of politicians and beaurocrats that goes beyond not re-electing them.
And, (b), there are plenty of incentives for decision-makers to keep costs down. Don't you think the governor or Mayor of New York would crow endlessly if they managed to build subway <x> or tunnel <y> for a fraction of the usual costs? Have you noticed how California's high-speed rail project and its cost overruns have been terrible for three governors in a row?
- liability 7y agoWhether anybody is practicing witchcraft or any other form of magic is beyond the point; it should be obvious to anybody who's not totally naive that some countries have more corruption than others.
- someguydave 7y ago>would crow endlessly Sure, so why doesn't this happen more often? The simplest explanation is that elected politician's influence is small compared to the collective bureaucracy's power to do what it was going to do anyway. And yes, everyone who is handed a pile of third-party cash to spend on other people does not usually have very good incentives to make the most efficient choices, and doubly so when their personal agency is further restricted by a mass of regulation.