4 ms·

I'm not here to argue that "everything the government does is bad" because I think it's a very nuanced situation. That said, I feel like the Hoover Dam needs to

I'm not here to argue that "everything the government does is bad" because I think it's a very nuanced situation. That said, I feel like the Hoover Dam needs to be mentioned in the same breath as Hoovervilles, and as a precursor to the Great Depression. Arguably, this high-level decision making is the only part that the government did, and should receive credit for, as the Six Companies consortium actually executed the construction. It's unfortunate that these arguments often involve people talking past one another; governments (being made up of people) are obviously capable of good outcomes. They're also capable of generating bad or inefficient outcomes. Those two latter points are where I think there is value in the discussion: is a governmental act moral, and does it increase efficiency (in the sense of humanity prevailing against its default state).

save_ferris 6y ago
> Arguably, this high-level decision making is the only part that the government did, and should receive credit for, as the Six Companies consortium actually executed the construction. I agree with this, but couldn't it also be applied inversely? If a government project experiences cost overruns due to a private contractor poorly estimating the project, shouldn't blame also be placed on said contractor? Success is so often privatized and failure socialized.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  Sure, absolutely, and this is a good point. However, much of that comes from changing requirements or an unrealistic bid process to begin with. Shady business practices by government contractors should absolutely be scrutinized. It’s a complicated undertaking all the way around.