3 ms·

Its not a matter of Private Enterprise vs. Government. Government. As anyone that has worked in Big Corp or Too big to Fail Bank can attest - such a as yours tr

by eecc 6y ago

Its not a matter of Private Enterprise vs. Government. Government. As anyone that has worked in Big Corp or Too big to Fail Bank can attest - such a as yours truly - or any Cyberpunk novel about a world run by Megacorps at war, it’s the size that matters. Bureaucracy, empire building, mimetism of the incompetent, fear and PTSD are what ossify these orgs into useless - nay, damaging - lumps of humanity.

wahern 6y ago
The other aspect of it is that modern bureaucracies, especially in the United States, are strongly tailored for equitable interactions with the public, and employ rules and processes designed to minimize corruption by minimizing discretion. Unfortunately, in political discussions "bad" seems to be synonymous with "corrupt".[1] Bad government is corrupt government, and corrupt government is unsalvageable. End of debate. (Particularly unsalvageable in our strongly individualist, low trust society. Modern civil services were, of course, designed in a higher trust era that managed to more-or-less eliminate most forms of corruption through radical reformations of government.) [1] For example, recently an HN commenter drew the conclusion that California's infrastructure project cost inflation must be a result of corruption. I'm sure lots of people believe that, especially considering that in California there's a single contractor that wins most large projects in the state even though they're notorious for inflating costs during construction. But one of the principle problems, in fact, is that procedural rules--rules designed to prevent corruption--make it difficult for bureaucrats to question, based on past performance, the credibility of and preference for the lowest bid. (Of course, perhaps the relevant decision makers could try harder. But by exercising greater discretion they open themselves up to accusations of corruption if a project goes bad, or to delaying legal challenges by the loser. This reinforces the norm to simply mechanically follow procedure.)

by eecc 6y ago

wahern 6y ago

The other aspect of it is that modern bureaucracies, especially in the United States, are strongly tailored for equitable interactions with the public, and employ rules and processes designed to minimize corruption by minimizing discretion. Unfortunately, in political discussions "bad" seems to be synonymous with "corrupt".[1] Bad government is corrupt government, and corrupt government is unsalvageable. End of debate. (Particularly unsalvageable in our strongly individualist, low trust society. Modern civil services were, of course, designed in a higher trust era that managed to more-or-less eliminate most forms of corruption through radical reformations of government.) [1] For example, recently an HN commenter drew the conclusion that California's infrastructure project cost inflation must be a result of corruption. I'm sure lots of people believe that, especially considering that in California there's a single contractor that wins most large projects in the state even though they're notorious for inflating costs during construction. But one of the principle problems, in fact, is that procedural rules--rules designed to prevent corruption--make it difficult for bureaucrats to question, based on past performance, the credibility of and preference for the lowest bid. (Of course, perhaps the relevant decision makers could try harder. But by exercising greater discretion they open themselves up to accusations of corruption if a project goes bad, or to delaying legal challenges by the loser. This reinforces the norm to simply mechanically follow procedure.)