3 ms·

this is an ideological argument devoid of meaningful goals to help residents and create a strong economy. who cares, on the face of it, what size the governmen

this is an ideological argument devoid of meaningful goals to help residents and create a strong economy. who cares, on the face of it, what size the government is? size is not the goal, it's at best a poor proxy metric for (in-)efficiency, which itself is a proxy metric for how much we help people via public goods (and thereby the whole economy). rent-seeking around wic is a rounding error next to property & capital rent-seeking overall. moreover, the right place to place blame (and seek redress) is with the rent-seekers themselves, not the assistance recipients (or the associated governmental programs) being exploited by them.

mumblemumble 6y ago
I'm not sure I see why killing the engine that fuels the rent-seeking gravy train, and, in the process of doing so, taking a huge monkey off the backs of people who are receiving assistance, would somehow misplace blame on those same people. It's simply suggesting that perhaps we should address a cause of the problem rather than only focusing on its symptoms. And the way in which the market gets freer, in this case, is by taking away unnecessary and paternalistic restrictions that WIC imposes on where recipients shop and what they're allowed to buy. Perhaps framing things in classical liberal terms feels like de-centering assistance recipients. I get that, but I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing, in this case. I can't imagine your average WIC participant actually wants to live under a microscope, regardless of the political leanings of the person who's looking through it.
- clairity 6y ago
  you're mistakenly associating assistance programs with rent-seeking, and moreover focusing on an entirely irrelevant corner of it. rent-seeking will occur anywhere there is wealth to be extracted, which is basically everywhere else in the economy, so that association is unwarranted. you should be looking at where capital is concentrated and deployed if you're truly concerned about rent-seeking over "big government".
  - mumblemumble 6y ago
    It's not that assistance programs are rent seeking. It's that the assistance programs, as they're structured, are a honey pot for rent seeking. A program that micro-manages what people can put on their table at home invites lobbying to influence those rules for one's own financial gain. It's an example of how pearl-clutching attitudes - in this case, fears, based on deeply entrenched moralistic notions about less-wealthy people's ability to make decisions for themselves, that people might buy the wrong food - are easy to co-opt for mercenary purposes, to basically nobody's benefit.
    - clairity 6y ago
      yes, i understand your point, but again, that's literally a rounding error compared to other, much larger rent-seeking behaviors.
      - mumblemumble 6y ago
        Sure. But that challenge smells of whataboutism. And it's also looking at the finger rather than where it's pointing. I could just as easily have picked on health care, for example, or housing assistance programs. But I'm not trying to write a book, here. I think the more interesting phenomenon here is that seeing the negative consequences of a largely fiscally conservative cause is bringing fiscal conservative thought leaders to the point of putting their support behind a traditionally socialist cause.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        The above posters argument is very simple. These program's impact on inefficiency and rent seeking are négligeable. Their benefits aren't.
        mumblemumble 6y ago
        If so, then I guess we're arguing over a straw man? Because that argument would be a great response to a suggestion that we just end welfare, but it doesn't really make much sense as a response to a comment about the idea of massively expanding it by replacing it with universal basic income.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>who cares, on the face of it, what size the government is? Until the size stops correlating with the amount of resources that must be taken from people everybody with anything to their name cares.
- clairity 6y ago
  but again, your concern then is efficiency, so let's look at efficiency metrics directly rather than the poor proxy that size is. that also neatly sidesteps the manipulative use of "big government" as a tool by politicians to deploy power against the common interest.
  - edbob 6y ago
    You make a valid point when considering the total size of governments at all levels. However, I think what people most want to avoid is specifically an excessively large government at the federal and (to a much lesser degree) state levels. This is a worthy goal. This is not unrelated to efficiency: the legendary inefficiency of the federal government is correlated with its bloat and unaccountability, problems which are much easier to address at the state and local levels (and you can move away from the failures).
    - clairity 6y ago
      power will always try to overflow its limits, no matter the size. the fed has a fairly limited mandate via the constitution, but federal politicians of all stripes are constantly grubbing for power, which is where the inefficiencies largely come from. the answer is not to focus on size, but how and why it's overflowing via power grabs. focusing on size leads to the wrong conclusions and the wrong responses. that's the point.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

mumblemumble 6y ago

I'm not sure I see why killing the engine that fuels the rent-seeking gravy train, and, in the process of doing so, taking a huge monkey off the backs of people who are receiving assistance, would somehow misplace blame on those same people. It's simply suggesting that perhaps we should address a cause of the problem rather than only focusing on its symptoms. And the way in which the market gets freer, in this case, is by taking away unnecessary and paternalistic restrictions that WIC imposes on where recipients shop and what they're allowed to buy. Perhaps framing things in classical liberal terms feels like de-centering assistance recipients. I get that, but I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing, in this case. I can't imagine your average WIC participant actually wants to live under a microscope, regardless of the political leanings of the person who's looking through it.

clairity 6y ago
you're mistakenly associating assistance programs with rent-seeking, and moreover focusing on an entirely irrelevant corner of it. rent-seeking will occur anywhere there is wealth to be extracted, which is basically everywhere else in the economy, so that association is unwarranted. you should be looking at where capital is concentrated and deployed if you're truly concerned about rent-seeking over "big government".
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  It's not that assistance programs are rent seeking. It's that the assistance programs, as they're structured, are a honey pot for rent seeking. A program that micro-manages what people can put on their table at home invites lobbying to influence those rules for one's own financial gain. It's an example of how pearl-clutching attitudes - in this case, fears, based on deeply entrenched moralistic notions about less-wealthy people's ability to make decisions for themselves, that people might buy the wrong food - are easy to co-opt for mercenary purposes, to basically nobody's benefit.
  - clairity 6y ago
    yes, i understand your point, but again, that's literally a rounding error compared to other, much larger rent-seeking behaviors.
    - mumblemumble 6y ago
      Sure. But that challenge smells of whataboutism. And it's also looking at the finger rather than where it's pointing. I could just as easily have picked on health care, for example, or housing assistance programs. But I'm not trying to write a book, here. I think the more interesting phenomenon here is that seeing the negative consequences of a largely fiscally conservative cause is bringing fiscal conservative thought leaders to the point of putting their support behind a traditionally socialist cause.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        The above posters argument is very simple. These program's impact on inefficiency and rent seeking are négligeable. Their benefits aren't.
        mumblemumble 6y ago
        If so, then I guess we're arguing over a straw man? Because that argument would be a great response to a suggestion that we just end welfare, but it doesn't really make much sense as a response to a comment about the idea of massively expanding it by replacing it with universal basic income.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>who cares, on the face of it, what size the government is? Until the size stops correlating with the amount of resources that must be taken from people everybody with anything to their name cares.

clairity 6y ago
but again, your concern then is efficiency, so let's look at efficiency metrics directly rather than the poor proxy that size is. that also neatly sidesteps the manipulative use of "big government" as a tool by politicians to deploy power against the common interest.
- edbob 6y ago
  You make a valid point when considering the total size of governments at all levels. However, I think what people most want to avoid is specifically an excessively large government at the federal and (to a much lesser degree) state levels. This is a worthy goal. This is not unrelated to efficiency: the legendary inefficiency of the federal government is correlated with its bloat and unaccountability, problems which are much easier to address at the state and local levels (and you can move away from the failures).
  - clairity 6y ago
    power will always try to overflow its limits, no matter the size. the fed has a fairly limited mandate via the constitution, but federal politicians of all stripes are constantly grubbing for power, which is where the inefficiencies largely come from. the answer is not to focus on size, but how and why it's overflowing via power grabs. focusing on size leads to the wrong conclusions and the wrong responses. that's the point.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]