3 ms·

"Efficient", meaning delivering maximum goods/services for minimum cost, may be a good thing in a business context. However, there are a number of essential se

"Efficient", meaning delivering maximum goods/services for minimum cost, may be a good thing in a business context. However, there are a number of essential services which we want a government to deliver which we do not want to be "efficient" under this definition. "efficiency" by definition means no reserves (because a reserve is unused capacity, which is inefficient). But this also means brittleness and failure under unexpected load. Is this how you want your healthcare delivered? "efficiency" can also mean not providing services to unprofitable market segments. I'll leave it to you to imagine how this goes horribly wrong for many government services. "efficiency" can also mean no long-term investments (i.e. highway systems, the internet, ...), and certainly means you can only invest in projects where you can capture a substantial percentage of the gain. And on those line, "efficiency" often means ignoring maintenance needs. Simply put, business is great for what business is great for. But for lots of critical social infrastructure, this isn't the case.

WalterBright 5y ago
> But this also means brittleness and failure under unexpected load. Is this how you want your healthcare delivered? Let's look at something simpler. The US government has proven itself inept at distributing gasoline, which it did in the 1970s (as in long gas lines in some areas and gluts in others). The oil companies, before and after, have been remarkably adept at providing plenty of gas for anyone who wants to buy it, despite refinery explosions, pipeline disasters, etc. Before government got in the US healthcare system, the system worked well and costs were reasonable. Internet services run by free market companies seem to be remarkably not brittle. > "efficiency" often means ignoring maintenance needs. The government has been ignoring maintenance for decades. The Seattle government ignored the bridge maintenance while they blew through all the money on various progressive causes, and now the bridges are shut down because they're not safe to drive on. Government run farms have never in history been able to feed a country. The free market farms in the US fed the US and the USSR. (Kansas wheat was exported to the USSR that desperately needed it.)
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Distribution of gasoline doesn't seem like it should be a government role. Distribution of mail, especially to the last mile routes that aren't profitable, does.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > Distribution of gasoline doesn't seem like it should be a government role. So we learned. > Distribution of mail, especially to the last mile routes that aren't profitable, does. UPS seems to do it just fine (for packages), at a profit.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      UPS couldn't easily do letters since the government made competition with the USPS expensive or outright illegal in some situations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        If the USPS was efficient, it wouldn't have been necessary to outlaw the competition.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The US government has proven itself inept at distributing gasoline, which it did in the 1970s No, the US government didn’t distribute gasoline. Some state governments issued rationing regulations in one or both of the oil crises, and the US government imposed price regulations during part of the latter of the two crises.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > No, the US government didn’t distribute gasoline. What the DOE did was allocate a gas allotment to each gas station. Stations individually had to apply for gas allotments. If they ran out, too bad. If they had too much, they couldn't allocate it to another station. The result was shortages and gluts. The DOE proved completely incapable of adjusting to constant shifts in demand. They'd allocate based on the previous year's pattern.

WalterBright 5y ago

> But this also means brittleness and failure under unexpected load. Is this how you want your healthcare delivered? Let's look at something simpler. The US government has proven itself inept at distributing gasoline, which it did in the 1970s (as in long gas lines in some areas and gluts in others). The oil companies, before and after, have been remarkably adept at providing plenty of gas for anyone who wants to buy it, despite refinery explosions, pipeline disasters, etc. Before government got in the US healthcare system, the system worked well and costs were reasonable. Internet services run by free market companies seem to be remarkably not brittle. > "efficiency" often means ignoring maintenance needs. The government has been ignoring maintenance for decades. The Seattle government ignored the bridge maintenance while they blew through all the money on various progressive causes, and now the bridges are shut down because they're not safe to drive on. Government run farms have never in history been able to feed a country. The free market farms in the US fed the US and the USSR. (Kansas wheat was exported to the USSR that desperately needed it.)

edgyquant 5y ago
Distribution of gasoline doesn't seem like it should be a government role. Distribution of mail, especially to the last mile routes that aren't profitable, does.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > Distribution of gasoline doesn't seem like it should be a government role. So we learned. > Distribution of mail, especially to the last mile routes that aren't profitable, does. UPS seems to do it just fine (for packages), at a profit.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    UPS couldn't easily do letters since the government made competition with the USPS expensive or outright illegal in some situations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      If the USPS was efficient, it wouldn't have been necessary to outlaw the competition.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The US government has proven itself inept at distributing gasoline, which it did in the 1970s No, the US government didn’t distribute gasoline. Some state governments issued rationing regulations in one or both of the oil crises, and the US government imposed price regulations during part of the latter of the two crises.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > No, the US government didn’t distribute gasoline. What the DOE did was allocate a gas allotment to each gas station. Stations individually had to apply for gas allotments. If they ran out, too bad. If they had too much, they couldn't allocate it to another station. The result was shortages and gluts. The DOE proved completely incapable of adjusting to constant shifts in demand. They'd allocate based on the previous year's pattern.