4 ms·

Can you give some examples of the "many cases" in which a government spends more wisely than an individual?

jessedhillon 15y ago
Rather than me hiring security for my house at a rate of maybe one hour a day -- the only amount of private security I could afford -- the government pools the money of my entire community, hires many security guards, equips them, and lets them drive around my neighborhood. Then, instead of my spending an hour or two educating all the kids in the neighborhood, in the hope that the next generation of people aren't morons, they take some money from all property owners and use it to build schools. Those schools to ensure that a very wide swath of the population, even the poor and stupid, meet minimum education standards. That way, at the very least they can go and do the service jobs that I don't want to do, and so many of them meet that minimum education level that they can be hired for a low wage, thus keeping the price I pay low.
- SigmundA 15y ago
  Thanks, this would have been my response for the most part. National Defense, Police, Fire, Education, Roads, Water Systems, Sewer Systems, and Healthcare(just a form of nation defense IMO). These are all very expensive endeavors that simply don't work that well if the individuals "shops around".
- jwallaceparker 15y ago
  The government spends wastefully in defense, education and every other service it seeks to provide. I agree in principle that it's generally beneficial for individuals to pool resources in order to address common needs. But this happens on its own in a marketplace. It's called the division of labor.
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    Wastefully compared to what? Do you know of any other organization that provides essential social services to hundreds of millions of people? Do you have actual facts to supply here? Can you provide an a legitimate comparison for us, or are we supposed to simply accept your free market mantra? The existence of waste and inefficient behaviors does not mean that the system is wasteful.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      Why must there be a single organization that provides services to hundreds of millions? Why can't there be thousands of orgs that provide service only to a few hundred people? The food industry is a good example. Unless you don't consider food essential.
      - jessedhillon 15y ago
        Is that really a good example? The public subsidizes agriculture in the US and other industrialized nations precisely because it is essential to the public good. Without subsidy, food would be as expensive at Safeway as it is at your local farmer's market -- which varies drastically by location. In Sacramento, fresh fruit is <$1/lb; in SF it can be triple that, or more. Maybe that's not a bad idea to have people pay what food really costs, but it's not a free market success story in any way.
        jwallaceparker 15y ago
        It's difficult to find any example of a free market in America. The food industry an a whole is more free than the other social services listed above. And a government can't just make something cheaper by edict. All a subsidy does is shift the burden of cost from the consumers to the taxpayers, or more likely anyone holding a dollar because most of these government programs are funded through deficits. To be fair, I used to advocate public works projects and argued for smarter spending of public money. I changed my mind drastically after studying a bit of basic economics. If you're really interested in exploring these principals and have an open mind, I recommend "Economics in One Lesson."
        jessedhillon 15y ago
        I've studied economics well, I just haven't come to the same conclusion as you. Piece of unsolicited advice, take it or leave it: I would suggest that, if you want to be taken seriously, you present your ideas in a way that demonstrates your understanding of the nuance involved. When you say things like "all a subsidy does is X" and imply simple A-B causal relationships between the public and private sectors, it's hard to believe that you have considered these issues thoroughly, as opposed to merely another axe grinder. These are real-world systems, which deeply impact the lives of millions of people. To simply dismiss them or force them to fit into Platonic molds is silly.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Rather than me hiring security for my house at a rate of maybe one hour a day -- the only amount of private security I could afford -- the government pools the money of my entire community, hires many security guards, equips them, and lets them drive around my neighborhood. But the reason there aren't private security companies working like that is because the police exists. I know places (not in the 'States) where the police is grossly underfunded, and the local shop owners do exactly that: they all contribute some amount to a fund that pays a private security company to drive around in the area. It also protects the homes, which is good PR for the local shops.

Rather than me hiring security for my house at a rate of maybe one hour a day -- the only amount of private security I could afford -- the government pools the money of my entire community, hires many security guards, equips them, and lets them drive around my neighborhood. Then, instead of my spending an hour or two educating all the kids in the neighborhood, in the hope that the next generation of people aren't morons, they take some money from all property owners and use it to build schools. Those schools to ensure that a very wide swath of the population, even the poor and stupid, meet minimum education standards. That way, at the very least they can go and do the service jobs that I don't want to do, and so many of them meet that minimum education level that they can be hired for a low wage, thus keeping the price I pay low.

SigmundA 15y ago
Thanks, this would have been my response for the most part. National Defense, Police, Fire, Education, Roads, Water Systems, Sewer Systems, and Healthcare(just a form of nation defense IMO). These are all very expensive endeavors that simply don't work that well if the individuals "shops around".
jwallaceparker 15y ago
The government spends wastefully in defense, education and every other service it seeks to provide. I agree in principle that it's generally beneficial for individuals to pool resources in order to address common needs. But this happens on its own in a marketplace. It's called the division of labor.
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  Wastefully compared to what? Do you know of any other organization that provides essential social services to hundreds of millions of people? Do you have actual facts to supply here? Can you provide an a legitimate comparison for us, or are we supposed to simply accept your free market mantra? The existence of waste and inefficient behaviors does not mean that the system is wasteful.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Why must there be a single organization that provides services to hundreds of millions? Why can't there be thousands of orgs that provide service only to a few hundred people? The food industry is a good example. Unless you don't consider food essential.
    - jessedhillon 15y ago
      Is that really a good example? The public subsidizes agriculture in the US and other industrialized nations precisely because it is essential to the public good. Without subsidy, food would be as expensive at Safeway as it is at your local farmer's market -- which varies drastically by location. In Sacramento, fresh fruit is <$1/lb; in SF it can be triple that, or more. Maybe that's not a bad idea to have people pay what food really costs, but it's not a free market success story in any way.
      - jwallaceparker 15y ago
        It's difficult to find any example of a free market in America. The food industry an a whole is more free than the other social services listed above. And a government can't just make something cheaper by edict. All a subsidy does is shift the burden of cost from the consumers to the taxpayers, or more likely anyone holding a dollar because most of these government programs are funded through deficits. To be fair, I used to advocate public works projects and argued for smarter spending of public money. I changed my mind drastically after studying a bit of basic economics. If you're really interested in exploring these principals and have an open mind, I recommend "Economics in One Lesson."
        jessedhillon 15y ago
        I've studied economics well, I just haven't come to the same conclusion as you. Piece of unsolicited advice, take it or leave it: I would suggest that, if you want to be taken seriously, you present your ideas in a way that demonstrates your understanding of the nuance involved. When you say things like "all a subsidy does is X" and imply simple A-B causal relationships between the public and private sectors, it's hard to believe that you have considered these issues thoroughly, as opposed to merely another axe grinder. These are real-world systems, which deeply impact the lives of millions of people. To simply dismiss them or force them to fit into Platonic molds is silly.
icebraining 15y ago
Rather than me hiring security for my house at a rate of maybe one hour a day -- the only amount of private security I could afford -- the government pools the money of my entire community, hires many security guards, equips them, and lets them drive around my neighborhood. But the reason there aren't private security companies working like that is because the police exists. I know places (not in the 'States) where the police is grossly underfunded, and the local shop owners do exactly that: they all contribute some amount to a fund that pays a private security company to drive around in the area. It also protects the homes, which is good PR for the local shops.