4 ms·

> There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale. I'm not sure what you're comparing here. Are you saying gov

> There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale. I'm not sure what you're comparing here. Are you saying governments are more efficient because they are bigger? Are you saying they are more efficient because they've filled a need more completely? The first is non-sense and the second is more a function of size and power than efficiency. Efficiency is about benefit per dollar, and governments are really really bad a that, typically making up for how bad they are by simply throwing more dollars at the problem.

axlee 4y ago
> The first is non-sense and the second is more a function of size and power than efficiency. Efficiency is about benefit per dollar, and governments are really really bad a that, typically making up for how bad they are by simply throwing more dollars at the problem. This is definitely not an ideological and dogmatic statement obscuring centuries of experience across hundreds of government systems, oh no-no-no. Government is bad at everything, get it?
suture 4y ago
Efficiency at solving the problem at scale. What good does it do to have the most efficient system in terms benefit per dollar spent if it helps only a few people? Government is the most efficient at providing help at scale. For example helping Ukraine defeat Putin requires government and not charity. Want clean water across the country? Need government intervention. Want to provide universal healthcare? Need government intervention. Want everyone to read and write? Need government intervention. Charity is not sufficient to provide the needs of the populace. For one thing, relying on charities quickly runs into the free rider problem.
lostcolony 4y ago
People love to say governments are inefficient, but I always find that an interesting claim. It invariably relies on comparing government to much smaller scale organizations (such as charity), which obviously isn't comparable. That is, I can be 100% efficient with my donation to charity by just...giving $20 to a homeless person. Oh look, 100% of my donation went to someone in need. A charity can be 90% efficient by collecting and distributing donations citywide; it's more widespread, and donations are less centralized, but there's cost in paying people to actually do the legwork. A government is doing stuff nationwide, distributing unequally based on need (measured in a flawed way, yes, but still requiring measurement, since it's politically untenable to do simple things), and is less efficient still. But that's...to be expected. You see the same thing in private sector; the larger a company is, the less efficiently it runs. Walmart is the largest private employer; no one is claiming it's a well oiled machine of efficiencies comparable to a lean startup. Necessarily; it's just like with technology, the more distributed the system is, the less efficient it is. Saying that governments are inefficient and just throw money at the problem is like saying distributed systems are inefficient and just throw compute at the problem. While true, it nevertheless is still the only way to solve many problems at that scale, and comparing the 'inefficiencies' of hardware of, say, Google, to the hardware for local search on my home PC, isn't particularly meaningful rhetoric.
- PaywallBuster 4y ago
  Walmart still have a lot of (combined) efficiencies otherwise, people would jusy shop at the local grocer if that was cheaper :) Unlike the government, no one's forcing people to shop at walmart, and if they were loosing efficiency (charging higher due to Admin costs) people are more than welcome to move to any alternative that suits them best
  - suture 4y ago
    You entirely missed the point made and are addressing a different point. By the way, who is more efficient at providing healthcare to the elderly: Medicare or the private sector or charities? Private health insurers fought hard to not have to spend as little of their budgets on salary and administrative costs as Medicare.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  Your argument is rather confusing. You say they aren't comparable, then point out a plethora of comparisons. You then finish by demonstrating some of the reasons governments are inefficient. All of this after leading with seeming disagreement. I'm a little lost.
  - suture 4y ago
    Clearly the argument is that inefficiency grows with size. Small charity (even a so called large one) is nowhere near comparable in size to a nationwide government program. Therefore comparing efficiency between these organizations is not apt. Clearly.
  - lostcolony 4y ago
    I can compare apples and oranges. "Well, oranges tend to be rounder, and more orange, and tarter, and...". Doesn't change the fact that it is THE cliche for bad comparisons that you shouldn't attempt. Maybe I should clarify, especially if English isn't your first language, saying something "isn't comparable" doesn't mean you literally can't compare them, but that doing so is unhelpful and misleading.

axlee 4y ago

> The first is non-sense and the second is more a function of size and power than efficiency. Efficiency is about benefit per dollar, and governments are really really bad a that, typically making up for how bad they are by simply throwing more dollars at the problem. This is definitely not an ideological and dogmatic statement obscuring centuries of experience across hundreds of government systems, oh no-no-no. Government is bad at everything, get it?

suture 4y ago

Efficiency at solving the problem at scale. What good does it do to have the most efficient system in terms benefit per dollar spent if it helps only a few people? Government is the most efficient at providing help at scale. For example helping Ukraine defeat Putin requires government and not charity. Want clean water across the country? Need government intervention. Want to provide universal healthcare? Need government intervention. Want everyone to read and write? Need government intervention. Charity is not sufficient to provide the needs of the populace. For one thing, relying on charities quickly runs into the free rider problem.

lostcolony 4y ago

People love to say governments are inefficient, but I always find that an interesting claim. It invariably relies on comparing government to much smaller scale organizations (such as charity), which obviously isn't comparable. That is, I can be 100% efficient with my donation to charity by just...giving $20 to a homeless person. Oh look, 100% of my donation went to someone in need. A charity can be 90% efficient by collecting and distributing donations citywide; it's more widespread, and donations are less centralized, but there's cost in paying people to actually do the legwork. A government is doing stuff nationwide, distributing unequally based on need (measured in a flawed way, yes, but still requiring measurement, since it's politically untenable to do simple things), and is less efficient still. But that's...to be expected. You see the same thing in private sector; the larger a company is, the less efficiently it runs. Walmart is the largest private employer; no one is claiming it's a well oiled machine of efficiencies comparable to a lean startup. Necessarily; it's just like with technology, the more distributed the system is, the less efficient it is. Saying that governments are inefficient and just throw money at the problem is like saying distributed systems are inefficient and just throw compute at the problem. While true, it nevertheless is still the only way to solve many problems at that scale, and comparing the 'inefficiencies' of hardware of, say, Google, to the hardware for local search on my home PC, isn't particularly meaningful rhetoric.

PaywallBuster 4y ago
Walmart still have a lot of (combined) efficiencies otherwise, people would jusy shop at the local grocer if that was cheaper :) Unlike the government, no one's forcing people to shop at walmart, and if they were loosing efficiency (charging higher due to Admin costs) people are more than welcome to move to any alternative that suits them best
- suture 4y ago
  You entirely missed the point made and are addressing a different point. By the way, who is more efficient at providing healthcare to the elderly: Medicare or the private sector or charities? Private health insurers fought hard to not have to spend as little of their budgets on salary and administrative costs as Medicare.
BobbyJo 4y ago
Your argument is rather confusing. You say they aren't comparable, then point out a plethora of comparisons. You then finish by demonstrating some of the reasons governments are inefficient. All of this after leading with seeming disagreement. I'm a little lost.
- suture 4y ago
  Clearly the argument is that inefficiency grows with size. Small charity (even a so called large one) is nowhere near comparable in size to a nationwide government program. Therefore comparing efficiency between these organizations is not apt. Clearly.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  I can compare apples and oranges. "Well, oranges tend to be rounder, and more orange, and tarter, and...". Doesn't change the fact that it is THE cliche for bad comparisons that you shouldn't attempt. Maybe I should clarify, especially if English isn't your first language, saying something "isn't comparable" doesn't mean you literally can't compare them, but that doing so is unhelpful and misleading.