3 ms·

It's so funny to me that people treat businesses and government so differently. Want results from your start up? Find someone to invest in it. Want results fr

It's so funny to me that people treat businesses and government so differently. Want results from your start up? Find someone to invest in it. Want results from a government program? Well, we need to cut out all the wasteful spending.

ouid 4y ago
Cutting out wasteful spending may make your shitty schools cheaper, but it will not make them better.
- bluGill 4y ago
  But it may free up money for things that will make the schools better. Maybe, it is easy to see a problem, hard to fix it. If nothing else a tax break (even if it is only a few cents per resident) is a better use than some programs
  - jfk13 4y ago
    > a tax break (even if it is only a few cents per resident) is a better use than some programs Very likely so, but which programs exactly? (Are you uniquely well-qualified to make that determination? If not, who is, and how can we know that?)
    - bluGill 4y ago
      That is an excellent question. I carefully did not answer it because as soon as I do, no matter how wasteful and useless the program someone will come to defend it and I don't want to get in that fight.
  - ouid 4y ago
    Identifying wasteful spending is expensive and inaccurate. An auditor will produce some number of false negatives (remaining wasteful spending) and false positives (useful spending that was cut). Both of these cannot be zero, and the closer you would like to get to zero, the more expensive the audit will be. Additionally, the relative value of false negatives and positives, in something with as high a force multiplier as education, seems like it will probably fall on the side of false negatives.
- chipsa 4y ago
  Yes, but if you cut out the wasteful spending, you can redirect that funding to not wasteful things. What spending is wasteful is another question entirely.
temp8964 4y ago
Of course businesses and government programs are different. If a business is not doing well, it will be defeated and shut down. If a government program is not doing well, it usually asks for more money.
mulmen 4y ago
It alarms me that anyone treats them the same. Government programs are a last resort to correct market failures. They’re completely different entities with different goals and structures.
xvedejas 4y ago
We can treat them the same: hold someone accountable when their project over-spends and under-delivers. Maybe even fire them. It would happen naturally in successful companies, but (at least in the US) there's often no accountability in government for setting money on fire. https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/08/07/why-its-important-to-remove-failed-leaders/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/08/07/why-its-import...
scarmig 4y ago
Well, take something like Google: considering its size and amount of money it invests into R&D, you'd expect it to generate more product and technological innovation than it has. It's a version of the resource curse: when you have so much money you don't know what to do with it all, there are no real competitive pressures and corporate politics and bureaucracy take over. Schools need more funding, but less on faddish well-paid DEI officers who focus their time on axing algebra because it's too hard, and more on providing healthy school lunches, well ventilated and comfortable environments to work in, and a variety of classes tailored to students' individual needs.
aetherson 4y ago
You're about to see a bunch more interest in cutting wasteful spending at startups. The macro environment in the last 10 years basically let people (both startups and government) get a lot of money for free. That's no longer true, and cost-cutting is important now.
WalterBright 4y ago
business: when it doesn't get results, budget gets cut government: when it doesn't get results, budget gets increased
rootusrootus 4y ago
> It's so funny to me that people treat businesses and government so differently. As we should. Businesses are rewarded for efficiency. Government is judged on effectiveness. It is a huge mistake to conflate the two and judge them on the same metrics.

ouid 4y ago

Cutting out wasteful spending may make your shitty schools cheaper, but it will not make them better.

bluGill 4y ago
But it may free up money for things that will make the schools better. Maybe, it is easy to see a problem, hard to fix it. If nothing else a tax break (even if it is only a few cents per resident) is a better use than some programs
- jfk13 4y ago
  > a tax break (even if it is only a few cents per resident) is a better use than some programs Very likely so, but which programs exactly? (Are you uniquely well-qualified to make that determination? If not, who is, and how can we know that?)
  - bluGill 4y ago
    That is an excellent question. I carefully did not answer it because as soon as I do, no matter how wasteful and useless the program someone will come to defend it and I don't want to get in that fight.
- ouid 4y ago
  Identifying wasteful spending is expensive and inaccurate. An auditor will produce some number of false negatives (remaining wasteful spending) and false positives (useful spending that was cut). Both of these cannot be zero, and the closer you would like to get to zero, the more expensive the audit will be. Additionally, the relative value of false negatives and positives, in something with as high a force multiplier as education, seems like it will probably fall on the side of false negatives.
chipsa 4y ago
Yes, but if you cut out the wasteful spending, you can redirect that funding to not wasteful things. What spending is wasteful is another question entirely.

temp8964 4y ago

Of course businesses and government programs are different. If a business is not doing well, it will be defeated and shut down. If a government program is not doing well, it usually asks for more money.

mulmen 4y ago

It alarms me that anyone treats them the same. Government programs are a last resort to correct market failures. They’re completely different entities with different goals and structures.

xvedejas 4y ago

We can treat them the same: hold someone accountable when their project over-spends and under-delivers. Maybe even fire them. It would happen naturally in successful companies, but (at least in the US) there's often no accountability in government for setting money on fire. https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/08/07/why-its-important-to-remove-failed-leaders/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/08/07/why-its-import...

scarmig 4y ago

Well, take something like Google: considering its size and amount of money it invests into R&D, you'd expect it to generate more product and technological innovation than it has. It's a version of the resource curse: when you have so much money you don't know what to do with it all, there are no real competitive pressures and corporate politics and bureaucracy take over. Schools need more funding, but less on faddish well-paid DEI officers who focus their time on axing algebra because it's too hard, and more on providing healthy school lunches, well ventilated and comfortable environments to work in, and a variety of classes tailored to students' individual needs.

aetherson 4y ago

You're about to see a bunch more interest in cutting wasteful spending at startups. The macro environment in the last 10 years basically let people (both startups and government) get a lot of money for free. That's no longer true, and cost-cutting is important now.

WalterBright 4y ago

business: when it doesn't get results, budget gets cut government: when it doesn't get results, budget gets increased

rootusrootus 4y ago

> It's so funny to me that people treat businesses and government so differently. As we should. Businesses are rewarded for efficiency. Government is judged on effectiveness. It is a huge mistake to conflate the two and judge them on the same metrics.