5 ms·

I think there is a fundamental misalignment of incentives between the government and its citizens. Governments as an abstract entity might have an interest in t

I think there is a fundamental misalignment of incentives between the government and its citizens. Governments as an abstract entity might have an interest in thriving entrepreneurship and economic growth, but the individual bureaucrats they employ do not. And its those Bureaucrats that design and apply processes. As a result, most western countries now have an ever growing apparatus of bureaucrats who are not accountable to the citizenship and who's sole reason for being is the facilitation of process. In order to increase their relevance and hence influence and paygrade, it is in their best interest to increase the amount of process and the role that process plays in everyday decision making. What worries me is that I don't see any remedy to this. Germany, a particularly bad offender when it comes to process and red tape has been attempting "Bürokratieabbau" - bureaucracy reduction since 1997. As a result we now have a commission for bureaucracy reduction which manages several operating bodies for bureaucracy reduction, all with their own processes and guidelines. I'm honestly worried that this might grow to a point of collapse.

cft 4y ago
It's logical for any entity to attempt to capture more resources. Thus a government wants more government. Bigger budget, more salaries, more bureaucracy therefore.
yieldcrv 4y ago
This is a great perspective that has allowed me to navigate society effectively For example, when it comes to taxation the outcome is that certain kinds transactions are incentivized, leading to no tax, while no individual bureaucrat or politician or resident would seem to agree about the ability of not paying any tax, the aggregate tax revenue services collaborate with a tax filer and support that ability
epc 4y ago
Bureaucrats report to (mostly) elected politicians (in the US). Politicians report to the public. The public complain about food poisoning, not about 92 forms to open a restaurant. The politician tells their bureaucrats to “do something” about all the food poisoning by under regulated restaurants. The regulatory bureaucracy is a lagging, indirect response to bad behavior by previous individuals and businesses. It’s never going to absolutely prevent bad behavior just as speed limits do not actually prevent speeding, but it is a legal tool or cudgel to inhibit the behavior and punish it in retrospect. And that in turn is both to reduce the cost of government from dealing with responses to bad behavior and ensure the politicians get reelected.
- AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
  The problem is bureaucrats are unfireable. The politician can't actually make them "do something" because they lack the power to incentivize them.
- heretogetout 4y ago
  > And that in turn is both to reduce the cost of government from dealing with responses to bad behavior and ensure the politicians get reelected. And reduce the number of food poisoning incidents to some degree, of course.
- wolframhempel 4y ago
  I think that's how it should work - but unfortunately not how it does. Both Trump and Obama complained about what people would refer to as the "deep state". Here's a quote from Putin of all People describing the phenomenon: I have already talked with one US President, and with another, and with the third - Presidents come and go, but the policy does not change. Do you know why? Because the power of the bureaucracy is very strong. The person gets elected, he comes with some ideas, and then people come to him with briefcases, well dressed and in dark suits, like mine, but not with a red tie, but with black or dark blue, and they begin to explain what he should do - and everything changes at once. This happens from one administration to the next.
  - wolframhempel 4y ago
    I'm strangely curious about what the tie color indicates in this quote?
  - epc 4y ago
    One guy's "Deep State" is another guys "let's protect all people regardless of their ethnicity/politics/genetics/religious faith". In a country (the US) where the executive can be elected by a minority of the population, having bureaucratic guardrails seems to be a good thing.
    - epc 4y ago
hourago 4y ago
Why do bureaucrats have an incentive to make their own work harder? How do you explain then how easier is to do taxes in bureaucratic Europe compared with the USA? I will say that the worst burocracy is created when private companies meddle with the government affairs.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Because that keeps them employed, plain and simple. Almost no self-preserving human being would optimize themselves out of a job without something better waiting in the wings. Creating more work and harder work does the opposite, it allows them more security. Even if it doesn't mean they want to make more work (like how most developers wouldn't maliciously add bugs to create more work), it does mean the incentive to make less work without a way to preserve oneself is extremely low.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    Bureaucrats can either spend their time inspecting the restaurants and imagining forms to make opening them easier or inspecting paper forms and answering "yes, sir" to some micromanager. Who decides what of those they will do is their bosses (usually, politicians). If you go ask them what they prefer, you may be surprised. Or maybe not, if you go imagining they are humans.
mywittyname 4y ago
Bureaucracy is a natural outcome of maturing processes. It used to be easy to do things. But then business owners would do things that would make citizens say, "they shouldn't be able to do that." So rules/laws were made to prevent people from doing it. You can go on a mission to reduce redtape, but the results will probably be temporary. Contrary to the way some people think, these regulations aren't put into place willy-nilly, they are the natural outcome of people cheating the system and causing others harm. It's not just governments either. Anyone who has worked at a startup and a huge mega corp sees the difference in how easy it is to deploy something. Startups have no guards in place, while megacorps need sign-offs from various departments, etc.
- metacritic12 4y ago
  Right, the rules were put in place to reduce bad behavior. The question is, did the government accurately predict the cost of the rules / red tape itself? I think the steelman of the GP is that the red tape was not accurately predicted. Most citizens can probably agree "all else equal, we don't want a pub in the middle of a residential district open till 4am with drunkards wandering the streets". But did they also properly opening a local business should be so hard that each business effectively has a local moat, raising prices and reducing restaurant selection? Also, the opinion that unresponsive bureaucracy needs to exist seems defeatist on the side of government regulation. Why can't we design better permitting processes that both ensure crazy pubs don't open in the middle of a suburb, and yet also make opening most normal businesses a 1-day affair?
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    > did the government accurately predict the cost of the rules / red tape itself? Depending on the level of government involved: probably. Economic analysis of laws/regulations are common requirements for governmental activity. As are after-the-fact analysis and comparisons to ensure a law/regulation is achieving its goal. It's part of the red-tape-for-red-tape system.
    - bkirkby 4y ago
lazyier 4y ago
"Government" is a metaphysical concept. What people call "The Government", in this case, is the Municipal Corporation of Boston. This corporation profits from a monopoly control over many aspects of people's lives and special legal privileges within its geographical boundaries. Like any other human organization it's true "purpose" and "motivation" is the collective desires of the people that run and make up that organization. Which is, mostly, going to be: Financing the life styles and political ambitions of the people running it. That is how it works once you strip away all the flowery language and idealism. People get involved in city government because it benefits them. It may be a stepping stone in a career in bigger government. Maybe they are looking for stable income, cheap benefits, and solid pension. Or cushy job they can't get fired from. Or its social status; they enjoy having power over people's lives, they enjoy having their opinions matter and being perceived as a person of importance. Lots of different motivations. The corporation's motivations are their motivations. Its purpose is their purpose. > As a result we now have a commission for bureaucracy reduction which manages several operating bodies for bureaucracy reduction, all with their own processes and guidelines. The first order of business for any bureaucracy is to ensure its own survival. Nobody wants to eliminate their own well being. Everybody wants security in their job. And everybody wants more money and a promotion, for the most part. With large very stable organizations like government corporations anybody that wants to make more money (ie: get a promotion) will usually have to wait for the guy above them to retire or quit, which can take years. Sometimes education can open doors, but mostly it's going to be people leaving the organization that have been there longer then you have. Things like seniority ensure there is very little opportunity for growth. The main opportunity for growth for a government bureaucrat is laterally... Meaning new agencies or bureaucracies need to be created that they can move into and have seniority there. So once a bureaucracy has secured its own survival the second order of business is to grow new bureaucracies. Which is exactly the pattern we see in all governments.
- fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
  >People get involved in city government because it benefits them. It may be a stepping stone in a career in bigger government. Maybe they are looking for stable income, cheap benefits, and solid pension. Or cushy job they can't get fired from. Or its social status; they enjoy having power over people's lives, they enjoy having their opinions matter and being perceived as a person of importance. Lots of different motivations. The corporation's motivations are their motivations. Its purpose is their purpose. You listed many reasons, and built a long argument on the implications of these reasons. Perhaps this was an oversight but it’s worth mentioning that civic engagement for its own sake is a fairly natural instinct and is arguably more important than any of the other aforementioned factors.
mrtksn 4y ago
I don't think there's a misalignment at all, the complexities come when the governments try to build water tight systems. For example, let's say that to do some specific work the law says a degree is required. Normally, a degree is something that a university gives to its successful students so it shouldn't be that big of a bureaucracy to hire someone for that job, right? firts, they start by simply taking the xerox copy of the diploma. Then someone starts hiring people without a diploma and forges a fake xerox copy and gets caught? To solve this, bureaucrats introduce a requirement for diploma registrations so they can check against fakes. Congratulation, now you have an office visit step where you go show your original diploma. Unfortunately, some people start showing fake diplomas. Once the bureaucrats catch on, they introduce a protocol with the universities to start checking the diplomas. Unfortunately, some universities say they can't accommodate that, others say they can do it moving forward but can't to for those who graduated more than 5 years ago. Also, some people studied abroad, others have their institutions merged or seized to exits. Congratulation, now you have multiple ways to accomplish the same thing. You will need to fill the correct form.
- bkirkby 4y ago
  What you describe is the exact reason we should question your very premise. "For example, let's say that to do some specific the law says a degree is required." Why is the government in the business of requiring degrees for financial transactions? Maybe that's valid for a doctor, but it's certainly not valid for a hair dresser.
  - InefficientRed 4y ago
    To be fair, parent mentioned "university", and I'm fairly certain that universities don't train hair dressers, so presumably he was thinking of things like engineers, lawyers, and medical professionals. I also find the educational requirements for hairdressing to be rather perplexing.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      Yep, it's very common to require certain degrees and qualifications to be able to sigh off projects and stuff in some industries. It's a way to make sure that a job is done properly without need for a thorough audit every time.
mylons 4y ago
this phenomenon also happens within businesses and in a more bizarre fashion. look at all the layers of management a startup will slap on at some point in it’s life because it’s commonplace at other companies and Google. look at the processes like Jira, stand ups, sprint planning, etc etc that the management class will institute and defend because it creates work and meaning for their position.
throwaway12603 4y ago
The problem is not necessarily the individual bureaucrats. They're annoying and add unnecessary complexity/paperwork. It goes a level deeper than that... The problem is entrepreneurial support organizations (typically organized as a "non-profit") that the government awards economic development grants to, who are then supposed to support the entrepreneurs. These are often incubators, accelerators and/or venture support/investment organizations. Universities sometimes fill this role as well. These organizations take a MASSIVE cut of the funding to cover their "overhead" before any money goes to the entrepreneurs. The amount of the allotted government funding that goes to entrepreneurs to actually grow their business is tiny after the various "non profit" organizations get their hands on it. I've seen state funded business plan pitch competitions that cost far in excess of $2M to put on their annual pitch event, with teams of 5+ employees "working" full-time on them. I've seen a party planner get paid $195k to put on a one-time demo day for 300 people. I've seen consultants get hired for $15k to put on a one-day sales workshop for founders. A successful founder paid $170k to give a speech at a demo day. Universities charging 53% overhead rates to run government funded programs. Program directors paid $200k+ to work on an accelerator that runs for 3 months of the year. I could go on and on. All of this was government funded in the name of "economic development." How many of us on HN could start a brand new business if we got even a fraction of this funding instead of wasting it on pomp and circumstance that masquerades as economic development? I guess the bureaucrats could/should realize this is a waste and put a stop to it, so perhaps it is back to being their fault. But these "non profit" orgs whose mission is to "support entrepreneurs" have no qualms about pulling up to the trough of government fundings and sucking it dry before it goes to actual entrepreneurs... (Source: I've seen this spending first-hand since I work at once of these places, which is why I'm posting this under a newly created alt account. Trying to do my tiny part to stop it, but it's systemic and hard to change.)
- InefficientRed 4y ago
  This is all absolutely true. "Economic development" is a weird world. There is a logic: elected officials want to be seen as supporting new business growth but of course can't literally invest taxpayer money in seed rounds. It's not reasonable or sane, of course, but that's why it happens... Anyways, I think that sort of thing is mostly in the past by now? I don't see it happening much around here anymore. Perhaps there's a new grift.
dredmorbius 4y ago
Keep in mind that a heavy burden on opening new restaurants also serves all existing restaurants. That is, if you've an extant operation, barriers to entry are in your own interest. This makes the constituency for strong regulation not only all diners, but all existing restaurants, with the constituency against strong regulation being whomever happens to be currently trying to open a new restaurant in the area. Balance of power goes to obstruction. See also Mancur Olsen's classic "The Logic of Collective Action" (both a short paper which captures the essence, and a book which dives into greater detail and more examples).
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Governments as an abstract entity might have an interest in thriving entrepreneurship and economic growth, but the individual bureaucrats they employ do not. And its those Bureaucrats that design and apply processes. This is exactly same in corporations - they are also full of bureocrats. I can spend 5 grand on AWS rltomorriw and noone will raise an eyebrow but we arent allowed to get a rmmmtablet to test the application qewe are developing actually works as intended
pontifier 4y ago
Maybe it's the real reason Rome fell? People couldn't get the permits required to do the work to fix the problems that needed fixing, or it was just easier to just go start over in a place that let you raise your goats or whatever in peace without needing to fill out 92 forms for each one.

cft 4y ago

It's logical for any entity to attempt to capture more resources. Thus a government wants more government. Bigger budget, more salaries, more bureaucracy therefore.

yieldcrv 4y ago

This is a great perspective that has allowed me to navigate society effectively For example, when it comes to taxation the outcome is that certain kinds transactions are incentivized, leading to no tax, while no individual bureaucrat or politician or resident would seem to agree about the ability of not paying any tax, the aggregate tax revenue services collaborate with a tax filer and support that ability

epc 4y ago

Bureaucrats report to (mostly) elected politicians (in the US). Politicians report to the public. The public complain about food poisoning, not about 92 forms to open a restaurant. The politician tells their bureaucrats to “do something” about all the food poisoning by under regulated restaurants. The regulatory bureaucracy is a lagging, indirect response to bad behavior by previous individuals and businesses. It’s never going to absolutely prevent bad behavior just as speed limits do not actually prevent speeding, but it is a legal tool or cudgel to inhibit the behavior and punish it in retrospect. And that in turn is both to reduce the cost of government from dealing with responses to bad behavior and ensure the politicians get reelected.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
The problem is bureaucrats are unfireable. The politician can't actually make them "do something" because they lack the power to incentivize them.
heretogetout 4y ago
> And that in turn is both to reduce the cost of government from dealing with responses to bad behavior and ensure the politicians get reelected. And reduce the number of food poisoning incidents to some degree, of course.
wolframhempel 4y ago
I think that's how it should work - but unfortunately not how it does. Both Trump and Obama complained about what people would refer to as the "deep state". Here's a quote from Putin of all People describing the phenomenon: I have already talked with one US President, and with another, and with the third - Presidents come and go, but the policy does not change. Do you know why? Because the power of the bureaucracy is very strong. The person gets elected, he comes with some ideas, and then people come to him with briefcases, well dressed and in dark suits, like mine, but not with a red tie, but with black or dark blue, and they begin to explain what he should do - and everything changes at once. This happens from one administration to the next.
- wolframhempel 4y ago
  I'm strangely curious about what the tie color indicates in this quote?
- epc 4y ago
  One guy's "Deep State" is another guys "let's protect all people regardless of their ethnicity/politics/genetics/religious faith". In a country (the US) where the executive can be elected by a minority of the population, having bureaucratic guardrails seems to be a good thing.
  - epc 4y ago

hourago 4y ago

Why do bureaucrats have an incentive to make their own work harder? How do you explain then how easier is to do taxes in bureaucratic Europe compared with the USA? I will say that the worst burocracy is created when private companies meddle with the government affairs.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Because that keeps them employed, plain and simple. Almost no self-preserving human being would optimize themselves out of a job without something better waiting in the wings. Creating more work and harder work does the opposite, it allows them more security. Even if it doesn't mean they want to make more work (like how most developers wouldn't maliciously add bugs to create more work), it does mean the incentive to make less work without a way to preserve oneself is extremely low.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Bureaucrats can either spend their time inspecting the restaurants and imagining forms to make opening them easier or inspecting paper forms and answering "yes, sir" to some micromanager. Who decides what of those they will do is their bosses (usually, politicians). If you go ask them what they prefer, you may be surprised. Or maybe not, if you go imagining they are humans.

mywittyname 4y ago

Bureaucracy is a natural outcome of maturing processes. It used to be easy to do things. But then business owners would do things that would make citizens say, "they shouldn't be able to do that." So rules/laws were made to prevent people from doing it. You can go on a mission to reduce redtape, but the results will probably be temporary. Contrary to the way some people think, these regulations aren't put into place willy-nilly, they are the natural outcome of people cheating the system and causing others harm. It's not just governments either. Anyone who has worked at a startup and a huge mega corp sees the difference in how easy it is to deploy something. Startups have no guards in place, while megacorps need sign-offs from various departments, etc.

metacritic12 4y ago
Right, the rules were put in place to reduce bad behavior. The question is, did the government accurately predict the cost of the rules / red tape itself? I think the steelman of the GP is that the red tape was not accurately predicted. Most citizens can probably agree "all else equal, we don't want a pub in the middle of a residential district open till 4am with drunkards wandering the streets". But did they also properly opening a local business should be so hard that each business effectively has a local moat, raising prices and reducing restaurant selection? Also, the opinion that unresponsive bureaucracy needs to exist seems defeatist on the side of government regulation. Why can't we design better permitting processes that both ensure crazy pubs don't open in the middle of a suburb, and yet also make opening most normal businesses a 1-day affair?
- mywittyname 4y ago
  > did the government accurately predict the cost of the rules / red tape itself? Depending on the level of government involved: probably. Economic analysis of laws/regulations are common requirements for governmental activity. As are after-the-fact analysis and comparisons to ensure a law/regulation is achieving its goal. It's part of the red-tape-for-red-tape system.
  - bkirkby 4y ago

lazyier 4y ago

"Government" is a metaphysical concept. What people call "The Government", in this case, is the Municipal Corporation of Boston. This corporation profits from a monopoly control over many aspects of people's lives and special legal privileges within its geographical boundaries. Like any other human organization it's true "purpose" and "motivation" is the collective desires of the people that run and make up that organization. Which is, mostly, going to be: Financing the life styles and political ambitions of the people running it. That is how it works once you strip away all the flowery language and idealism. People get involved in city government because it benefits them. It may be a stepping stone in a career in bigger government. Maybe they are looking for stable income, cheap benefits, and solid pension. Or cushy job they can't get fired from. Or its social status; they enjoy having power over people's lives, they enjoy having their opinions matter and being perceived as a person of importance. Lots of different motivations. The corporation's motivations are their motivations. Its purpose is their purpose. > As a result we now have a commission for bureaucracy reduction which manages several operating bodies for bureaucracy reduction, all with their own processes and guidelines. The first order of business for any bureaucracy is to ensure its own survival. Nobody wants to eliminate their own well being. Everybody wants security in their job. And everybody wants more money and a promotion, for the most part. With large very stable organizations like government corporations anybody that wants to make more money (ie: get a promotion) will usually have to wait for the guy above them to retire or quit, which can take years. Sometimes education can open doors, but mostly it's going to be people leaving the organization that have been there longer then you have. Things like seniority ensure there is very little opportunity for growth. The main opportunity for growth for a government bureaucrat is laterally... Meaning new agencies or bureaucracies need to be created that they can move into and have seniority there. So once a bureaucracy has secured its own survival the second order of business is to grow new bureaucracies. Which is exactly the pattern we see in all governments.

fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
>People get involved in city government because it benefits them. It may be a stepping stone in a career in bigger government. Maybe they are looking for stable income, cheap benefits, and solid pension. Or cushy job they can't get fired from. Or its social status; they enjoy having power over people's lives, they enjoy having their opinions matter and being perceived as a person of importance. Lots of different motivations. The corporation's motivations are their motivations. Its purpose is their purpose. You listed many reasons, and built a long argument on the implications of these reasons. Perhaps this was an oversight but it’s worth mentioning that civic engagement for its own sake is a fairly natural instinct and is arguably more important than any of the other aforementioned factors.

mrtksn 4y ago

I don't think there's a misalignment at all, the complexities come when the governments try to build water tight systems. For example, let's say that to do some specific work the law says a degree is required. Normally, a degree is something that a university gives to its successful students so it shouldn't be that big of a bureaucracy to hire someone for that job, right? firts, they start by simply taking the xerox copy of the diploma. Then someone starts hiring people without a diploma and forges a fake xerox copy and gets caught? To solve this, bureaucrats introduce a requirement for diploma registrations so they can check against fakes. Congratulation, now you have an office visit step where you go show your original diploma. Unfortunately, some people start showing fake diplomas. Once the bureaucrats catch on, they introduce a protocol with the universities to start checking the diplomas. Unfortunately, some universities say they can't accommodate that, others say they can do it moving forward but can't to for those who graduated more than 5 years ago. Also, some people studied abroad, others have their institutions merged or seized to exits. Congratulation, now you have multiple ways to accomplish the same thing. You will need to fill the correct form.

bkirkby 4y ago
What you describe is the exact reason we should question your very premise. "For example, let's say that to do some specific the law says a degree is required." Why is the government in the business of requiring degrees for financial transactions? Maybe that's valid for a doctor, but it's certainly not valid for a hair dresser.
- InefficientRed 4y ago
  To be fair, parent mentioned "university", and I'm fairly certain that universities don't train hair dressers, so presumably he was thinking of things like engineers, lawyers, and medical professionals. I also find the educational requirements for hairdressing to be rather perplexing.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    Yep, it's very common to require certain degrees and qualifications to be able to sigh off projects and stuff in some industries. It's a way to make sure that a job is done properly without need for a thorough audit every time.

mylons 4y ago

this phenomenon also happens within businesses and in a more bizarre fashion. look at all the layers of management a startup will slap on at some point in it’s life because it’s commonplace at other companies and Google. look at the processes like Jira, stand ups, sprint planning, etc etc that the management class will institute and defend because it creates work and meaning for their position.

throwaway12603 4y ago

The problem is not necessarily the individual bureaucrats. They're annoying and add unnecessary complexity/paperwork. It goes a level deeper than that... The problem is entrepreneurial support organizations (typically organized as a "non-profit") that the government awards economic development grants to, who are then supposed to support the entrepreneurs. These are often incubators, accelerators and/or venture support/investment organizations. Universities sometimes fill this role as well. These organizations take a MASSIVE cut of the funding to cover their "overhead" before any money goes to the entrepreneurs. The amount of the allotted government funding that goes to entrepreneurs to actually grow their business is tiny after the various "non profit" organizations get their hands on it. I've seen state funded business plan pitch competitions that cost far in excess of $2M to put on their annual pitch event, with teams of 5+ employees "working" full-time on them. I've seen a party planner get paid $195k to put on a one-time demo day for 300 people. I've seen consultants get hired for $15k to put on a one-day sales workshop for founders. A successful founder paid $170k to give a speech at a demo day. Universities charging 53% overhead rates to run government funded programs. Program directors paid $200k+ to work on an accelerator that runs for 3 months of the year. I could go on and on. All of this was government funded in the name of "economic development." How many of us on HN could start a brand new business if we got even a fraction of this funding instead of wasting it on pomp and circumstance that masquerades as economic development? I guess the bureaucrats could/should realize this is a waste and put a stop to it, so perhaps it is back to being their fault. But these "non profit" orgs whose mission is to "support entrepreneurs" have no qualms about pulling up to the trough of government fundings and sucking it dry before it goes to actual entrepreneurs... (Source: I've seen this spending first-hand since I work at once of these places, which is why I'm posting this under a newly created alt account. Trying to do my tiny part to stop it, but it's systemic and hard to change.)

InefficientRed 4y ago
This is all absolutely true. "Economic development" is a weird world. There is a logic: elected officials want to be seen as supporting new business growth but of course can't literally invest taxpayer money in seed rounds. It's not reasonable or sane, of course, but that's why it happens... Anyways, I think that sort of thing is mostly in the past by now? I don't see it happening much around here anymore. Perhaps there's a new grift.

dredmorbius 4y ago

Keep in mind that a heavy burden on opening new restaurants also serves all existing restaurants. That is, if you've an extant operation, barriers to entry are in your own interest. This makes the constituency for strong regulation not only all diners, but all existing restaurants, with the constituency against strong regulation being whomever happens to be currently trying to open a new restaurant in the area. Balance of power goes to obstruction. See also Mancur Olsen's classic "The Logic of Collective Action" (both a short paper which captures the essence, and a book which dives into greater detail and more examples).

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> Governments as an abstract entity might have an interest in thriving entrepreneurship and economic growth, but the individual bureaucrats they employ do not. And its those Bureaucrats that design and apply processes. This is exactly same in corporations - they are also full of bureocrats. I can spend 5 grand on AWS rltomorriw and noone will raise an eyebrow but we arent allowed to get a rmmmtablet to test the application qewe are developing actually works as intended

pontifier 4y ago

Maybe it's the real reason Rome fell? People couldn't get the permits required to do the work to fix the problems that needed fixing, or it was just easier to just go start over in a place that let you raise your goats or whatever in peace without needing to fill out 92 forms for each one.