4 ms·
Yea, that does seem like a reasonable way to design less corrupt mechanisms for these processes, but I think the standard way piecemeal designs like that get re
by advael 3y ago
Yea, that does seem like a reasonable way to design less corrupt mechanisms for these processes, but I think the standard way piecemeal designs like that get rejected is by arguments to "efficiency" (Nevermind that efficiencies gained by bundling require some pretty strict discipline within a firm, mostly benefit the firm, and are easily dwarfed from the government's perspective by the inefficiencies taken on by the problem we're talking about)
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoThat's the "monopolies are efficient" argument. Look, see, they can amortize their fixed costs over so many more units if they have the whole market. Claims that you can increase the efficiency of a system by reducing competition should be met with the same level of skepticism as claims that you can violate of the second law of thermodynamics. But let's try one that should get their ears to perk up. Monopoly suppliers are systemic risk, which is a threat to national security.