4 ms·

It depends on what you consider government functions, but I'd be cautious as well. And while the German's government eventual recognition that fax machines are

It depends on what you consider government functions, but I'd be cautious as well. And while the German's government eventual recognition that fax machines are no longer the state of the art is an extreme case, I believe it's exemplifies the problem. Private companies, both large and small, have done that much earlier. Those profits they're chasing above all else are a powerful driver for innovation and optimization.

surgical_fire 2y ago
> Those profits they're chasing above all else are a powerful driver for innovation and optimization. They are also a powerful driver for exploitation both of employees and of the general public. Be careful with what you wish for. I certainly prefer dealing with a public sector that still operate on fax machines but that still may fundamentally work for the public good (as inefficient as it may be), than with a corporation that would bleed me dry if it would means some asshole CEO makes a few extra bucks in his annual comp.
- luckylion 2y ago
  > They are also a powerful driver for exploitation both of employees and of the general public. Yes, but you'll always have that. An average person working for the government, be that as an employee or as an official, will optimize their work load and try to do the minimum amount required. That's individually much less of a problem than that greedy CEO you envision, but it adds up in large numbers and becomes a problem if not corrected - and there's no strong incentive to correct it when you play with the infinite money hack enabled. Human nature has to be taken into account either way. It's just a lot easier when you acknowledge that it exists. Massively oversimplified: that's why the Soviets had to build walls to make it hard for their people to leave and murder those who tried. You can ignore human nature, but human nature won't ignore you.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    > Yes, but you'll always have that. An average person working for the government, be that as an employee or as an official, will optimize their work load and try to do the minimum amount required. Except that is not really my observation of someone that dealt with the public sector extensively in multiple different countries. More often than not I dealt with people that were really trying to do a good job and were helpful to an extent. Yes, there are lazy people that just want to coast (as if those don't exist in the private sector) and there is a level of corruption (also let's pretend that there's no corruption in the private sector). But that is definitely not the majority, especially in countries that more or less work. > That's individually much less of a problem than that greedy CEO you envision, but it adds up in large numbers and becomes a problem if not corrected Again, I disagree. The profit seeking and inherent greet of the any corporation creates a fundamental adversarial condition that is unsolvable. What is good for a corporation tends to almost always be bad for the general public. And there is no incentive to place constraints on the greed of corporations besides government regulations. > Massively oversimplified: that's why the Soviets had to build walls to make it hard for their people to leave and murder those who tried. You can ignore human nature, but human nature won't ignore you. You mention the Soviet Union as an example of a government that worked against the people, ignoring plenty of good examples in different countries. And I am not really the one ignoring human nature when you are essentially willing to surrender the public good to relentless greed. Greed only begets more greed. You would do well to remember that
    - luckylion 2y ago
      > You mention the Soviet Union as an example of a government that worked against the people, ignoring plenty of good examples in different countries. No, that's not what I meant. I mentioned them because they are the largest experiment in having everything run by the state and ignoring human nature (or, in their case, thinking they could change it by pretending it didn't exist for 20 years). The outcome was people voting with their feet and leaving. And because that's terrible PR and they needed the people to stay, they had to build walls to keep them in. But that's not because they were "working against the people", it's because their assumptions were deeply flawed. > And I am not really the one ignoring human nature when you are essentially willing to surrender the public good to relentless greed. What public good? You mean public services? Why would I pay amount X for garbage collection if someone comes up with a better system and can do it for half of that amount? Currency is a placeholder for resources, why wouldn't you choose the more resource-efficient way? Would it be "greedy" to replace inefficient ways?

surgical_fire 2y ago

> Those profits they're chasing above all else are a powerful driver for innovation and optimization. They are also a powerful driver for exploitation both of employees and of the general public. Be careful with what you wish for. I certainly prefer dealing with a public sector that still operate on fax machines but that still may fundamentally work for the public good (as inefficient as it may be), than with a corporation that would bleed me dry if it would means some asshole CEO makes a few extra bucks in his annual comp.

luckylion 2y ago
> They are also a powerful driver for exploitation both of employees and of the general public. Yes, but you'll always have that. An average person working for the government, be that as an employee or as an official, will optimize their work load and try to do the minimum amount required. That's individually much less of a problem than that greedy CEO you envision, but it adds up in large numbers and becomes a problem if not corrected - and there's no strong incentive to correct it when you play with the infinite money hack enabled. Human nature has to be taken into account either way. It's just a lot easier when you acknowledge that it exists. Massively oversimplified: that's why the Soviets had to build walls to make it hard for their people to leave and murder those who tried. You can ignore human nature, but human nature won't ignore you.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  > Yes, but you'll always have that. An average person working for the government, be that as an employee or as an official, will optimize their work load and try to do the minimum amount required. Except that is not really my observation of someone that dealt with the public sector extensively in multiple different countries. More often than not I dealt with people that were really trying to do a good job and were helpful to an extent. Yes, there are lazy people that just want to coast (as if those don't exist in the private sector) and there is a level of corruption (also let's pretend that there's no corruption in the private sector). But that is definitely not the majority, especially in countries that more or less work. > That's individually much less of a problem than that greedy CEO you envision, but it adds up in large numbers and becomes a problem if not corrected Again, I disagree. The profit seeking and inherent greet of the any corporation creates a fundamental adversarial condition that is unsolvable. What is good for a corporation tends to almost always be bad for the general public. And there is no incentive to place constraints on the greed of corporations besides government regulations. > Massively oversimplified: that's why the Soviets had to build walls to make it hard for their people to leave and murder those who tried. You can ignore human nature, but human nature won't ignore you. You mention the Soviet Union as an example of a government that worked against the people, ignoring plenty of good examples in different countries. And I am not really the one ignoring human nature when you are essentially willing to surrender the public good to relentless greed. Greed only begets more greed. You would do well to remember that
  - luckylion 2y ago
    > You mention the Soviet Union as an example of a government that worked against the people, ignoring plenty of good examples in different countries. No, that's not what I meant. I mentioned them because they are the largest experiment in having everything run by the state and ignoring human nature (or, in their case, thinking they could change it by pretending it didn't exist for 20 years). The outcome was people voting with their feet and leaving. And because that's terrible PR and they needed the people to stay, they had to build walls to keep them in. But that's not because they were "working against the people", it's because their assumptions were deeply flawed. > And I am not really the one ignoring human nature when you are essentially willing to surrender the public good to relentless greed. What public good? You mean public services? Why would I pay amount X for garbage collection if someone comes up with a better system and can do it for half of that amount? Currency is a placeholder for resources, why wouldn't you choose the more resource-efficient way? Would it be "greedy" to replace inefficient ways?