3 ms·
> getting rid of government agencies that do X rarely means that we get less X. Do you have any examples where that has been the case? >The fact that you woul
by LeafItAlone 1y ago
> getting rid of government agencies that do X rarely means that we get less X.
Do you have any examples where that has been the case?
>The fact that you would be perfectly happy choosing a more annoying appliance for lower overall energy consumption is merely validation of my belief that
I have re-read my own comment multiple times and I am not seeing where I said that I would be an annoying appliance at all. In fact, I say the exact opposite that the appliance is doing exactly what I would want it to do for trade offs. Are you replying to the wrong comment?
- timr 1y ago> Do you have any examples where that has been the case? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but the department of education comes to mind as a bureaucracy that has no net influence on the amount of education occurring. (not totally fair, since the department of education is little more than an inefficient way of allocating block grants, but it's a particularly amusing example.)