4 ms·
I agree with your views regarding less government being a good thing. Just in case some take pride in the number you provided I want to take a moment to put it
by robomartin 13y ago
I agree with your views regarding less government being a good thing. Just in case some take pride in the number you provided I want to take a moment to put it into some context.
> The 2012 Federal government expenditures were 3.54 trillion. Right off the top, the Federal government accounts for 22.6%
We thankfully have a canonical example that exposes just how bad government can be: Obamacare.
Government is the only organization on the planet that can take a website that could not possibly cost more than one to five million (as a ridiculous maximum) and turn it into a disaster costing upwards of a billion dollars. Think about THAT for a moment. It took government A BILLION DOLLARS just to make a website that the private sector could have delivered for A THOUSAND TIMES less money and in a third of the time. And, of course, it would have worked as required on day one.
I am not going to propose government money utilization is a thousand times less efficient than in the private sector across all domains. If I had to guess, based on my direct experience selling to various government agencies and seeing just how convoluted the process can become, I'd say the private sector is 50 to 100 times more efficient at everything. The exception, of course, is killing people and spying on the population.
I'll go with 100 times for easy numbers. This means whatever government accomplished with 3.54 trillion could have been done privately for a mere 35 billion. Even if I am off by a factor of ten this is still a major difference.
This means that this 22.6% participation is mostly money being burned. The actual real impact of government is probably somewhere in the the 2% or less range.
To use the lovely Obamacare canonical government-incompetence-and-waste example. Ask yourself this question: What could we have done with a billion dollars if instead of letting government burn it to try to build a website we had given five million of that to a qualified private entity to build the site and devoted $995 billion to, say, medical research or other massively valuable causes? Right. They just burned money that could have funded the discovery of a cure for Cancer and who knows what else.
You have to consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY...
and then this:
http://nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ http://nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-1...
Hard to argue that the money is being spent with both discretion and intelligence. I point you to the 57% in military spending our many wars, pointless foreign aid, Solyndra and the inability to even manage the development of a website as proof.
No. Less government is better for all of us.
- wrongc0ntinent 13y agoYour argument only addresses money/economy. Your conclusion is not warranted.
- robomartin 13y agoReally? Without money/economy you have, I don't know, Afganistan? Like it or not prosperity isn't driven by government programs. It is driven by private sector economic activity. Unless we are talking Start Trek utopia this is how the world turns today and will continue to do so for quite some time. My conclusion is supported by fact, data and experience beyond what could be covered in a twenty line HN post. Government, as currently devolved in the US, is very much the problem. The solution is less of it. Radically less. Everywhere.
- wrongc0ntinent 13y agoAfghanistan's poppy production amounted to $4 billion in exports in 2007[0]. [0]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanist...
- bane 13y agoSupply some data please. The only "data" you've attempted to provide so far was off by a factor of around 7.
- coldtea 13y ago>Think about THAT for a moment. It took government A BILLION DOLLARS just to make a website that the private sector could have delivered for A THOUSAND TIMES less money and in a third of the time. Well, I don't know. The private sectors seems willing to pay 3 BILLION DOLLARS for a BS message/photo sharing app (Snapchat) that one could have built in 6 months with 2-3 man years of effort. Compared to the trivialness of that, the healthcare website is rocket science.
- pswilson14 13y ago