4 ms·

Yes. This. Municipalities everywhere are notoriously inefficient at running anything sensible that isn't burdened by politicking, group-pandering, graft and ul

Yes. This. Municipalities everywhere are notoriously inefficient at running anything sensible that isn't burdened by politicking, group-pandering, graft and ultimately riddled with short-sighted reactive decision-making. Perhaps we should ask why our governmental - local or federal - bodies are prone to these kind of malaises. Could it be that our best minds are increasingly not wanting to serve in the public sector? [1] [1] 'Pro-Government' Millennials Take Government Jobs, Discover They Suck, Move to the Private Sector http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/17/millennials-take-government-jobs-discove http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/17/millennials-take-governmen...

tormeh 12y ago
Part of it is also the political climate. If everyone in government is stereotyped as incompetent and corrupt, who do you think would want to soil their reputation by entering a government job? That's right, the people who already are incompetent and corrupt. As for the people who aren't, what are their incentives for doing their jobs honestly? They're going to be accused of incompetence and corruption anyway. (some jobs, like teaching, social work and partly policing, attracts people with idealistic personal incentives, but I'm talking about the administration) Distrust in government is a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Trust but verify" seems like a better strategy.
- dnautics 12y ago
  it's certainly a self-reinforcing prophecy, but you don't suppose there is something inherent about being able to force people to do things that attracts moralizing ninnies and those with corrupt intentions in the first place?
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Power in any form (government, church, big business) corrupts and power attracts corrupt people, yes. Thing is, power is incredibly resistant to egalitarian distributions, so someone has to have it. We just have to make the best we can out of it, and the best is substantially much better than the US government.
    - dnautics 12y ago
      economics is not a zero-sum operation, though, if two people exchange money for a service or good it is only because a person values the service or good more than the money, or vice versa. Moreover, in order to wield money as a form of power you have to be willing to give it away. This is not necessarily true of the other types of power.
      - tormeh 12y ago
        That's only true for small and medium business. If businesses become big enough, they practically speaking become part of the government except with private profits. Then there are monopolies and competitors who are a bit more coordinated than they should be. Big business' power is more limited but in return they get less oversight and a lot more independence. It evens out. There are many situations where corporations can take your money without permission. A monopoly in a sector you can't do without or a company willing to work the government are obvious examples. Far more insidious are companies who own media, as shown by Berlusconi, Greek oligarchs, Fox News et. al.

tormeh 12y ago

Part of it is also the political climate. If everyone in government is stereotyped as incompetent and corrupt, who do you think would want to soil their reputation by entering a government job? That's right, the people who already are incompetent and corrupt. As for the people who aren't, what are their incentives for doing their jobs honestly? They're going to be accused of incompetence and corruption anyway. (some jobs, like teaching, social work and partly policing, attracts people with idealistic personal incentives, but I'm talking about the administration) Distrust in government is a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Trust but verify" seems like a better strategy.

dnautics 12y ago
it's certainly a self-reinforcing prophecy, but you don't suppose there is something inherent about being able to force people to do things that attracts moralizing ninnies and those with corrupt intentions in the first place?
- tormeh 12y ago
  Power in any form (government, church, big business) corrupts and power attracts corrupt people, yes. Thing is, power is incredibly resistant to egalitarian distributions, so someone has to have it. We just have to make the best we can out of it, and the best is substantially much better than the US government.
  - dnautics 12y ago
    economics is not a zero-sum operation, though, if two people exchange money for a service or good it is only because a person values the service or good more than the money, or vice versa. Moreover, in order to wield money as a form of power you have to be willing to give it away. This is not necessarily true of the other types of power.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      That's only true for small and medium business. If businesses become big enough, they practically speaking become part of the government except with private profits. Then there are monopolies and competitors who are a bit more coordinated than they should be. Big business' power is more limited but in return they get less oversight and a lot more independence. It evens out. There are many situations where corporations can take your money without permission. A monopoly in a sector you can't do without or a company willing to work the government are obvious examples. Far more insidious are companies who own media, as shown by Berlusconi, Greek oligarchs, Fox News et. al.