Hacker News Reader

Comment by alwaysdoit | Hacker News Reader

>Government is the least efficient allocator of resources.

This is baseless dogma. Government may not always be the most efficient allocator, but it's not always the least efficient either. In cases of positive and negative externalities, the market does not allocate ideally.

We need to move past this dogma of "All government is bad government" so that we can separate the good from the bad. Good rules are helpful. Bad rules are harmful. When we have low expectations of our government, we will unsurprisingly have low outcomes.

View on HN

I think what nugget is getting at, is there are many government programs that are mismanaged (welfare, social security, education to some extent, and others). Who legitimately feels good that they pay taxes only to see other Americans living off of Welfare, generations unemployed, living off of welfare (which btw, I consider to be fraud). People that live on welfare (no, not people who use the program as it was intended, as temporary help), don't pay taxes and the benefit from those of us that do pay taxes.

When confronted with situations like the one described above, any rational person would wonder why we want higher taxes, when we should really be focusing on reforming our broken social programs. Only then, when we take legitimate steps to reform our broken social programs, should we be considering higher taxes.

Broken by what measure? Relative to what? Is the government mismanaged compared to say Google? The federal agency I worked for was a much tighter-run ship than the startup I worked for, or the medium-sized tech company I worked for. I'd wager the federal government, or at least most of it, is better-run than most small and medium sized businesses in the US. The caliber of people in most of the agencies is just extremely high compared to what you usually see at all but the top private sector companies.

Many areas of the federal government are actually pretty good by commercial standards (at least for caliber of employee), but most state governments are by comparison pretty horrible (particularly California). However, they're much more concerned with fairness and being abused by third parties, since they aren't as constrained to succeed or die. It is better for an employee of a government entity to follow process 100% correctly and ultimately fail than to take a calculated risk outside of normal process and fail, even if the expected return on the riskier path is far higher, or odds of failure lower. Startups are exactly the opposite, since they die by default. Big businesses are somewhere in between -- a new product failing usually won't kill the business if it fails cleanly, but could if enough corners are cut.

The ultimate difference between private firms and government is that a private firm which is seriously screwed up will go out of business. A government agency can continue being dysfunctional for a long time (e.g. the Office of Thrift Supervision). The other big difference is that when a government entity is incompetent, it tends to hurt others a lot more than when a single commercial firm is incompetent.

I gave you +1 for middlebrow dismissal, you ignored the point I made and simply compared government to the private sector. I don't care how great the private sector manages their business, that is not the topic of discussion. Maybe you should stop wearing your ass as a hat and make a relevant comparison like between our governments and other governments, or between our govt today and our govt 20 years. Comparing apples and oranges isn't an argument. Still, plus 1 for Middlebrow dismissal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com