|
|
#11
06-25-2005, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Uh oh... Ashcroft Gone and the moral decline begins
LOL
I suppose everything is wasteful (is there anything (in the business world, animal kingdom, etc) that operates at peak 100% efficiency? Well... I certainly agree OUR government is unlikely to ever not be wasteful. But why not strive to at least improve it. I think a good start is, when someone spends $8K on drapes, fire that person publicly and broadcast on national news (as an example) that this is unnacceptable. Maybe little by little, it gets a little less wasteful. I'm an idealist. 
|
|
#14
06-25-2005, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Uh oh... Ashcroft Gone and the moral decline begins
I'm combining a response to two seperate previous posts.
[ QUOTE ] OUR government may be wasteful, but that's not to say its 'inerent'. I think there's been a long increase in institutional wastefulness over time. There's nothing that says someone in government couldn't have scruples. ... If Betsy Ross was around today and we needed a flag, it would have cost $1.4 million to design it. (the fact that it didn't cost that back then shows the wastefulness is NOT inherent... its something people have worked at!) [/ QUOTE ] and [ QUOTE ] Well... I certainly agree OUR government is unlikely to ever not be wasteful. But why not strive to at least improve it. I think a good start is, when someone spends $8K on drapes, fire that person publicly and broadcast on national news (as an example) that this is unnacceptable. [/ QUOTE ] You guys are both looking at this at the wrong level. Government's inherent wastefulness doesn't mean that every individual transaction they engage in is a waste of money. It's certainly possible for the government to get a good deal on a purchase (they do have a lot of volume buying power). The wastefulness doesn't even come from the overhead and bureaucracy we have. Both of those are particular features of our particular government (and many others) but neither are inherent to government in general. The wastefulness is inherent because government spending is based on taking money from the people and then making decisions about how to spend it. Usually these decisions are free from the regular market constraints that force efficiency (mostly because the person spending the money isn't the one who earned it, and therefore doesn't care as much). Anytime the government spends your money in a way that you would not have chosen to spend it had you been able to keep control of the money, there is waste.
|
|
#16
06-25-2005, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Uh oh... Ashcroft Gone and the moral decline begins
Lol. Kurto, you're far to suspicious of me! pvn pretty much nailed it. Gov't is wasteful and you would have to fire a lot of people (Reps and Dems) for their wastefulness.
On your point that gov't is like a business, I strongly disagree. A gov't can run in the red for a while. A business can't. A business has a strong motive to stay in the black, while there isn't much motivation to stay in the black for gov't. And finally, Ashcroft resigned. There are probably several reasons: stress and his health being a couple.
|
|
#17
06-25-2005, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Uh oh... Ashcroft Gone and the moral decline begins
[ QUOTE ]
The wastefulness is inherent because government spending is based on taking money from the people and then making decisions about how to spend it. Usually these decisions are free from the regular market constraints that force efficiency (mostly because the person spending the money isn't the one who earned it, and therefore doesn't care as much). Anytime the government spends your money in a way that you would not have chosen to spend it had you been able to keep control of the money, there is waste. [/ QUOTE ] I don't agree with this philosophy. There are needs we have as a nation that an individual wouldn't do on their own but benefit all: roads, our military, postal system, etc. I'm not sure 'waste' is the right word. I would agree that the government does MANY things that probably are unnecessary that are wasteful. But government can be defined as a 'need' and as it serves important functions, is not a 'waste' in and of itself.
|
|
#18
06-25-2005, 08:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Uh oh... Ashcroft Gone and the moral decline begins
[ QUOTE ]
Lol. Kurto, you're far to suspicious of me! [/ QUOTE ] Are you referring to a different post then the one you just replied to? I'm not sure what you're referring to. And, for the most part, I enjoy my interactions with you, even if we get a little heated sometime. "you would have to fire a lot of people (Reps and Dems) for their wastefulness." Sure enough. [ QUOTE ] A gov't can run in the red for a while. A business can't. A business has a strong motive to stay in the black, while there isn't much motivation to stay in the black for gov't. [/ QUOTE ] Well, I can give examples where that's not the case. (at least at a limited level) When Sony launched PS2, they priced the hardware for less then the production costs. They lost money with every unit they sold. The strategy was to achieve market dominance and then hope to make up the costs through software sales. (I know Sony had other revenue, I'm just showing an example where a business can have a long term strategy where they can be successful long term knowing they'll be in the black for a period of time.) I believe there were several internet companies that took many years to make a profit. Also: Government can run a deficit, but its not necessary. Our government on the other hand is out of control.
|
|
#19
06-25-2005, 09:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Uh oh... Ashcroft Gone and the moral decline begins
[ QUOTE ]
There are needs we have as a nation that an individual wouldn't do on their own but benefit all: roads, our military, postal system, etc. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong on all three counts. The market can provide all of that, more efficiently than government. 1) Roads. Private companies have been able to build railroads and run them at a profit, why would this be less true of automobile highways (if it weren't for unfair competition in road building by the state)? 2) Defense. Here's a paper showing how ordinary market devices such as insurance and options would enable free-market common defense: http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Murphy6.pdf 3) Post office. Please. FedEx, UPS, etc. They don't handle daily mail currently (though they DO handle some of the transport of US mail from city to city), but if the subsidized post office disappeared, it's pretty easy to see them filling that void in short order.
|
|
#20
06-25-2005, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Uh oh... Ashcroft Gone and the moral decline begins
[ QUOTE ]
The strategy was to achieve market dominance and then hope to make up the costs through software sales. (I know Sony had other revenue, I'm just showing an example where a business can have a long term strategy where they can be successful long term knowing they'll be in the black for a period of time.) [/ QUOTE ] Sony had a plan to take a loss now to enable a larger future advantage. Those kinds of risks are what make big-time winners in the market. When government runs a deficit, it's not in order to leverage some opportunity to have big surpluses in the future, it's just out of laziness and inefficiency. Anyway, surpluses are just as bad (if not worse!) as deficits, as that means the government took more of your money than necessary and needs to dream up new spending plans to get rid of it instead of returning it to you.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
