You're right Enron is a horrible example because they are out of business...CTA(like just about every public transit system) still sucking up $$$...
See how that works...inefficent corrupt private business---closed. Inefficient corrupt govt program still open and eating money.
How's Amtrak doing?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Sorry Cad, but you're wrong on two fronts. First, your cynical view of government is based on your ideology and is, at best, overly broad. More importantly, your idealized view of the private sector doesn't hold up to the real world behavior of companies, especially huge conglomerates that can be as bureaucratic and disconnected from accountability as any government horror story you've been indoctrinated with. Not only do you have units within big companies inventing all sorts of inflated metrics to justify their size, but one can point to endless examples of entrenched industries with either obsolete products or business models lobbying government to preserve their existence.
Most corporate welfare essentially subsidizes companies trying to prolong something the free market won't support. Also look at the entertainment industry, e.g. the RIAA and MPAA, and their inevitably futile efforts to maintain the duplication and distribution monopolies they enjoyed for a century or so. Look at the American auto industry. Look at big oil. Look at American agriculture industries like sugar. The list is endless. These aren't industries that are trying to change and become more efficient. They're being dragged into the 21st century kicking and screaming, doing everything they can to protect their outdated products and business models.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
That's another non sequitur. That our politicians lack the political will to properly fund programs has nothing to do with how efficient those programs may or may not be. Further, once again, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Finally, Social Security isn't threatening to bankrupt America at all, but that's a topic for another thread.
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Pretty good example. I don't recall ever hearing the IRS accused of waste or inefficiency (not that I've ever gone out and looked for it), and their employees don't have the reputation of slacking.
On the other hand, how much is .5% of the IRS gross receipts?
The IRS is probably one of the worst run agencies, but it is not all their fault. The have wasted billions trying to overhaul their computer system and after several attempts, they still have not done it.
They also deal will a very complex tax code, which makes it difficult to get correct answers for tax payers.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I won't continue to indulge your lack of logical reasoning skills. One can point to examples of both bad government and bad business organizations that survive, and examples of both that have not. One cannot generalize to all of government, or all of business -- or all of anything for that matter -- based on one or two individual examples. If that concept is beyond you, trying to have a productive discussion with you is pointless.
The contracts often demand that the contractors be on site. Which drags the contractors down into the government inefficient work place.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Yes it does. Because in the end, it is those politicians who manage those programs. It is they who decide how much funding they get and how much funding they need based on what they are supposed to do.
Well I didn't say SS alone, but it and Medicare combined are. Is that a topic for another thread? Perhaps, but why debate the efficiency of government programs without mentioning the biggest two?
No, the reason is they don't have any competition and thus don't have to worry much about efficiency.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
But that's not measuring efficiency, it's measuring funding. They are two different things.
Perhaps because the topic is whether it is possible for government to run ANY program well, not just the one you want to cherry-pick as a bad example. This thread is full of people who condemn all of government based on their favorite government horror stories. It is just as dumb, and just as wrong as condemning all companies, or all blacks, or all Republicans, or all -insert your pet class or organization here- based on the actions of one or two members of that class or organization.
The United Kingdom's NHS delivers health care at about 1/4 (last I checked) the cost of health care delivered in the USA. So, which system is run more efficiently?
The problem with your false conundrum is this: Systems are run by people. It doesn't matter if the system is a corporation, a small business, or the Defense Department. We are reliant upon GOOD PEOPLE, much more than we are reliant upon POOR SYSTEMS. Are there poor systems? I personally think COMMUNISM has terminal failiings in terms of efficacy, but many people today are saying that CAPITALISM is a poor system and its failings are now very apparent. But, they would be wrong for the same reason you are now blaming government.
What we have worldwide is poor government, not great government. Very few of our governments are run well because very few really talented people want to serve.
Tom Daschle, who one might think was in the corner of the common man, was swanning around in a limo with a driver he didn't pay for. In Washington, D.C., this is the order of the day. Where's my limo driver? Parking space? I don't want a parking space, I want a limo driver, plus my own 10,000 employee fiefdom.
The problem with government, just like the problem with Wall Street, is a lack of sound judgement, good values, and a genuine desire to help one's fellow man while helping onself. Where are the men like the ones who got America through World War II? They are nowhere in sight.....
Values count for more than systems. Which is why we are fucked.
-Robert
The problem with your false conundrum is this: Systems are run by people. It doesn't matter if the system is a corporation, a small business, or the Defense Department. We are reliant upon GOOD PEOPLE, much more than we are reliant upon POOR SYSTEMS. Are there poor systems? I personally think COMMUNISM has terminal failiings in terms of efficacy, but many people today are saying that CAPITALISM is a poor system and its failings are now very apparent. But, they would be wrong for the same reason you are now blaming government.
What we have worldwide is poor government, not great government. Very few of our governments are run well because very few really talented people want to serve.
Tom Daschle, who one might think was in the corner of the common man, was swanning around in a limo with a driver he didn't pay for. In Washington, D.C., this is the order of the day. Where's my limo driver? Parking space? I don't want a parking space, I want a limo driver, plus my own 10,000 employee fiefdom.
The problem with government, just like the problem with Wall Street, is a lack of sound judgement, good values, and a genuine desire to help one's fellow man while helping onself. Where are the men like the ones who got America through World War II? They are nowhere in sight.....
Values count for more than systems. Which is why we are fucked.
-Robert
So, in your world if say the FDA does a good job today of protecting the food and drug supply then tomorrow they should disband?
I think you would be hard pressed to find any major government program that was planned to end. Not because of some grand conspiracy but because of a continuing need.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The topic question is too black-and-white. There are a few things govt can and should do and many that it shouldn't. For example, I wouldn't want the courts or police to be privately owned by competing entities. There'd be no uniform rule of law. Private military isn't so good either. Private fire depts wouldn't be so hot either (hard to bargain a good deal when your house is burning to the ground). The postal system seems to work fine, for the most part it even turns a profit. So yes, it is possible for govt to run something well and efficiently. The greater issue is what govt should be limited to doing so that the rest of us can be free to doing everything else. And exactly that, limited govt, is the idea our country was founded upon. Not no govt. Not everything govt. Limited govt.
SS doesn't have an roi because it is a payment from the generation of people who are currently working for the debt they owe to people of their parent's generation. Those are the folks that paid for their education, training and upbringing. It is a debt payment.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
SS is effectively a Ponzi scheme that will never have to worry about drumming up new investors. My complaint about it isn't so much the coercion of it all as it is the way it enslaves today's hardworking young for the benefit of the spent-it-all-in-their-youth old. So okay, yeah, I guess it is the coercion.
Postal is one of the few areas our government seems does fine. But what other area is our government doing a good job running with good result? Education? Food Safety? Airport Security? Managing our nation's budget?
No it's not beyond me, I just have seen too much government not work well or at all. There are somethings that they can do, but most of the time the private sector works better, faster and cheaper.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Kind of a random though, but I wonder if it would be a good idea to create a government agency with the sole purpose of reviewing efficiency within other agencies (and yes, I realize the irony of creating more government to try and reduce government waste ). Seems like new programs are created and there's just little oversight after that with regards to administrative and other costs.
I think part of the problem is special interests in DC. Politicians just do not want to make the tough decisions that might hurt some people, but would be better for the country as a whole. For example, health care would probably be more affordable if we reduced physicians wages by forcing medical schools to increase or eliminate quotas. And do something about tort law, because malpractice insurance is just nuts. Lawyers and insurance companies will lose out, but they'll live. It just blows my mind that European and other countries can implement UHC for a fraction of the cost of our health care system. Other countries have proven that efficient government is possible, we need to figure out what they're doing right and implement similar programs here.
). Seems like new programs are created and there's just little oversight after that with regards to administrative and other costs.I think part of the problem is special interests in DC. Politicians just do not want to make the tough decisions that might hurt some people, but would be better for the country as a whole. For example, health care would probably be more affordable if we reduced physicians wages by forcing medical schools to increase or eliminate quotas. And do something about tort law, because malpractice insurance is just nuts. Lawyers and insurance companies will lose out, but they'll live. It just blows my mind that European and other countries can implement UHC for a fraction of the cost of our health care system. Other countries have proven that efficient government is possible, we need to figure out what they're doing right and implement similar programs here.
I'd say the UC system is run damn well, all things considered, and it's a (state) government program. In fact, most public universities are run very efficiently.
Also, the NSF and DOE are run pretty efficiently. There are some overhead costs, but no more than any major organization has.
There are countless programs in countless countries that are not only run efficiently, but tend to make a fair bit of profit in the process.
Anyone who defines things in absolutes like that ("the government can NEVER run efficient programs") is incompetent on a level that is incomprehensible to most of us. If you dislike how the government does things so much, why aren't you stepping up and doing something about it?
Also, the NSF and DOE are run pretty efficiently. There are some overhead costs, but no more than any major organization has.
There are countless programs in countless countries that are not only run efficiently, but tend to make a fair bit of profit in the process.
Anyone who defines things in absolutes like that ("the government can NEVER run efficient programs") is incompetent on a level that is incomprehensible to most of us. If you dislike how the government does things so much, why aren't you stepping up and doing something about it?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter