• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

is it universally agreed that government is inefficient?

?

  • right leaning - yes, govt is inefficient

  • right leaning - no, govt is not inefficient

  • left leaning - yes, govt is inefficient

  • left leaning - no, govt is not inefficient

  • centrist - yes, govt is inefficient

  • centrist - no, govt is not inefficient

Results are only viewable after voting.
B

BlahBlahYouToo

Lifer
layers and layers of bureaucracy, excess, unnecessary red tape and waste, isolated from market competition so there's no incentive to operate more efficiently, etc.

is there any argument against this?
enlighten me please.
 
yes, government is a big part of the problem and not a solution. no one has the balls to shrink it. we will look like greece and italy in a few more years. we cannot sustain the debt we are in.
 
BlahBlahYouToo said:
layers and layers of bureaucracy, excess, unnecessary red tape and waste, isolated from market competition so there's no incentive to operate more efficiently, etc.

is there any argument against this?
enlighten me please.
Click to expand...

Medicare has lower overhead than private insurance.
The government spends $400K per year to hire a President and CEO of the entire federal government. Corporations spend upwards of $100 Million to hire a president and CEO of a much smaller organization.
 
The co equal braches of government was designed to be inefficient.

Dictatorships are efficient.

As for the size of government people who bitch the loudest about shrinking it's size love it's size when one of their pet concerns is involved.
 
Modern governments were designed to be inefficient. Bureaucracies in particular evolved to be large, slow, inefficient, and inhumane to make it difficult for any one group or individual to corrupt the system. The same reason a CEO doesn't just take the word of their accountants, but demands strict records and oversight and designs the system to make it difficult for any individual or small group of individuals to steal from the company. The same reason when you go to the movies or ride a train the person taking your tickets is supposed to deface them or rip them in half. The same reason people use banks instead of just stuffing their money in the mattress.
 
Last edited:
Absolutist bullshit.

Little is so simple for blanket condemnation nor applause.

Efficiency depends upon management, responsibility, and oversight.

In all forms and levels and government and through to private business varying levels of ineffiency may be present.

The partisan and dumbed down level of economics and politics of this thread is juvenile.

Inefficiency in government? A democracy? The public ultimately gets the government it deserves.

Thread over.
 
Hay I would like to see a 100% tax on Xmas trees . maybe people would stop buying them . Its time to hang satan claws out to dry.
 
Government is inefficient because government always seeks to most political opportunist route to all its actions. That is mainly that government tries to hide the effects of the true cost of what is being taxed, regulated or mandated and in doing so it enacts unintended consequences which can stem from even "good intentions". The debt card fee regulation debacle recently passed, the mandates to guarantee student loans which have had the effect of raising tuition fees in colleges/universities, government mandates which prohibited unqualified borrowers from being rejected by banks on home loans, etc are good examples of this point.
 
Whiskey16 said:
Absolutist bullshit.

Little is so simple for blanket condemnation nor applause.

Efficiency depends upon management, responsibility, and oversight.

In all forms and levels and government and through to private business varying levels of ineffiency may be present.

The partisan and dumbed down level of economics and politics of this thread is juvenile.

Inefficiency in government? A democracy? The public ultimately gets the government it deserves.

Thread over.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree. Example

Dictator decides he wants to invade another country. He just gives the order and it gets executed. It isn't what anyone wants but it's damned efficient.

If the United States decides to do this no matter how well run the current administration our system of checks and balances almost guarentees executing an order of invasion will take some time
 
HomerJS said:
Completely disagree. Example

Dictator decides he wants to invade another country. He just gives the order and it gets executed. It isn't what anyone wants but it's damned efficient.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean he would win or that producers in his economy will meet the demands/goals he sets if there are actual shortages of certain resources in the economy or that if he manages the economy toward his directed goals that their won't be inefficiencies elsewhere, i.e. shortages in non-war related goods and services that effect the lives of all the people living under him.

If the United States decides to do this no matter how well run the current administration our system of checks and balances almost guarentees executing an order of invasion will take some time
Click to expand...

If you plan to do anything correctly it going to take tame and effort. This point is pretty meaningless and doesn't really address why government is inefficient.

Hint the reasons stem from government not being in a position to learn from its mistakes (fuck it we'll just print/borrow more money!) and not being able or willing to foresee the consequences and costs of their actions which is especially apparent in a government controlled economy.
 
HomerJS, beyond your historically failed distinction that the USA has not or cannot invade another state upon only the whim of the executive, the speed at which and order is executed does not necessarily negate the end game level of a branch's efficiency.

This thread is littered with the ignorantly populist dogma so present in the USA that only private enitites may procure, manage, and implement better.

Absolutist bullshit.

It's often management rather than style of structure. Hold the management accountable and suitably replace and regulate.
 
Last edited:
Whiskey16 said:
HomerJS, beyond your historically failed distinction that the USA has not or cannot invade another state upon only the whim of the executive, the speed at which and order is executed does not necessarily negate the end game level of a branch's efficiency.

This thread is littered with the ignorantly populist dogma so present in the USA that only private enitites may procure, manage, and implement better.

Absolutist bullshit.

It's often management rather than style of structure. Hold the management accountable and suitably replace and regulate.
Click to expand...

What you just described whether intended or not was the Iraq War and the results post "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier.

My analogy was just on executing an order of invasion. What happens after was not intended to be included.


Here's another example...

King wants to enact a 10% increase in income tax. Order is given and executed.

President wants to raise income tax 10%, well just go ahead and try
 
very inefficient.... and corrupt. it's not that nobody has the balls to, it's the status quo is very strong, and everyone who goes against it is likely out of a job
 
HomerJS said:
The co equal braches of government was designed to be inefficient.

Dictatorships are efficient.

As for the size of government people who bitch the loudest about shrinking it's size love it's size when one of their pet concerns is involved.
Click to expand...

I vote for this answer.
 
Government is by it's very nature incredibly inefficient in some ways, and not in others. The lack of competition and pressure to reduce expenses inevitably leads to inefficiency and bloat. The reality is that some of that inefficiency is unavoidable and possibly even desirable in specific instances.
 
BlahBlahYouToo said:
layers and layers of bureaucracy, excess, unnecessary red tape and waste, isolated from market competition so there's no incentive to operate more efficiently, etc.

is there any argument against this?
enlighten me please.
Click to expand...
Government is not a homogeneous entity. Parts of it are horribly inefficient. Other parts are run quite well. Most muddle along somewhere in the middle. The same is true of large corporations.

Your poll needs a "sometimes" option.
 
Government is naturally inefficient. It's that way because it's not for profit--it doesn't have to worry about being inefficient because it can never go out of business.

Public private partnerships are just as bad because they aren't a voluntary contract. I don't consent to the wars, so Halliburton taking money from people and places that could be improving the quality of life is not a voluntary contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top