is it universally agreed that government is inefficient?

[monovillage]

Just so we're clear, you think it is impossible that some company somewhere is more inefficient than the government?

Oh gosh, since you put it that way...... then yes, somewhere, someplace there may just possibly be a business that is as inefficient as the government. Of course it would be out of business in short order, but it's possible.

 

[homercles337]

Government inefficiency was a lie dreamed up by the conservatives in an effort to hand more of your money over to the for-profit private sector. Government does things the private sector will not do, either you accept this truism and discuss this topic like adults, or youre a rabid, ignorant right-wing hack that is intellectually dishonest. I have never heard of, nor know of any service that the government "contracted out" to a for-profit private business that is now more efficient or provides better (or even equal service). Government services are NOT business.

 

[Ninjahedge]

It is the governments responsibility to help distribute the fertilizer, not produce the shit.

 

[dank69]

Oh gosh, since you put it that way...... then yes, somewhere, someplace there may just possibly be a business that is as inefficient as the government. Of course it would be out of business in short order, but it's possible.

And once again, I reply that you are incredibly naive.

 

[Atreus21]

Competition gets things done, and that brings about greater efficiency. Monopolies have little incentive to compete, and therefore become inefficient.

 

[Atreus21]

And once again, I reply that you are incredibly naive.

What company can you point to that is more inefficient than government that still is in business...that has not been kept artificially afloat by bailouts?

 

[Jaskalas]

You want efficiency, give full power to the American states. Then they can compete against each other where successful policy can be unimpeded and distinguish itself for the others to follow.

 

[Ninjahedge]

50 independent autonomous governments all trying to work things out.

Yeah. that will be MUCH more efficient.

Populace: "I want a bullet train from NY to Philly!!"

Bridge Troll: "I'm sorry, we can only go as far as Hoboken, then you need to take a bus to Camden, and a Ferry across to Penn's Landing....."

 

[monovillage]

And once again, I reply that you are incredibly naive.

and once again, I reply, don't be an ass.

 

[woolfe9999]

Most yeah's are right or center. Big surprise eh? Asking a left leaner whether or not govt is efficient is about as efficient as govt.

And asking people on the right will yield an objective answer either?

I'm very interested in this issue actually, of why we perceive government to be so inefficient. Government, as many on the right have pointed out, is quite large. The federal government alone has thousands of departments and sub-departments that do various things. We only hear through the media the anecdotes of things that are done wrong, and with this much government activity, there's bound to be no shortage of anecdotes. Since when is it news that a department or agency pretty much does its job correctly in the day to day grind? It isn't. I think "government" has become a scapegoat for the right, an excuse for all of our collective failings.

- wolf

 

[dank69]

What company can you point to that is more inefficient than government that still is in business...that has not been kept artificially afloat by bailouts?

First of all, inefficiency is subjective, so asking me to point out a business that is more inefficient than the government is pretty stupid to begin with. What I see as inefficient, you might not, especially if you just want to disagree with me no matter what.

Secondly, I have worked for several companies that had departments that are grossly inefficient. Most bureaucracy creates inefficiency whether it is government or corporate. Jesus, haven't you guys ever read Dilbert? The whole strip is a parody of the corporate culture. I don't know why I have to explain this simple shit to you guys...

 

[monovillage]

And asking people on the right will yield an objective answer either?

I'm very interested in this issue actually, of why we perceive government to be so inefficient. Government, as many on the right have pointed out, is quite large. The federal government alone has thousands of departments and sub-departments that do various things. We only hear through the media the anecdotes of things that are done wrong, and with this much government activity, there's bound to be no shortage of anecdotes. Since when is it news that a department or agency pretty much does its job correctly in the day to day grind? It isn't. I think "government" has become a scapegoat for the right, an excuse for all of our collective failings.

- wolf

Early in the thread Homer and Wuli had partially good answers, basically the government is designed to be inefficient.

 

[Jaskalas]

50 independent autonomous governments all trying to work things out.

Yeah. that will be MUCH more efficient.

Populace: "I want a bullet train from NY to Philly!!"

Bridge Troll: "I'm sorry, we can only go as far as Hoboken, then you need to take a bus to Camden, and a Ferry across to Penn's Landing....."

You think small.

Reach for the stars dammit. How are you going to get around conservatives? Employ successful policy in your own state. Want healthcare, extended unemployment, welfare, a grand socialist utopia? It's yours.

If you're successful and others are failing then they will copy your policy. You could bring your dreams to the masses, but first they have to materialize. That won't happen in the Union with us stopping you. Give states freedom and you set yourself free.

You bemoan transportation? They can elect to cooperate. The difference being they'd have the power to say no. Does that frighten you? It's like opening the door for a caged animal, but they're comfortable where they are. Step beyond the confines and seize what you've always wanted.

 

[The Green Bean]

Democratic government is by nature inefficient. Just compare China and India: which works better? Non-elected governments are always more efficient in fulfilling their agendas, whether that is economic, religious or despotic.

In my opinion, the diminishing power of government is dangerous. Corporations are a far bigger threat to society than governments. Some say that the Iraq war was fought for corporate benefit rather than the betterment of the people. How far have American corporations infiltrated the government? Would the inefficiency also signal the conflict of interests with the different lobbies in the government. Hmmm...?

I don't know. In my country all government organizations are weak and inefficient and privatization seems the only solution. Private companies are the only ones that are fueling progress here it seems. The governments wants to maintain the status quo. They have no incentive in progress. It's socialism within a capitalistic system. The red tapism almost makes it impossible for merit based promotions. America seems to be different though: corporations have become too powerful it seems.

 

[Atreus21]

First of all, inefficiency is subjective, so asking me to point out a business that is more inefficient than the government is pretty stupid to begin with. What I see as inefficient, you might not, especially if you just want to disagree with me no matter what.

Secondly, I have worked for several companies that had departments that are grossly inefficient. Most bureaucracy creates inefficiency whether it is government or corporate. Jesus, haven't you guys ever read Dilbert? The whole strip is a parody of the corporate culture. I don't know why I have to explain this simple shit to you guys...

In my experience the corporate culture and the worst of the bureaucracy that large companies have pale in comparison to the level of inefficiency inherent in government or public organizations.

I have worked for both.

 

[dank69]

Early in the thread Homer and Wuli had partially good answers, basically the government is designed to be inefficient.

There are two types of inefficiencies being confused here. The government is supposed to be inefficient to change, but it is not supposed to be inefficient at getting things done. The latter is clearly the issue, because taking issue with the former is a fool's errand.

In my experience the corporate culture and the worst of the bureaucracy that large companies have pale in comparison to the level of inefficiency inherent in government or public organizations.

I have worked for both.

That's quite the blanket statement you have going there.

 

[ShawnD1]

How terribly naive.

Indeed. It blows my mind how some people can keep jobs. Private companies are surprisingly lax a lot of the time.

Government and private companies both clean house every once in a while. If your branch of the government takes a budget cut, that's it, you're fired. It happens all the time. It even makes the news when police and firefighters are cut or when teachers are cut. In Canada it also includes doctors, nurses, and hospital staff. The medical system in my province has been slashed so hard that it's bleeding to death right now and it can't find a doctor to sew it shut.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Oh gosh, since you put it that way...... then yes, somewhere, someplace there may just possibly be a business that is as inefficient as the government. Of course it would be out of business in short order, but it's possible.

HP is still around somehow, despite their Palm / WebOS fiasco, their Compaq fiasco, etc.

MS is still around despite Bob, Clippy, Windows ME, Vista, Zune, . . . .


Yes, some parts of government are inefficient, and so are parts of many large corporations.

 

[ShawnD1]

which is exactly why government contractor exist. they can provide services more efficiently than the gov.
I've worked for various contractors here in DC for the last 20 years. spent a lot of my time on on jobs at the state dept. night and day between government workers and contractors.
The private sector will evaluate and "trim the fat" almost annually shrinking and growing to accommodate the workload.
This never happens in the government, they just shuffle people around (cushy gov jobs everyone wants). I've seen so many people in gov just sitting around for days doing nothing but web surfing and reading.

You're right about contractors generally doing a better job than the government. The roads in my province are all done by contracted companies and the roads are excellent. I'm genuinely impressed with how fast some of the things are completed. Roughly 1/5 of the ring road going around my entire city was completed in 1 construction season. It's all government money, but the private guys are building it.

Jobs done by actual government employees tend to be disasters. It's not because the employees suck. It's because they lack management. There never seems to be a great leader telling people what to do or trying to coordinate anything. There's lots of work to do, lots of people are ready to do it, but there's some kind of communication breakdown or something. One group of guys will have more work than they can possibly do, but the guys in the next room are doing no work at all. Terrible resource management.

 

[dank69]

...
I've seen so many people in gov just sitting around for days doing nothing but web surfing and reading.

Lol what do you think half (or more) of the people on this forum are doing right now? Thinking this exact same thing doesn't happen in a corporate setting is laughable.

 

[ThatsABigOne]

Shut down TSA. And this website.
www.attackwatch.com/

 

[monovillage]

HP is still around somehow, despite their Palm / WebOS fiasco, their Compaq fiasco, etc.

MS is still around despite Bob, Clippy, Windows ME, Vista, Zune, . . . .


Yes, some parts of government are inefficient, and so are parts of many large corporations.

I think the 51 to 12 vote of this forum pretty much explains itself. I haven't and won't deny inefficiency in business exists, i've been there and seen that. My view and the view of most of this forum by a large margin is that government is more inefficient then business.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Actually, private contracting is also a sham.

Why?

We just have idiots writing the rules.

Used to be that favorites were hired for the job. That could be a good or bad thing. In business, you recommend a good contractor to do the job. But in both business and gubbermint, sometimes you hire the favorite because of a kickback (like a funky fountain in your back yard that just HAPPENED to be an "extra" the guy had).

To fix that, they ruled that the lowest bid would be chosen no matter what. Sounds good, right?

Well, lemme put it this way, if contractors A, B and C all bid on installing a new kitchen, A at $40,000, B at $42,000 and C at $16,000, what would you do?

Government hired C and either had to pay them $80,000 in the end because of "unforseen complications causing delays", or ended up cooking dinners on a Hibachi grill in the middle of the floor.

Now compare that to offering incentives like "finishing early" bonuses and the like. The interchange of routes 4 and 17 in Bergen County NJ was finished months ahead of schedule because of this. Unfortunately, the bonus was obnoxiously large, so even good things need to have some oversight....

I guess the message is clear. You can never address a problem by simply stating a general term or means. Simply saying "private business is better to handle blah" is too general and has many examples to the contrary (insurance being one of the BIGGEST).

So what we need to do is develop some means of making a combination that will check and balance and come out ahead of both.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I think the 51 to 12 vote of this forum pretty much explains itself. I haven't and won't deny inefficiency in business exists, i've been there and seen that. My view and the view of most of this forum by a large margin is that government is more inefficient then business.

Probably, but the sloppy thinking that people engage in is to go from "parts are inefficient" to believing "all government activity is always less efficient then the private-sector alternative", and that this means having the private sector do anything instead of government will always work better.

Privatization in Iraq ended up electrocuting soldiers taking showers because of faulty wiring, costing $100/gallon for Haliburton gas, etc.

Edit: and good points about privatization from Ninjahedge above. But it's fair to blame that part on government mismanagement.

 

[Extelleron]

It's not even a matter of whether or not the government, when given a task, accomplishes it more effectively (as in, using less resources to complete the task, taking less time).

Government cannot exist without taxation. Taxing *any* good results in a less efficient outcome than with no taxation. Therefore, the existence of government inherently creates inefficiences.

If you don't agree that taxation causes inefficiencies, then we can't really argue, because then you are just ignoring science - it's like trying to argue with someone disputing evolution. The only way you can argue that government is not inefficient is if the government is so much more efficient at accomplishing the given task than a private market that it outweighs the inefficiency of taxation.

And that scenario is likely true of certain goods, like national defense, police, etc, but also clearly not true of many other goods.