Washington Post article: The Sinkhole of Bureaucracy [or why I'm not more liberal].

[Mursilis]

Interesting article in the Wash. Post about how OPM process federal retirement applications, and what a mess the process still is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/03/22/sinkhole-of-bureaucracy/?hpid=z8

This article explains in a nutshell why I am not, as a practical matter, more liberal re the govt's role in the economy. I recognize that unfettered capitalism can definitely get out of hand and that major corporations will happily wreck the economy in pursuit of profits; thus, a strong gov't is needed as a counterbalance to corporate power. That being said, I'm reminded of a quote from P.J. O'Rourke, about how when Republicans trash the economy, at least someone makes a buck; Democrats merely do it for fun.

I've worked at two major (budgets in the billions) federal agencies, and the inefficiencies are simply stunning. There are just so many layers of management, so many petty power trips, and so many short-sighted decisions, it's sometimes amazing things ever get done. Having observed this sort of thing for 15+ years, I'm inclined to agree with those social scientists that argue large institutions are inherently going to be inefficient, esp. gov't institutions which are shielded from the correctional forces of the free market. If a huge company like GM keeps screwing up, the market will eventually punish it (and then it will probably get bailed out), but if the federal gov't keeps screwing up, what's the correctional force here? Thus, I'm left with the thought that while I may agree with the theory that expanding access to healthcare (to take one example) is a worthy and noble goal, I'm not at all sure that more gov't involvement isn't the cure that's worse than the disease.

Intelligents thoughts on the size/efficiency conundrum, esp. as it applies to gov't, are welcome. I don't intend for this thread to be excessively partisan, but the efficiency issue does, I think, drive more people, including myself more toward libertainism and away from liberalism. It's not about the goals so much as the process.

 

[IronWing]

The mine really isn't that bad of an idea.

http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/fire-1973.html

The fact that they are still using paper is dumb. All it really takes to fix stuff like this is a consensus among a determined Congress and President. Government can function when the folks in charge want it to. What usually happens on the way to consensus is politics and pettiness leading to hamstringing add-on requirements that kill efficiency.

 

[Mursilis]

The mine really isn't that bad of an idea.

http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/fire-1973.html

The fact that they are still using paper is dumb. All it really takes to fix stuff like this is a consensus among a determined Congress and President. Government can function when the folks in charge want it to. What usually happens on the way to consensus is politics and pettiness leading to hamstringing add-on requirements that kill efficiency.

I'm not critizing the use of the mine - I've worked with records damaged by the St. Louis fire, and I understand the mine might actually be a fine site for records storage. The problem is the process, and the fact that multiple attempts to update it have both cost lots of money, and ended up changing nothing. I've seen the same sort of thing at other agencies - some outdated process is targeted for technological enhancement and lots of money and attention is thrown at it, only to watch the whole thing end up being a huge snafu. In large organizations like the federal gov't, there's very little real incentive for efficient processes.

 

[norseamd]

and this problem is interconnected with other problems. particulary corruption and corporatism. fix those and this might work

 

[sm625]

I recognize that unfettered capitalism can definitely get out of hand and that major corporations will happily wreck the economy in pursuit of profits; thus, a strong gov't is needed as a counterbalance to corporate power.

This isnt even a rational argument. It is a false choice, to say nothing of the decades of hellish choices that stem from such a false choice. If capitalism gets out of control it does so by creating too much unbacked credit. With or without a central bank, the risk is the same. Therefore, government absolutely cannot counterbalance corporate power, even if it were to somehow manage to not be totally overrun by corporate influence. Of course we know that is a fantasy. So we know that basically, no matter what happens, the choice is ultimately left to the people. Either people decide to not support the evil corporations by not giving them their money, or they let corporations run rampant. It is a choice that every single person makes individually. Do you support these monstrosities? Or do you not? Obviously the answer for most of us is "yes we wholeheartedly support these massive bloodsucking corporations by giving them all our dollars". And yet we have the nerve to act suprised when we fail to prevent them from getting out of control. And for some reason we get especially mad when the loving government fails at the same task.

The important thing to remember is that when the people decide they've had enough, they simply stop feeding the corporations, and the corporations die off, and new ones form to meet the needs of the people. This can happen very naturally and dynamically if left to its own devices, if left to the market and the people to decide. But.... if you have this strong powerful government trying to save these evil corporations, by printing trillions of dollars and giving it to the corporations, or by manipulating interest rates so that these corporations can all take out huge loans at essentially no interest. Yes, then you have a problem. You have a very huge problem. You create a situation where the bad corporations cannot be cleared from the market, because they are propped up by the government they control, and it ends in a huge economic depression.

 

[alzan]

Greed cuts across all political ideologies; it's an individual problem.

I think inefficiency runs rampant in both the public and private sector; although I admit that government inefficiency is especially galling because it's our (taxpayer) money that's being wasted. That is probably the reason that liberals and conservatives alike have been wanting a "smaller government" for years.