The evidence is persuasive that government bureaucracy is inherently inefficient precisely because it is not faced with any of the forces which make private business management its opposite. A bureau is not a profit-seeking enterprise; it cannot make use of any economic calculation. . . . It is out of the question to improve its management by reshaping it according to the pattern of private business." Govt can be involved in biz dealings but it shouldn’t because it doesn’t follow the same basic rules as a private biz. Hard to motivate gov workers who are not incentivized to make profits. The performance of its services cannot be checked by money statements of profit and loss. LOL. The Inherent Inefficiency of Government Bureaucracy | Allan Brownfield
I don’t know if the revised net number is positive or a loss but a big reason the post office does not show a profit is they were mandated to show the catch up of prior pension underfundings in a way that exaggerates the situation. You make a good point that some government run enterprises are not tax payer funded. TVA is a government owned corporation that is profitable. Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia https://www.tva.com/newsroom/press-...rd-quarter-fiscal-year-2021-financial-results Of course no amount of actual facts is going to convince the willfully ignorant. As an aside whomever the mod was who deleted my inappropriate post - your remarks made me laugh.
Your response is non sensical. Calling me a libbie does nothing to disprove that government spending in some cases does generate net positive wealth - net of the taxes collected . The fact that it is funded with taxes doesn’t change anything. But if you have a bee in your bonnet about taxes, what about government borrowing? In some cases the government borrows to spend, similar to private companies, and that borrowing can lead to wealth creation. If it isn’t government spending you are talking about I can’t for the life of me figure out what we are talking about. But it is also a fact that some government laws and regulations create wealth. If there were no laws we would live in a crime ridden free for all, with even more pollution and much higher health care costs. I’ve wasted far too much time on this subject. I should learn not to get frustrated by people who revel in their own ignorance.
So we've gone from red states having some pretty ugly stats to "oh yea, well bureaucracy isn't efficient!"
This is getting extremely tedious. It doesn't matter how it's funded. A public investment can generate wealth just like a private one can. There are a great many examples of public investment generating wealth. It's hard to believe that anyone could be so dense as to not understand that.
It matters to me. You give me unlimited funding and watch me create wealth. Anyone could do that. It’s absurd to place any value in the govt doing good with our tax dollars. Eventually I’d do something right even without any accountability. You’re being tedious because your love for big govt has blinded you.
Well I will say, based on this debate, that the government's investment in your education was a wasted investment. So I do agree with you that government investments don't always work out (just as private investments don't always work out).
I mean look at this. “ It’s absurd to place any value in the govt doing good with our tax dollar” That’s a debate ender right there, that rivals the ridiculousness of anti vax, election fraud and Q anon conspiracies. When adults get to this point they are politically and intellectually irredeemable. Having recently spent a couple of weeks on vacation with these types it became more obvious than ever.
Yeah, ridiculous extreme statements like that just end the possibility of any legitimate debate. And he could have made plenty of points I would have agreed with. The private sector is more efficient than the government at a great many things. But instead he goes with "It’s absurd to place any value in the govt doing good with our tax dollar.". This from a guy who was presumably educated at a public university.
Based on your personality that you have confirmed for years on this board, I blame your upbringing for your rigidity. It’s alarming how awful and nasty you are towards posters. Probably too late for you too. Can’t teach an old dog.
Let's make this really simple. When the country started and the government was formed, there were no taxes. As government increased in size it needed funding and where did that funding come from? Did it come from a business they created? No, it came from taxing the folks who made investments and created "wealth". So, government grew off the funding of taxpayers. Does some of those taxes go to stuff like building bridges and roads, to our defense, to firemen and police, yes. No one is denying that some government spending is absolutely necessary and some of that spending has actually helped business create wealth, as a conservative I can say government is necessary but it sure is not efficient. But as a liberal you cannot admit that any investment the government makes was first taken from a taxpayer that created it. Why is that so hard to admit?
Who are you asking, any particular poster or just liberals in general? I think most people, no matter what their politics, know where taxes come from. I'd like to say everyone does, but I wouldn't count on that.
It went on for pages without a few of your libbie brethren answering to this basic point. Clearly, the govt has indirectly created wealth with OUR money.
Im going to defend Bluke here. Clearly, the government is essential for market function based on its roles in protecting private property and enforcing contracts. However, I think he definitely has a point that counting dollars of government money spent as wealth creation misunderstands the relationship. Much of this is transfer of wealth, which is a zero sum game. And if government takes competitive bids, it actually destroys wealth as all the investments in the losing bids go toward no useful end.
I think I agree with much of what you're saying, but doesn't a form of that happen in the private sector as well? The reason runs on banks are so dangerous is because they don't actually have everyone's money sitting there to pay everyone out at the same time. They're investing money and loaning money to others to help create wealth through the work of third parties, and if we all went to withdraw our money at the same time, they wouldn't be able to pay it out without the government getting involved. I guess one difference is that we're not forced to use banks; we could put the money under our mattresses if we wanted to do so. Pretty tough to buy a house that way though.
