Comment by pc86

3 years ago

"Weak government made sense when it was small but we made it bigger so we should make it stronger now too" is certainly a take, but not a particularly good one.

The vast majority of things the government touches turn to shit, including things with wide bipartisan support. How does making government able to do more, faster, fix that?

8 comments

pc86

Reply
nemothekid  3 years ago

>The vast majority of things the government touches turn to shit

Overtime I've really begun to see this as propoganda that Reagan invented based on little to no empirical data. I'm not convinced that the government is anymore dysfunctional than any large corporation. The belief that the everything the government touches turns to shit does far more harm than good; and furthermore gets in the federal government's way of actually solving problems. The federal government may have a problem with incentives (like any corporation), but it's hard for me to believe they are inept. It ends up being a self fulfilling prophecy - the government tries to do something, a hundred road blocks are put up for fear of ineptitude, then when the government is slow due to said roadblocks, they are called inept. When those roadblocks are removed - for example in the vaccine distribution of 2020, it's clear that the government is capable of good outcomes. Millions of highly controlled and sensitive vaccines were deployed across the country in only a couple months under an administration that nearly became hostile to its deployment.

  • nostrademons  3 years ago

    Large corporations are utterly dysfunctional too. The difference is that when a large corporation grows too dysfunctional, it's replaced by a small corporation. When a large government grows too dysfunctional, it's replaced by a small government too, but the process is significantly bloodier.

    Robust systems are made up of interacting parts that tolerate partial failures. The reason the U.S. economy as a whole remains strong is because its least efficient businesses are continually failing, and their resources get reabsorbed by more competitive parts. When this ceases to happen (eg. the "too big to fail" banks in 2008, "what's good for GM is good for the country" in 1953), the economy as a whole becomes much weaker. There is no similar ablation process for the U.S. government - lately, there hasn't been an easy way to let parts of it fail while still preserving the government as a whole. This will likely lead to the collapse of the whole government, which is unfortunate. It can't avoid the dynamic common to all systems: the way to avoid total failure is to tolerate and adapt to partial failure.

    • nemothekid  3 years ago

      The problem with comparing corporations with governments, is that corporations are (1) ephemeral and (2) have clearer measurable objective functions (profit). The government should do things that are inefficient and unprofitable. Note that services can both provide value and be unprofitable (they can generate value but not capture it). A corporation that needs to cut costs can layoff workers. A government that is dealing with large unemployment can't just do a genocide.

      All of this is to say is that even though large corporations and large governments are alike, the most efficient solution for a corporation (bankruptcy) is not a good solution for government and so despite the inefficiencies we are sort of forced to accept them as the engineering realities of the situation. I fully understand large governments have large government problems, I just don't agree with the notion that having a smaller government is a solution and that the small government meme has largely been toxic to the detriment of the middle class.

      3 replies →