Advertisement

Carmack on government

Started by October 28, 2010 07:27 PM
218 comments, last by trzy 14 years ago
A bit late, but my 2cents on the sentiments of the original post...


Personally, I think that the standard conservative line that "Government is inefficient" is misleading, if not just completely devoid of critical thinking, for the most part.

Generally, the significant government services are maintained for two reasons. Either private services are UNAVAILABLE (or regarded as grossly inadequate), or a second layer of oversight is needed for economically critical or life-endangering industries. Hell, we even have postal services written into the US Constitution because density was too low to sustain private companies. Even today, rural mail service is largely shunned by private delivery carriers.

As a matter-of-fact, I think examples like Postal Service are a prime example of where the B.S. cliché about "Government being inefficient" came from. Once UPS and FedEx started, the Postal Service looks relatively "inefficient". Of course, conservative spin doctors conspicuously avoid the part of the story where UPS and FedEx cheaply serve only high-density urban areas. So, private companies take the easiest customers, leaving the USPS even less means of supporting its low-density rural operations. The story of cream-skimming probably plays a huge part of every supposed argument where "Government is inefficient". It's a sad reflection on the democracy in the US that such ideas are accepted uncritically.

As for libertarians and their "Government should be really tiny (or non-existent)" stuff ... I'm really under the impression that almost all of them have failed to think through the consequences of such a philosophy. Of course, none of them are Rothbard or whatever, but I haven't found a single one that can defend Libertarianism as sensible in a world with dumb people, and especially not where there's the occasional madman.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on November 7, 2010 12:11:22 PM]
Quote: Original post by smr
Are there any examples of real-world libertarian societies in existence today? How are they faring?


I don't think there are currently any. You could back back hundreds of years, and not find a single attempt at Libertarian society that lasted more than a decade or two (and, ironically enough, a lot of them were killed off because they failed to provide a usable military, just as would be suggested by the free-rider problem).

Some might take the lack of thriving libertarian societies as some sort of statement of the viability of the more extreme libertarian positions.
Advertisement
Quote: Original post by Antheus
Quote: Original post by Promit
Well no. Inventing it apparently creates a deficit, so we have to discontinue social security and declare war on Iran to counteract that. That's what I'm told, anyway.


Well, yes. To make more money, president needs to go to Federal reserve and take out a loan. This loan comes with interest that needs to be paid. The loan is paid back through gross income of the country. If there isn't enough economic growth, then the situation is similar to wage stagnation due to inflation - the 2.3% raise every year doesn't increase salary fast enough to compensate inflation, so the $500/month loan starts getting bigger.

The reason above scheme is employed is to prevent printing of money, which would lead to hyperinflation.



Just a quick note ... almost all (I think roughly 97%) of the interest paid to the Federal Reserve for "printed money" used to increase circulation is actually refunded back to the US Treasury each year, so it'd almost be accurate to consider that the interest on "money from the printing presses" is pretty much zero.

Your post might have suggested to some that interest costs were a factor in dissuading elected officials from inflation, but the interest costs aren't much of a factor.
Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care
Quote: Original post by LessBread
At any rate, I'll believe that conservatives care about education when they drop their anti-science attitudes towards health and environmental regulations.

I'm a fiscal conservative and I am very very pro education.


What does that mean in a practical sense? Does it mean that education is too important to throw money at the same way we throw money at warfare?
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
Quote: Original post by LessBread
What does that mean in a practical sense? Does it mean that education is too important to throw money at the same way we throw money at warfare?

At the very least we should be making it a significant issue. I don't really like the term throwing money at anything because it seems to imply a disconnect with the problem. I would take less money and solid reform that works over a lot of money for any policy.

And I don't agree wit the absurd amount of money we spend on defense. I think defense is necessary, but I think it's very wasteful at present.
Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Personally, I think that the standard conservative line that "Government is inefficient" is misleading, if not just completely devoid of critical thinking, for the most part.
...


Here's another example. Social Security Administrative expenses as a percentage of total expenditures, 1957-2009 "Since 1989, such expenses have totaled one percent or less of combined expenditures from the trust funds." Try finding that level of efficiency in the private sector! And here's more: Administrative Costs of Private Accounts in Social Security. Take a look at Table 1-1 and note the figures for "Percentage Reduction in Assets at Retirement".
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
Advertisement
Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care
Quote: Original post by LessBread
What does that mean in a practical sense? Does it mean that education is too important to throw money at the same way we throw money at warfare?

At the very least we should be making it a significant issue. I don't really like the term throwing money at anything because it seems to imply a disconnect with the problem. I would take less money and solid reform that works over a lot of money for any policy.

And I don't agree wit the absurd amount of money we spend on defense. I think defense is necessary, but I think it's very wasteful at present.


I think there's a huge disconnect with the problem and much of it comes from people ignorantly repeating the talking point attacks they hear on television or the radio. For example, Rand Paul Wants To Abolish Dept. Of Ed So Kids Don’t Have To Learn About ‘Two Mommies’: "Currently, there is a legislative prohibition on the federal government getting involved with local curriculum,..." And Rand Paul's idea to kill education agency would affect poor most.

Quote:
...
Doing away with the U.S. Department of Education, which administers a budget of $63.7 billion and serves 56 million students, would force officials to determine whether to downsize, reassign or eliminate an array of programs.

Programs on the chopping block would include Title I, which distributes funds to schools and districts with high numbers of low-income students; Pell Grants for low-income college students; and Head Start, an early childhood education program for lower-income children.
...
Calls to abolish the Department of Education are part of a broader belief among conservatives that the federal government must be downsized. It's a refrain that has roots in Ronald Reagan-era politics, Coulson, said.

Though the Department of Education was established under Democratic President Jimmy Carter, its reach was expanded dramatically during Republican President George W. Bush's administration with the inception of the No Child Left Behind law, or NCLB.

Holding schools accountable for every child's progress is the law's broad goal, but many conservatives, including Paul, see NCLB, with its focus on mandated testing to ensure improved student achievement, as an unprecedented intrusion into what had been a local matter.
...


My understanding is the conservative attack on the Department of Education began as part of the backlash to school desegregation in the 1970's and failed efforts of the religious right to reestablish prayer in schools as well as the teaching of creationism. As religious conservatives took their children out of public schools and put them into private schools, they began to resent paying taxes for services they did not utilize and turned their attack away from content towards fiscal concerns, such as the promotion of vouchers and blaming teachers unions for the failures of public schools. By the early 1990's the attack on content focused on the "secular humanism" taught in liberal arts programs in universities across the country. The complaint was that students weren't being taught practical skills but were instead being politically indoctrinated. This complaint still gets trotted out every few years.
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
Quote: Original post by LessBread
Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Personally, I think that the standard conservative line that "Government is inefficient" is misleading, if not just completely devoid of critical thinking, for the most part.
...


Here's another example. Social Security Administrative expenses as a percentage of total expenditures, 1957-2009 "Since 1989, such expenses have totaled one percent or less of combined expenditures from the trust funds." Try finding that level of efficiency in the private sector! And here's more: Administrative Costs of Private Accounts in Social Security. Take a look at Table 1-1 and note the figures for "Percentage Reduction in Assets at Retirement".


I know I'm being a little caddy but Vanguard Total Market Index (VTSMX)
has a total expense ratio of 0.18%

He uses an average of 1.09% which means he is probably mixing load funds with no load funds.

Percentage Reduction in Assets at Retirement - I find this a little deceiving as well. This is the cost of investment with out regard to the benefit of investment. A better comparison would be annuitizing the payout after retirement over say 40 years and see who has the better pay out. Of course in the case of Social Security its difficult to tell what that would be.



^ LessBread's example may be a bit harder to determine, but the basic point is pretty sound.

In a different area, for example, the administrative overhead for publicly-run Medicare plans is reportedly one-fifth of comparable private insurances (Part C plans).

Public schooling, for all of the myths, also actually reported to perform on par with private schools in almost every area, once you do an apples-to-apples comparison that takes into account the fact that the test performance of private school students reflects the fact that private schools generally reject the less-academically-inclined applicants [more "cream skimming"].
Quote: Original post by Spinoza
Quote: Original post by LessBread
Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Personally, I think that the standard conservative line that "Government is inefficient" is misleading, if not just completely devoid of critical thinking, for the most part.
...


Here's another example. Social Security Administrative expenses as a percentage of total expenditures, 1957-2009 "Since 1989, such expenses have totaled one percent or less of combined expenditures from the trust funds." Try finding that level of efficiency in the private sector! And here's more: Administrative Costs of Private Accounts in Social Security. Take a look at Table 1-1 and note the figures for "Percentage Reduction in Assets at Retirement".


I know I'm being a little caddy but Vanguard Total Market Index (VTSMX)
has a total expense ratio of 0.18%


This ain't golf! [grin] I should have limited my remark to private long term insurance and/or private pensions and/or 401k plans.

Quote: Original post by Spinoza
He uses an average of 1.09% which means he is probably mixing load funds with no load funds.

Percentage Reduction in Assets at Retirement - I find this a little deceiving as well. This is the cost of investment with out regard to the benefit of investment. A better comparison would be annuitizing the payout after retirement over say 40 years and see who has the better pay out. Of course in the case of Social Security its difficult to tell what that would be.


It's the only fair method to make the comparison as there's no telling before hand what the benefits of an investment might be.
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement