I thought you guys might be interested in discussing this

[gojujay]

I do agree, that in addition to government spending it is vitally important that families also play a part. If you have poorly educated adults with no interest in knowledge then how are they going to motivate their kids? You need to break that spiral and that also takes investment.

Name an area in which the government excels. Not adequate, but really excels. The only thing that I can think of is the military. As far as "social services", science et. al., the most rapid progress happens when the government gets (forced) out of the way.

[epeezack]

This is nothing but reverse racisim!!!

[Gav]

Name an area in which the government excels. Not adequate, but really excels. The only thing that I can think of is the military. As far as "social services", science et. al., the most rapid progress happens when the government gets (forced) out of the way.

I never said the [yours or mine] government excels at anything.

[Inquartata]

Name an area in which the government excels. Not adequate, but really excels. The only thing that I can think of is the military.

Even there it's hard to be sure, because there are no privately-run militaries to which to compare the government versions. ( There are small militias run by warlords, but the scales are so different as to make comparisons useless. )

[gojujay]

I never said the [yours or mine] government excels at anything.

Then why advocate throwing good money after bad? The idea that if the public school system just had more money, they could (finally) crankout a decently educated class, flies in the face of reason. Ther are plenty of private schools that put out first rate students with not nearly the funds that the public system has managed to cajole the out of the electorate.

[jeff]

Examples? Gee, there's plenty of great stuff out of NIST. NASA did a pretty darn good job. Center for Disease Control is pretty spiffy. In reality there's plenty of examples. When FEMA bails out people, it's hard to see how a profit-making institution would have done a better job. Social Security has problems, but it's helped (literally) millions. Let's not sell government services short, as facile as it seems to be.

In education: I know that there has frequently been excellent public education in the US (I'm a beneficiary of it) so I know it can be done. As I mentioned elsewhere, there's excellent examples overseas. Also for health care, where countries spend much _less_ than we do but have better overall health and lifespan.

And surely, surely, we're not suggesting that the government-run education Soldier is receiving (and his equivalents and West Point and Annapolis) is 2nd rate, now are we?

[gojujay]

Examples? Gee, there's plenty of great stuff out of NIST. NASA did a pretty darn good job. Center for Disease Control is pretty spiffy. In reality there's plenty of examples. When FEMA bails out people, it's hard to see how a profit-making institution would have done a better job. Social Security has problems, but it's helped (literally) millions. Let's not sell government services short, as facile as it seems to be.

In education: I know that there has frequently been excellent public education in the US (I'm a beneficiary of it) so I know it can be done. As I mentioned elsewhere, there's excellent examples overseas. Also for health care, where countries spend much _less_ than we do but have better overall health and lifespan.

And surely, surely, we're not suggesting that the government-run education Soldier is receiving (and his equivalents and West Point and Annapolis) is 2nd rate, now are we?

NASA... as you say DID a pretty darn good job. Past tense. When NASA was formed , the U.S. had just suffered a humiliating losses to the Soviets in space. People at the time (circa 1950) thought only the government could put together a suitable program to respond to thaose defeats. The successes that followed happened because it takes time for the adverse affects of government programs to develop. As with most new programs, there is a lot of excitement for a short time, then apathy rears it's head, and the deterioration begins. As NASA had it's budget cut in the 70's and on, it began, as all bureaucracies do, to seek self-preservation. NASA's mission went from science and exploration to freight-hauling... an exalted rise, yes? . Under NASA's "leadership", the cost of putting payloads into orbit has gone...(wait for it)... into orbit.

Following are quotes from the testimony of Edward L. Hudgins, Director of Regulatory Studies, before the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies -- Committee on Appropriations-- U.S. House of Representatives
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING NASA

FEBRUARY 2, 1995

David Gump in his book Space Enterprise estimates the cost ,in constant dollars, went from $3,800 per pound under Apollo, to $6,000 with the Shuttle. Alex Roland of Duke University estimates that the cost of a Shuttle flight, including development and capital costs, is not the $350 million claimed by NASA but closer to $2 billion. This would raise the cost per pound to about $35,000.

As NASA developed and flew early Shuttle missions, it had to fend off private competitors. In the late 1970s and early 1980s federal agencies were forbidden to contract with the infant private launch industry to put government payloads in orbit, and NASA offered cheap cargo rates, subsidized with taxpayers' dollars, that drove out private suppliers.

Private commercial efforts were hindered by the 1973 Intelsat Treaty of 114 countries creating an international satellite network and a government consortium. Article 14D requires potential private competitors to prove they would not cause "substantial economic harm" to the monopoly. America's private Pan Am Satellite Corporation suffered years of delay before launching a satellite in 1988.

An interagency U.S. government working group in 1987-88 considered the feasibility of offering a one-time prize and a promise to rent to any private group that could deliver a permanent manned Moon base. When asked if such a station were realistic, private sector representatives answered "Yes!" but only if NASA stayed out of the way and did not force the private providers to use the Shuttle or proposed station. Needless to say, this approach never saw the light of day.

To put it into perspective, everything over which NASA has a bailiwick, was started in the private sector.


As for FEMA check here

Social security... killer of the American psyche. It's implementation led to a feeling of "don't need to worry about it, the guv'mint' will take care of us". It's inefficient return on investment (from negative rates to as high as 6.3 percent!!!) tells me that there's a fox in the henhouse or the administration is just plain incompetent by either design or implementation.

[jeff]

gojujay, those were all good points, however.... (there's always a "however", isn't there? )

The parts about bureacracies apply equally to private enterprises with entrenched positions (remember AT&T before the breakup? Those Lily Tomlin jokes came from somewhere...) so doing it privately isn't a cure-all. Return On Investment in private institutions is sometimes negative too, as recent hiccups in the mutual funds business (and equities markets in general) show - they all play in the same global investment market. It's really best to think of SSI as an insurance policy, rather than as "optimal funds investment mechanism". That's what the "I" stands for, after all. (Personally, I think it's the farm subsidies program that has gotten way out of hand, with people taking the attitude "the guvmint will take care of it". Worth a thread?)

I agree with your points about NASA. They're not what they were. But - it does serve as an example that government agencies can do great things. I also think there are necessary or very important services that simply don't correlate with "lots of money", so the government becomes the provider. That includes large-scale education for all population segments (not just wealthy ones), public health, mass transportation.

It's worth considering that it's the governmental agencies that can take a long view that a for-profit company can't risk doing. Imagine a company that has to meet its numbers for Wall Street analysts on a quarter by quarter basis thinking about massive projects that take 10 years to work - if at all, and may or may not have direct financial advantage. Things like the space program, the TVA, the Internet, and so on.

[Philistine]

Name an area in which the government excels. Not adequate, but really excels. {snip}

The court system. Health and safety inspections. Police protection. Environmental protection. Pretty much everthing where impartiality would be nonexistent or questioned if provided by private contractors.

That's apart from all the projects which are either too risky, or do not have a large enough financial return to attract private investors. Some mentioned--like space exploration, some not--e.g. the highway system, including bridges and tunnels.

--Philistine

[Maeve_Mari]

The court system. Health and safety inspections. Police protection. Environmental protection. Pretty much everthing where impartiality would be nonexistent or questioned if provided by private contractors.

That's apart from all the projects which are either too risky, or do not have a large enough financial return to attract private investors. Some mentioned--like space exploration, some not--e.g. the highway system, including bridges and tunnels.

--Philistine

Emergency Management Services - flood and disaster Relief, insurance guarantees.

Also student and business loan guarantees.

[Philistine]

"All right ... all right ... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what have the Romans done for us?"



--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Most of the things named are either public goods which couldn't be provided efficiently by private firms lacking coercive powers to deal with the free rider problem, or else things in which government has for all intents and purposes held a monopoly time out of mind. That is, privately run versions of courts and police forces with power over all rather than just a limited, proprietary few really haven't been tried seriously. There is no way to tell whether a private solution would work as well or better than a government one if the former has no record to which to compare that of the latter...

[gojujay]

The parts about bureacracies apply equally to private enterprises with entrenched positions (remember AT&T before the breakup? Those Lily Tomlin jokes came from somewhere...) so doing it privately isn't a cure-all.

Ahh, but in private enterprise inefficiencies are accounted for and dealt with far more effectively than in government. People losing money tend to want to know why and who's responsible; if they don't like the answers, they take their money elsewhere. Something you're unable to do with government. And before you say that's why we have elections, we've had a few, but for all their promises, it seems to have gotten worse...

Return On Investment in private institutions is sometimes negative too, as recent hiccups in the mutual funds business (and equities markets in general) show - they all play in the same global investment market.

Sometimes negative. On average the market has grown much more than Social(ist) Security. A dollar invested in the stock market for 30 years would yield how much compared to SS?

As it stands right now, Socialist Security is naught but a Ponzi scheme, that if done by anybody but the government would end up with the "officers" of the group thrown in the hoosegaow. Come to think of it, that might not be such a bad idea for all the politicians who had a part in the current debacle, REGARDLESS of affiliation. (yes the current ones, too)

It's really best to think of SSI as an insurance policy, rather than as "optimal funds investment mechanism". That's what the "I" stands for, after all. (Personally, I think it's the farm subsidies program that has gotten way out of hand, with people taking the attitude "the guvmint will take care of it". Worth a thread?)

Gotta disagree with you on that. An insurance company has the option of NOT covering an applicant, limiting the amount of coverage or charging a higher premium. The government does not have the ability to do that, other than possibly raising the premium which is politically unpalatable.

I agree 100% on the subsidies. They are an insidious inefficiency, which does more long-term harm than good. Soooooiy... soooooiy, here piggy piggy.

Worth a thread in my opinion.

I agree with your points about NASA. They're not what they were. But - it does serve as an example that government agencies can do great things.

And private enterprise can do great things. But private enterprise does great thing, on the whole, more efficiently and more consistently.

I also think there are necessary or very important services that simply don't correlate with "lots of money", so the government becomes the provider. That includes large-scale education for all population segments (not just wealthy ones), public health, mass transportation.

I agree with public health in re communicable disease NOT, initially, behaviorally spread and other areas e.g. public safety

It's worth considering that it's the governmental agencies that can take a long view that a for-profit company can't risk doing. Imagine a company that has to meet its numbers for Wall Street analysts on a quarter by quarter basis thinking about massive projects that take 10 years to work - if at all, and may or may not have direct financial advantage. Things like the space program, the TVA, the Internet, and so on.

There's plenty of companies that do that though. A companie's value is not limited to what it has on hand, but also it's long range plans. Investors look at a companies long-range plans and then decide if and how much to invest, based on the percieved risk.

[gojujay]

The court system. Health and safety inspections. Police protection. Environmental protection. Pretty much everthing where impartiality would be nonexistent or questioned if provided by private contractors.

That's apart from all the projects which are either too risky, or do not have a large enough financial return to attract private investors. Some mentioned--like space exploration, some not--e.g. the highway system, including bridges and tunnels.

--Philistine

The court system is excellent? I don't understand how you can think that. Why do people try to go to private arbitration then? The courts are extremely inefficient. They are designed to be inefficient.

Health and safety inspections... needed, yes, excel, no. Privatize... don't think so. Goals are too different and to easy to lose sight of what matters, IN THAT FIELD

Police... I must abstain, conflict of interest.

Environmental protection... needed, yes, excel, no. How many Superfund sights have been cleaned up out of the total, at what cost? The EPA is not your friend...

There's plenty of evidence that NASA has been more of a hinderance on space exploration than help. As for infrastructure, the government has to do that. It's interesting to note that they usually contract out for the projects, though