Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 273 posts

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#261

Post by TheCoelacanth »

Zak wrote: post #216
rjtavares wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you believe an equivalent effort to figure out what the private sector is spending money on would be cheaper?

When it comes to publicly-traded companies, it probably would be because they're required to make specific, comprehensive disclosures about their income and spending on a regular basis. Governments, especially local governments are much less consistent about such disclosures. It's also reasonable to expect that a government that is elected by the public and funded by taxation provide an accounting to voters and taxpa…

He's only using government provided data for this site, so it's not like the data isn't available.

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#262

Post by thomastjeffery »

rayiner wrote: post #176
thomastjeffery wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, more specific data is always better. Soon he'll realize the slim margins that go to actual teachers, and see that most of it goes to boards, etc.

Nope. 80% of per school expenditures goes to salary and benefits, with the overwhelming majority for instruction rather than administration: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmb.asp .

I stand corrected.

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#263

Post by crusso »

clavalle wrote: post #235
crusso wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individuals have very personal views of finances. When people are asked how they should spend their own money, they're very careful with it and analyze expenditures and benefits carefully. On an individual basis, money is spent efficiently and people understand that. As the responsibility for spending money is removed from the individual, efficiency plummets. Government jobs are the ultimate in a lack of accountabili…

> When people are asked how they should spend their own money, they're very careful with it and analyze expenditures and benefits carefully. On an individual basis, money is spent efficiently and people understand that. We seem to know very different people. While it is true that the market has a tighter feedback loop, that does not ensure good individual decisions. It just means that individuals are punished for bad…

> We seem to know very different people

It's all relative.

> Look at the military for a good example of a non-market structure that has a tight feedback loop and, generally, does very well outside of the market system.

The military has some meritocratic elements, but then again it's hugely wasteful: http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/f-35-joint-strike-fighter/

> The government may lack some features of the market that doesn't mean that it cannot be as accountable

And how are the accountability mechanisms going to be implemented? Obviously the vote doesn't work. Data might be slightly helpful, but people don't vote based on data. Look at this Trump election. It was hardly a data driven result. Really the main problem is that voters aren't very accountable for their decisions. Voting is just a tribal team sport thing.

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#265

Post by Zigurd »

marcosdumay wrote: post #233
Zigurd wrote: post #199

The problem with "radical transparency"is that the worst money-wasters get to hide behind confidentiality in the name of security: 1. Counter-terrorism spending, which wastes money protecting backwaters no terrorist has even heard of 2. The Drug War and it's army of informants 3. Seizures of property and cash, dimensions currently unknown 4. A Cold War-sized military in a post-Cold War world 5. The prison-industrial…

At a minimum, transparency lets you say "hey, we do all that stuff with this $, why is there all that extra $$$$ spent there where we can't see?"

Sure. But if you look at other comments on this thread, there are arguments for fine-grained transparency for, for example, school spending, or social program spending. The objection to that is that it's grist for the outrage mill: "How DARE they spend money on LGBT issues!" Radical transparency would be better supportable if it did not exclude the secret policeman's budget.

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#266

Post by pc2g4d »

berberous wrote: post #226
asveikau wrote: post #222

Steve Ballmer gives mainly to Republicans and gave money to oppose income tax in Washington state specifically for high earners. I doubt he can be totally nonpartisan on this subject.

So? Literally everyone is partisan. Everyone has a world view. That doesn't mean you can't legitimately aim to have a non-biased open and accurate dataset. Different folks can interpret that data set in different ways. Balmer's view of how the data suggests we should drive policy can be different from your own.

There's more to it, though. Washington has a long history of opposition to state income taxes, for various reasons: http://kuow.org/post/strange-short-story-washington-state-s-...

In a way, he was just supporting state tradition.

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#267

Post by consz »

gonvaled wrote: post #219
consz wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the relevant issue with using a phrase like "M$" is it trivializes your argument. It makes your argument look childish, regardless of the actual content.

It's a good shortcut to properly summarize the previously stated arguments. Those who know what we are talking about, understand that. If they nevertheless attack it as childish, even knowing that what lies behind is a complex story of ideology wars, propelled by lies and disinformation, are simply being dishonest. Those who don't know what lies behind the symbolism, maybe care to inform themselves.

Then why phrase your argument in a way that discourages them from informing themselves (by encouraging them to perceive it as childish)? Unless your audience is explicitly to ignore those who don't already know and understand your argument.

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#268

Post by nimchimpsky »

consz wrote: post #267
gonvaled wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good shortcut to properly summarize the previously stated arguments. Those who know what we are talking about, understand that. If they nevertheless attack it as childish, even knowing that what lies behind is a complex story of ideology wars, propelled by lies and disinformation, are simply being dishonest. Those who don't know what lies behind the symbolism, maybe care to inform themselves.

Then why phrase your argument in a way that discourages them from informing themselves (by encouraging them to perceive it as childish)? Unless your audience is explicitly to ignore those who don't already know and understand your argument.

I really don't understand the amount of debate using M$ has caused.

Its an off the cuff shorthand term.

The defensiveness of some people here is incredible.

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#270

Post by akinalci »

taurath wrote: post #103
akinalci wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I'm very worried about what actually comes out of it given the media landscape We've seen recently that some people believe what they want to believe, regardless of facts. This doesn't mean the rest of us should be deprived of facts, or that we should throw our hands up and give up on seeking the truth.

Not saying we should give up, but only saying that the truth doesn't matter unless the conditions for it to be useful exist. A Russian bureaucrat kicks your dog? It doesn't matter what the truth is if nothing can come of it.

Access to the truth is perhaps the most basic prerequisite condition for it being useful. Once access is cut off, no other conditions matter.
Post reply on HN