According to this article, the contract amount to be paid to Accenture is USD $297,000,000 to help the Government hire 7,500 employees. Nearly USD $40,000 USD per hire. Definitely makes me think about going all in on turning pure Libertarian.
Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2
71–80 of 213 posts
Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a funny quote, but obviously not true. Anyone who has worked in, and for, government will tell you that: "And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government." Is 100% incorrect. In fact, much of the bureaucracy we have in government is used for ensuring these types of things don't happen. It's why there are…
It's a great generality, but it's not only 100% correct , your example of bureaucracy PROVES it is correct. Those committees, reviews, and approval chains are just distributed responsibility mechanisms to remove the responsibility to think critically about the entire expenditure, which is Friedman's point. 10 people thinking about narrow, nonoverlapping aspects of a large thing will never be as effective as less peop…
Ten functions performing narrow, non-overlapping aspects of a large program is pretty decent design, so that you can change/update/troubleshoot one function without affecting too much of your whole system.
Your alternative has been tried and fails when you have to replace that all-considering function with another at the end of its life and the other one isn’t so good. It’s a less robust system.
Bureaucracy isn’t inherently bad, it’s just like, a model of designing complex systems.
Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2
#73“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can…
I'm not sure what it says about me or Friedman, but if I'm choosing to buy someone a gift I don't care about the cost but I will attempt to make it something they like, and refrain from gift-giving if I don't think I can do that. (Or give money, I suppose.) On the other hand, when spending other people's money on myself, for example lunches for business travel, I am incredibly cost conscious. I've skipped dinner a co…
Do you work for the Boy Scouts?
I am not going to spend in excess, but if a company is paying for me to fly somewhere, I doubt a $30 airport meal is going to break them.
Now there have been times on site with a client, and I had a $120 per diem, where I might eat breakfast and lunch from a vending machine so that I can have a nice dinner, but I would never skip a meal at an airport if I had enough money left for it, and even if I didn't, I'd still charge the company and hope it flies under the radar.
Again $30 isn't going to bankrupt any company that can afford to fly you around.
Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2
#74Government is nearly always the least effective use of a citizen's money. Huge discussion on HN a few days ago about the IRS barely making $7 for every $1 spent. Before than we discussed the astronomically comical cost of healthcare.gov. It's good that people are demanding social change and action; the answer should bbe private charity and community leadership, as the current system just funnels money into contractor…
> It's good that people are demanding social change and action; the answer should bbe private charity and community leadership, as the current system just funnels money into contractors pockets.
I agree. But a democratic government is not necessarily bad; it is only as bad as the democratic majority that voted for it and not against it.
> Government is nearly always the least effective use of a citizen's money.
I do not agree. All depends on the government.
A government is typically the worst as "minimalist" government that seeks:
- to promote austerity and thus poverty for the masses and the government. Typically enforced by harmful taxes as only money source for the government in a currency union.
- to promote certain evil ideologies (e.g. austerity and poverty and military) and elite interests by law and policies. The government is currently (and maybe only theoretically) the only force of the masses against the few at the top.
- to act as evil global night-watchman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
Clear proof from the USA and Europe:
https://www.newsweek.com/us-spent-six-trillion-wars-killed-h...
https://juliareda.eu/2018/08/censorship-machines-gonna-censo...
https://juliareda.eu/2018/12/article-13-mess/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1jZNepTx80&t=35
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-s...
Regarding public and private morality and charity:
No government and no economy respects the human rights. Obviously no charity of millionaires and billionaires tries enough to help. http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/homelessness-chris...
Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switzerland has no military, it's not that bad.
Switzerland definitely does have a military.
Fun fact, though: their air force has office hours.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/feb/19/swis...
Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
When private sector fails, it goes out of business and other competent businesses take over. When government fails it spends more tax dollars and does the same thing over again, expecting a different result.
But when the private sector does something it optimises for money. When the government does something it can optimise for other things. Both are systems that in certain circumstances suck. One isn't better than the other in every circumstance.
[deleted]
Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sold, let’s get rid of the part of the government that costs the most and delivers the least. I’m talking about the military, of course.
1. US military is only 16-18% of federal spending. Entitlements like social security, medicaid, and welfare make up 65-70% of federal spending. The majority of military spending is on salaries and benefits anyway, it's essentially a welfare program itself >delivers the least 2. most major advancements in tech and healthcare are due to the military. Silicon Valley was built on military spending. Self driving cars were…
From an economics point of view, an unnecessary job is inefficient not because it gives people money (they can spend it efficiently on themselves), but because it wastes people's time when they could be doing something else. (Not to mention other wasted resources.)
Social security is efficient because it doesn't have this problem.
Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2
#78“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can…
It is a funny quote, but obviously not true. Anyone who has worked in, and for, government will tell you that: "And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government." Is 100% incorrect. In fact, much of the bureaucracy we have in government is used for ensuring these types of things don't happen. It's why there are…
You have to much faith in those processes. Organizations in government budgets' are based on last year's budget. If the OU spends last year's budget or more, their budget is increased (because they account for inflation). If they spend less, their budget is decreased. So there is a built in incentive to spend money, and anyone can find ways to justify spending money to improve their OU. GAOs merely verify the paperwork is in order.
Don't misunderstand me. This isn't an argument against government; it's an argument against this budgeting model. There has to be a way they to structure private sector budgeting efficiency into public organizations.
Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2
#79Accenture. Why am I not surprised?
pretty depressing that you're better off buying politicians rather than actually building a good business if you want to get rich
Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2
#80“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can…
I'm not sure what it says about me or Friedman, but if I'm choosing to buy someone a gift I don't care about the cost but I will attempt to make it something they like, and refrain from gift-giving if I don't think I can do that. (Or give money, I suppose.) On the other hand, when spending other people's money on myself, for example lunches for business travel, I am incredibly cost conscious. I've skipped dinner a co…
I think that, depending on culture, people like you are actually in the majority. How vast that majority is, is still very relevant to government efficiency however. Regulations on spending can also be quite successful in nudging people in the right direction.
All in all, it's IMO a very undifferentiated, ultra-libertarian point of view that Friedman's quote is displaying. I'd rather have somewhat inefficient government services than private monopolies, wherever market forces are not strong enough to create good competition. That applies to things like health care, the electrical grid, drinking water and a reasonable social safety net.