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

Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 213 posts

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#181

Post by nonbel »

jbay wrote: post #162
nonbel wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "An alternative would be a country full of people so similar to you that the average person would feel like their countrymen might as well be them." What? If people really felt that way there would be no need for taxes. If you have a lack of self-interest (or the sense of "self" is altered to refer to the group) you would freely give money to each other. The only time taxes are required is when people will not free…

> "The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government." This really sounds true, but it disregards game theory. For concreteness, let's say the government proposes to upgrade a waste processing plant for $500 million, and you think it's a pretty good idea. There are varying…

This concern for "free riders" doesn't seem appropriate to me. Who cares as long as you get your waste treatment plant (or whatever) for the stated price?

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#182

Post by dragonwriter »

pjc50 wrote: post #128
kaitai wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very elegant, and encapsulates the problem with America. Well, many other countries as well, but certainly us, America. Not government -- but our conception of "ourselves". HN occasionally has articles about education and the comparison of, say, Finnish education and American education comes up. I am firmly of the opinions that Finnish education works, when it works, because it is a service that the populatio…

The problem with American opposition to government, especially Federal government, is that it's inextricable from the outcomes of the civil war.

> The problem with American opposition to government, especially Federal government, is that it's inextricable from the outcomes of the civil war.

Even that is sanitizing it, it predates the Civil War and is inextricable from the cause of the Confederacy in the Civil War, perhaps best articulated in Confederate Vice President Stephens famous Cornerstone speech:

---[quote]---

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”

---[end quote]---

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#183

Post by jbay »

nonbel wrote: post #181
jbay wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government." This really sounds true, but it disregards game theory. For concreteness, let's say the government proposes to upgrade a waste processing plant for $500 million, and you think it's a pretty good idea. There are varying…

This concern for "free riders" doesn't seem appropriate to me. Who cares as long as you get your waste treatment plant (or whatever) for the stated price?

Was my explanation inadequate? We're not the people in category (2) who are concerned about free riders; we're all the people in category (3) who would be free riders. But we also want our water treatment plant. And we are willing to pay for it, but only if we have no way to personally avoid the obligation ourselves. And the same is true of our peers. We're an entire civilization of would-be free riders. So we're stuck because nobody will personally commit to pay unilaterally, even though we all want to. So how do we make ourselves happy? How do we get together and sign a contract to pay for it, without defecting on each other?

That's what taxes are. They're not there to coerce payment from people who aren't willing to donate. They exist to coordinate payments from a bunch of people who want to get things done but don't want to be the only sucker left with the bill. That's the whole point. And we get our schools and water treatment and garbage pickup and nobody has to make personal donations to the government to make it happen. We won't get our treatment plant any other way.

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#184

Post by dragonwriter »

Uberphallus wrote: post #103
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good quote and I like it, but it's funny- I feel like what this quote best demonstrates is a basic difference in conscientiousness between the Chicago school folks and the Keynes folks. If I buy a birthday present for someone, I care very much about the content of the present.

It's not about conscientiousness, it's about quality of information. When you buy something for you, you know your exact needs and how to evaluate compromises. For gifts you care, but not as much since you lack significant information. You get something that is "good enough". For close friends you'll land a great gift in value and cost, but when you don't know the person very much, the gift usually tends to become an…

> you know your exact needs and how to evaluate compromises.

This is one of the premises underlying rational choice theory that doesn't hold up to empirical investigation.

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#185

Post by nonbel »

jbay wrote: post #183
nonbel wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This concern for "free riders" doesn't seem appropriate to me. Who cares as long as you get your waste treatment plant (or whatever) for the stated price?

Was my explanation inadequate? We're not the people in category (2) who are concerned about free riders; we're all the people in category (3) who would be free riders. But we also want our water treatment plant. And we are willing to pay for it, but only if we have no way to personally avoid the obligation ourselves. And the same is true of our peers. We're an entire civilization of would-be free riders. So we're stu…

>"And we are willing to pay for it, but only if we have no way to personally avoid the obligation ourselves. And the same is true of our peers. We're an entire civilization of would-be free riders. So we're stuck because nobody will personally commit to pay unilaterally, even though we all want to. So how do we make ourselves happy? How do we get together and sign a contract to pay for it, without defecting on each other?"

How do people get together to invest in anything in this world you describe? How do you get 100 people to invest in your real estate venture without defecting on each other?

Sorry, but I don't see it. It seems like a solved "problem", even when there is no desire guaranteed to be fulfilled at the end.

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#186

Post by jbay »

nonbel wrote: post #185
jbay wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was my explanation inadequate? We're not the people in category (2) who are concerned about free riders; we're all the people in category (3) who would be free riders. But we also want our water treatment plant. And we are willing to pay for it, but only if we have no way to personally avoid the obligation ourselves. And the same is true of our peers. We're an entire civilization of would-be free riders. So we're stu…

> "And we are willing to pay for it, but only if we have no way to personally avoid the obligation ourselves. And the same is true of our peers. We're an entire civilization of would-be free riders. So we're stuck because nobody will personally commit to pay unilaterally, even though we all want to. So how do we make ourselves happy? How do we get together and sign a contract to pay for it, without defecting on each…

In my real estate venture, the dividends are paid exclusively to the investors who are my shareholders. So there are no free riders; the people who don't invest don't get the same benefits as those who do. For ventures like this, we don't need the government to coordinate anything.

For projects like waste treatment plants, it's very hard or impossible to ensure that only the "investors" (ie, people who volunteered to fund it) get the benefit. If the waste gets treated, the tapwater is safe to drink, that weird smell in the streets goes away, the coliform count goes down, the beaches are open for swimming in the summer, and fewer people get sick. That's wonderful but how do we limit the benefits to the shareholders of the waste treatment plant, so as to convince people to invest in it?

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#187

Post by Retric »

nonbel wrote: post #175
Retric wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancer research is only one example, a new road also requires a minimum amount of money. Many people would happily pay for their chunk of a new road/bridge if it made the difference between having it and not because the cost is less than the utility. But, you don’t see charities to build roads because that model does not work in that context. As to efficiency that’s not really relevant. What I pay to see a movie is d…

If taxes didn't fund roads, businesses would fund them to transport their stuff around. Since an empty road is wasteful, they would also likely be toll/subscription/customers-only based for whoever else. So you would need to pay if you wanted to use the road. Now if a bunch of people want to donate a road to the world (like open source, it would happen), that is great too.

That’s a theory, but in practice that’s not what you see happen. Companies build a lot of really bad roads when they need them to get from A - B for example logging.

But, individual roads fit into a larger context. If you want to get from A to B and there is a road from A to C and from C to B then the utility is limited to time saved. Companies rarely build such roads and it’s even rarer to see them turned into public toll roads.

The US interstate highway system for example provides minimal individual benefit over existing roads, but massive collective benefit. Worldwide you don’t see companies building such things even when the demand is there.

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#188

Post by nonbel »

Retric wrote: post #187
nonbel wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If taxes didn't fund roads, businesses would fund them to transport their stuff around. Since an empty road is wasteful, they would also likely be toll/subscription/customers-only based for whoever else. So you would need to pay if you wanted to use the road. Now if a bunch of people want to donate a road to the world (like open source, it would happen), that is great too.

That’s a theory, but in practice that’s not what you see happen. Companies build a lot of really bad roads when they need them to get from A - B for example logging. But, individual roads fit into a larger context. If you want to get from A to B and there is a road from A to C and from C to B then the utility is limited to time saved. Companies rarely build such roads and it’s even rarer to see them turned into publi…

>"That’s a theory, but in practice that’s not what you see happen. Companies build a lot of really bad roads when they need them to get from A - B for example logging. [...] Companies rarely build such roads and it’s even rarer to see them turned into public toll roads. [...] The US interstate highway system"

Why would companies be building roads like that when there is no need to do it?

>"Worldwide you don’t see companies building such things even when the demand is there."

This would be interesting to look at, where is there demand for roads?

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#189

Post by nonbel »

jbay wrote: post #186
nonbel wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "And we are willing to pay for it, but only if we have no way to personally avoid the obligation ourselves. And the same is true of our peers. We're an entire civilization of would-be free riders. So we're stuck because nobody will personally commit to pay unilaterally, even though we all want to. So how do we make ourselves happy? How do we get together and sign a contract to pay for it, without defecting on each…

In my real estate venture, the dividends are paid exclusively to the investors who are my shareholders. So there are no free riders; the people who don't invest don't get the same benefits as those who do. For ventures like this, we don't need the government to coordinate anything. For projects like waste treatment plants, it's very hard or impossible to ensure that only the "investors" (ie, people who volunteered to…

>"In my real estate venture, the dividends are paid exclusively to the investors who are my shareholders. So there are no free riders; the people who don't invest don't get the same benefits as those who do."

The investors don't care if there are free riders as long as they get the expected benefits. The neighboring property values may rise, for example.

>"That's wonderful but how do we limit the benefits to the shareholders of the waste treatment plant, so as to convince people to invest in it?"

I just can't get past this. This is just not something I consider in any way when choosing to make an investment/donation. I simply do not care if other people may benefit, that is not my concern.

I mean lets take a smaller task:

Say I feel like doing the dishes so I can have a clean plate later in the day. Once I get going with doing dishes, its not a hassle to finish them.

Should I be upset if someone else uses one of the dishes I cleaned? Should I not do the dishes, even if I want to, because eventually someone else may do them? If it was likely for someone else to take care of it, why hasn't it already been done?

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#190

Post by AsyncAwait »

hopefulengineer wrote: post #48
adwhit wrote: post #20

Earlier 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…

Ok, do you need to maintain 1,000 military bases around the globe? 500 wouldn't do it?

What about the F-35?

Post reply on HN