From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Get Rid of Big Government
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:56:38 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:

>Why EXACTLY is it that people dislike Big Government so much?  Here is a
>simple (but hopefully accurate) model:

>Any task to be accomplished in society (usually a benevolent task)
>needs an "enterprise" set up for it, complete with payers, beneficiaries,
>workers, etc.  If this enterprise is private, it will strive
>towards a state where no player (payer, beneficiary or worker) is substantially
>dissatisfied with the deal.  After all, if anyone is dissatisfied for too
>long, they can look elsewhere in the market, and the deal is off.

So you're assuming many iterations.  This doesn't work with large
purchases, and situations in which the enterprise can fold (with
its profits safely tucked away) before many iterations.  You're
also assuming a market in which there isn't a labour surplus (and
so fear of unemployment, so the worker *has* to put up with things).

>However, if this enterprise is public, which usually means that this particular
>task is MONOPOLIZED by this enterprise (when was the last time you saw
>government join in the market of soap or cars?), there are no such incentives
>caused by the market for the enterprise to move to that state.  (Payers cheat
>on payments, beneficiaries cheat on their need, workers get lazy, lax, etc.)

However, there's no need for profit, which reduces prices; there
can be economies of scale; and there's no reason why management in
a public enterprise cannot be watched in the same way as management
in a private enterprise.

>However, we have a democracy and if any SPECIAL group of
>players are getting a bad deal, their suffering is usually accute and clearly
>demonstrable, they raise their political voice, and things usually get
>corrected for them.  This with the EXCEPTION of one group: the payers, or
>taxpayers.

Which is why politicians don't try to bribe payers with promises of
lowering taxes?

>But the collective effects of these single enterprises have accumulated to a
>point where not only do most taxpayers get precious little service for paying
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in 30-50% of their hard-earned money, but our economic growth and health are
>also threatened by the federal deficit and the lack of money investd into the
>private sector.

What price political stability, without which their hard-earned money
would be difficult to use?

>I think we should make it a fundamental rule of government to marketize as
>much as possible any public enterprise.

There are some things government does very badly, and should never
get its hands on.  There are some things markets do very badly.  The
conflict arises in determining what "as much as possible" really
means.  Law courts could be "marketized", with tongs in some areas
and mafias in others; but there are costs to be paid that people
have decided are unacceptable.  Grocery stores could be nationalized,
but again there are costs.

> It is true that some projects can
>only be done by the government.  But at least in the case of public
>construction, we've learned to make the govt. determine the specs and let
>the project go to the lowest bidding private company.

Which might add a lot of sand to its concrete, so as to make its
bid lower.  You're assuming a mechanism for maintaining standards;
but people lie, and cheat, and so on.  So, it's not clear that we
can do better than look at each case on its own merits, adding in
a great deal of skepticism about how the system can be abused.

>Similarly, e.g. I agree
>with Bill Clinton that we need more investment into health care access,
>education and infrastructure, but we really need to look at how exactly
>he plans to implement these ideas.

The trouble is, in a campaign he cannot tell the truth about such
things.  Every politician learns quickly that if you want to win,
you have to shade things; and I mean *every* politician.  You will
never find out exactly how anyone plans to implement anything, because
that knowledge would lose votes.

>We have been able to AFFORD to ignore the principle of minimal govt, but
>this is no longer the case.

I don't think the situation is really more dire than it has been
in the past.  Consider the Depression, or the budget in the late
'60s.  In fact, if Bush had had the vision to introduce a Marshall
Plan for Eastern Europe in '89, the US economy would probably be
booming, producing all those things there is such a demand for
there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3910 misc.legal:16604