I have so far been assuming you are being genuine in this little exchange of ideas. However, it's becoming difficult to have a productive conversation, as you keep commenting in circles without actually sticking to any particular point you've made, making cheap, insulting shots at those who are engaging with you, and don't appear to understand the points being raised directly to your claims.

> Economic growth is nominally defined as increase in GDP. Hopefully we don't have to keep doing this dance.

Right. This has been assumed as the definition we're targeting. Oddly, you've now twice selected two side comments I've made regarding what economic growth is not (for the purposes of this conversation), and rebutted/disputed them as if I was asserting that defined what economic growth is. Which is leading us, as I said, in circles. If you're not disagreeing, why are you selecting & rebutting as if you disagree?

> This is your comment - "If waste is something you find especially onerous, shouldn’t we start by pointing the finger at the private companies who submit “wasteful” bids/invoices?"

Right. Do I need to explain that individuals are not the same as private companies? Again, you've selected something as if there is disagreement here, but have either failed to explain that disagreement, or have failed to recognize you're speaking right past each point I make, assuming we disagree.

> The sensible ground is the fact that allocation of government resources is influenced by lobbying and other special interests. Not to mention governments' own waste (e.g. government employees abusing government credit cards or the $2 million intern and about a million other things).

Ah, yes. We definitely agree that lobbying and special interests influence government spending. So, because lobbying and special interest groups influence allocation of public resources, the government should just not pay when they receive an invoice? Moreover, to stick with your other examples of waste--which I'd would seriously love to be linked to some information on, again--your conclusion is the government should, again, just not pay? Should private companies who suffer employees abusing corporate credit cards just not pay their invoices? Should a $2M intern at a private corporation be a valid excuse for not paying a corporate bill?

Let me remind you that my question was specifically about sensible grounds for criticizing the government for paying invoices that were the result of winning bids that were voluntarily submitted by a private company. You have already asserted that those who submit the bids cannot be criticized for their inflated bids--even though it is those bids that result in what you consider to be wasteful spending. So, if no responsibility for waste lies with those who bid exorbitant rates on government contracts--after all, you say, they cannot be faulted for maximizing their gains under a capitalist system (a system the government also exists under!)--are you suggesting the government should just default on its payments to those private companies after accepting the bids? Are you suggesting the government should be more responsible for reducing waste by means of violating and subverting contracts?

> That is hilarious. No other options but to buy more F35s?

Boy, it is especially tiresome to have to spell out every little nuance of a statement the way you are cherry-picking them out of their contexts. The "no other options" was provided within the specific context of a possible requirement to choose the cheapest available bid in a bidding process. Thus, if the executive branch of government is, say, executing a law that, in their view, requires them to contract a private company in order to fulfill execution of a law duly passed by the legislature, and they are also required by law to choose the cheapest bid, there are no other options but to choose the cheapest bid.

You may not believe it, but I'm in wholehearted agreement that we need exactly 0 more F35s.

> You are too naive if you think the system will magically reform itself or that people can be trained to be frugal with someone elses money when they have zero incentive to do so.

It seems to me that you're reading an awful lot into my comments that I am not saying. I've suggested no possibility of magical self-reform of a broken system. I'd certainly suggest it is entirely possible to craft incentives that lead to people being trained to be frugal with resources that are not (fully, but partially) theirs. This is not naivety; it happens daily in the private sector. The actors there were certainly trained to steward corporate finances as frugally as possible--it seems perhaps they're missing some training on being mindful of participating in the stewardship of public finances as a citizen who partially owns those public finances, and that it's possible to be mindful even while acting as an agent of a private company (but again, you say, we cannot fault them for maximizing their gains at the public's expense).

> Where did I claim that? You seem to be imagining an argument here.

You claimed it right here[0]. It is your original claim to which I responded (which regrettably has led us on a bit of a trudge through the ideological tenets of your "waste" trope). You claimed there was evidence that, although weak, correlates cutting taxes with leading to higher wages or economic growth.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17189018