# Government Waste vs Market Inefficiencies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 6, 2010, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719 "2010-07-06T15:05:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/161 "2010-07-10T11:43:17Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > What’s funny, is that if you take that statement apart you get: > > 1. redundancy is inefficient > 2. redundancy between 2 competing companies is competition. > 3. redundancy is competition > \*\*4. competition is inefficient. \*\* > > That is what I am trying to get at. You don’t even need to break it down like this. If you want to know the economics, inefficiency is an inherent part of monopolistic competition–that is, whenever there are competitive conditions, but also clear product differentiation by brands, trademarks, and so on. The length of this thread puzzles me. This inefficiency isn’t controversial. It’s a straightforward, extremely well-known part of micro. It’s most often the case (though not always) that the inefficiency is completely made up for, and then some, by the numerous advantages of private competition. But the chief question seems to be: “Is there an inefficiency from private competition?” The answer is almost always “yes”, and that’s true even in the many many many cases when private markets are indisputably the best choice. > [@emacknight](#): > > You still don’t get it. I know you think you’re smart, and you probably are, but you still don’t get it. These are old pit threads, so you shouldn’t bump them, but you might be interested to read [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=551290) and [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=504433). ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/162 "2010-07-10T13:45:32Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Yes you do otherwise you wouldn’t be harping on how if there was one company there would be less trucks. Are you calling me a liar? What I care about is the much larger debate about government provided vs private industry. If having 5 trucks serving the 10 houses on my street was more efficient, each company should have 5, meaning there should be 25 trucks. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Maybe your city is the size and shape of a tic-tac-toe board or something. Otherwise, we don’t have enough data. You might, but you ain’t sharing. You have all the data you need, asking for more is just your way of avoiding the issue. The size and shape of the city is the same whether 1 company provides the services, 5 companies, or 25. All of the little factors you think you need are the same for the 5 companies as they are for the 1. The number of cats running across the street doesn’t change if the government takes over the process, nor does the wind direction. Although it has been pointed out that more trucks create more congestion meaning that with 5 or 25 or 125 companies, traffic will continue to get worse. But I’m not concerned with that. > [@not\_alice](#): > > You believe wrong. The services are differentiated, you described the differences yourself. I linked to the definition of commodity, so please don’t use terms of the art incorrectly anymore if you want to be taken seriously. I’m going off the wiki link you sent, “a good [or service] for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.” I believe you suggested yourself that a company could contract to another. The only differentiation is entirely superficial, I wouldn’t know if a different company took my trash, as long as it met the commodity requirements of “took trash.” > [@not\_alice](#): > > So all of your assumptions here are wrong. Might that lead to an equally incorrect conclusion? No, not necessarily. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Yet the world is full of algorithms that determine just the opposite. How do you explain that? You think we are lying? I don’t think you understand what’s going on here. You yourself admitted you’ve never seen a privatized system. I think if you presented one of those algorithms it would be for an entirely different problem. As an example, **Sam Stone** keeps mentioning Fedex because he thinks I see a small inefficiency. I don’t, I see the larger inefficiency of the entire system. > [@not\_alice](#): > > So the most important thing to you is to call a system efficient because the costs are operation costs are lowest on YOUR street? That ought only interest you if you own part of the bottom line. Because nothing forces the trash co to pass that savings on to you. Especially if there is no competition. I thought the most important thing was to get the trucks off my street, which is it now? The most important thing to do is compare a system where 5 companies operate, vs 1 large one, where the one large one could be the government. As I run out the door, allow me to offer you one piece of advice: If the only tool you have is hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and every nail looks like a problem. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/163 "2010-07-10T19:58:55Z")
[quote=“emacknight, post:162, topic:545719”] Are you calling me a liar? What I care about is the much larger debate about government provided vs private industry. > [@](#): > No , not a liar, just insufficiently informed. Must suck to be you in this thread, especially after people have been gracious, and you wagged your dick at people. Seriously, what you are talking about is a well established area of public and private research encompassing several fields (Operations Research and Economics among them). These are qualitative fields, not descriptive ones. You have to do the math if you want to be taken seriously. > [@](#): > > If having 5 trucks serving the 10 houses on my street was more efficient, each company should have 5, meaning there should be 25 trucks. If your street was the only one we cared about, then sure. Haven’t I been asking you to define what you meant by “inefficiency”? Because whatever it is, I assumed you meant you were concerned by a much larger problem than your street. Was I incorrect? If it is only your street, then the problem is not much larger than tic-tac-toe, and then frankly, it won’t be very interesting. But even at that size, there are issues - why does your local supermarket have 15 checkout stands, each with a separate line, only 5 of which are open most of the time, while the bank next door has 5 tellers but only one line? You think that is random? Or perhaps that there is some math behind it, to optimize something, to make it as efficient as possible over the long haul? > [@](#): > > You have all the data you need, asking for more is just your way of avoiding the issue. LOL no, take me at my word. If you provide what I am asking for, then you might see otherwise. I think the issue is you didn’t realize that this is a qualitative problem, and now you are stuck. It is you that is going to have to accept that you are going to leave with a half answer here if you don’t want to assist. > [@](#): > > The size and shape of the city is the same whether 1 company provides the services, 5 companies, or 25. But the size and shape might affect what the optimum number of providers is. Not all cities are laid out the same you know. If you do a little research into the TSP, you will see the solution is sensitive to the number of nodes and the cost of going between them. That means a rational firm will consider the cost in deciding to enter to market or not. > [@](#): > > All of the little factors you think you need are the same for the 5 companies as they are for the 1. Not really. One company might have a different cost of capital. Another might have a different cost of labor - maybe it is a family firm and everyone works cheap. Another might have different costs of marketing. Another might only be interested in enough business to run one truck, not covering the whole city. All of these things can affect the global measures of efficiency. None of them have been addressed by you. > [@](#): > > The number of cats running across the street doesn’t change if the government takes over the process, nor does the wind direction. When I ask for wind direction, then you can point out that is not needed. How about you explain why what we have asked for are as irrelevant as wind direction, just for kicks and giggles? > [@](#): > > Although it has been pointed out that more trucks create more congestion meaning that with 5 or 25 or 125 companies, traffic will continue to get worse. But I’m not concerned with that. That is a partial answer at last to what you consider efficiency to mean. At least you say what it doesn’t mean in part, and that is fine. Others might very well consider traffic congestion as important. That is why I asked, way back in probably single digit post numbers. Glad you are finally starting to express an answer! > [@](#): > > I’m going off the wiki link you sent, “a good [or service] for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.” Then you misunderstand and might want to do some further research. > [@](#): > > I believe you suggested yourself that a company could contract to another. The only differentiation is entirely superficial, I wouldn’t know if a different company took my trash, as long as it met the commodity requirements of “took trash.” That wasn’t me. But what you describe is not a commodity in the economic sense, it is maybe what a guy-on-the-street would say, but it is wrong. When all of the companies offer the same exact service, and you have no choice as to who your company is, and they (and other who are not trash companies at all!) buy and sell the rights to get your trash on an open exchange, then come back and ask if your trash service is a commodity or not. > [@](#): > > No, not necessarily. But maybe! So that is a YES! > [@](#): > > I don’t think you understand what’s going on here. You think wrong. > [@](#): > > You yourself admitted you’ve never seen a privatized system. No, I said I never saw a place where there were 5 companies. > [@](#): > > I think if you presented one of those algorithms it would be for an entirely different problem. You think wrong. the point of asking you to help provide the data to build a model is so that the correct tools can be used to solve it. There are no preconceptions on what the form of the model will be, nor what the approach to analyzing it will be. > [@](#): > > As an example, **Sam Stone** keeps mentioning Fedex because he thinks I see a small inefficiency. I don’t, I see the larger inefficiency of the entire system. Yet you are either unable or unwilling to state what the measure of this inefficiency is. Is it gallons of gas used? Air pollution released? Cost of retail service? Traffic congestion? could be a zillion things, or even combinations of them. But if you can say it is inefficient, can you at least try to share with us what the measure of inefficiency is that you are using? If not, why not? > [@](#): > > I thought the most important thing was to get the trucks off my street, which is it now? I don’t know, you won’t tell us. > [@](#): > > The most important thing to do is compare a system where 5 companies operate, vs 1 large one, where the one large one could be the government. OK, fair enough. What exactly are we going to measure about the two different systems in order to compare them? Might we generalize in order to measure n companies, where n \>=1? > [@](#): > > If the only tool you have is hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and every nail looks like a problem. You are the guy who brought the OP, and has the closed mind about how to solve it. **Sam Stone** and I, being pros at this, are willing to look at the system first and try to describe it (with your help) before even hinting at what an approach to solve it might be. You OTOH are skipping all that and jsut plucking a “solution” out of the air. Itis not a solution, at best it is a hypothesis that is untested for truth. Would it help you to look at it that way? Let your solution be a hypothesis instead? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/164 "2010-07-10T22:11:40Z")
**not\_alice** , I’ve been reading this mess of a thread, and I think that I can translate **emacknight** ’s argument into a somewhat more precise Operations Research language. As I’m reading **emacknight** ’s argument, it is: [ol] [li]The system is purely a vehicle routing problem. If you like, you can think of it as similar to the Traveling Salesman Problem, with some modifications, e.g., there are multiple salesmen (perhaps a variable number), each salesman has a capacity for sales, etc.[/li][li]The objective function (the definition of “inefficiency”) could be the total cost of the system.[/li][li]Both the single provider (e.g., 1 company) and multiple provider (e.g., 5 companies) cases have a constraint that each customer must be visited exactly once.[/li][li]The multiple provider case also has the constraint that each customer can only be serviced by a particular provider.[/li][li]Therefore, the feasible region in the multiple provider case is a subset of the feasible region of the single provider case.\*[/li][li]Therefore the optimal solution to the single provider case will not be worse than that of the multiple provider case.[/li][/ol] **not\_alice** , notice that nearly every point you’ve been arguing is completely superfluous. I gave an objective function in 2, but the same argument works for **any** objective function. Similarly, the argument works regardless of the size and shape of the city, or any other factor you (in all seriousness) stated or **emacknight** (sarcastically) stated. **emacknight** , your argument (if I understand it correctly) is correct as far as it goes, but you must realize that it is only a first order approximation. In fact, the argument could be applied (with only superficial modifications) to **any industry** , or to the sum total of economic activities, but we know from experience the error of having a single entity put in charge of all economic decisions. The real world is more complicated than mathematical models, and far more complicated than thought experiment models. What **not\_alice** has been trying to say is that there are myriad reasons why 5 may turn out not to be true. Or, baring that, there could even be computational reasons why a multiple provider system would come closer to optimal efficiency than a single provider system. I hope this helps you understand each other. If not, I fully expect to receive the full measure of each of your vitriol. - For anyone who doesn’t study these problems for a living, this might be translated (with some loss) to “The single provider _could_ use the exact same truck assignments as the five companies do, but a single provider could also use options that multiple providers couldn’t.” ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/165 "2010-07-10T22:45:07Z")
> [@Dr.Love](#): > > **not\_alice** , I’ve been reading this mess of a thread, and I think that I can translate **emacknight** ’s argument into a somewhat more precise Operations Research language. As I’m reading **emacknight** ’s argument, it is: > [ol] > [li]The system is purely a vehicle routing problem. If you like, you can think of it as similar to the Traveling Salesman Problem, with some modifications, e.g., there are multiple salesmen (perhaps a variable number), each salesman has a capacity for sales, etc.[/li][li]The objective function (the definition of “inefficiency”) could be the total cost of the system.[/li][li]Both the single provider (e.g., 1 company) and multiple provider (e.g., 5 companies) cases have a constraint that each customer must be visited exactly once.[/li][li]The multiple provider case also has the constraint that each customer can only be serviced by a particular provider.[/li][li]Therefore, the feasible region in the multiple provider case is a subset of the feasible region of the single provider case.\*[/li][li]Therefore the optimal solution to the single provider case will not be worse than that of the multiple provider case.[/li][/ol] Thats a good start, but … He seems to object to the TSP, although I agree, that is probably a big component of it. You aren’t really defining “total cost” - to whom? what units? measured when? Your first “therefore” claim doesn’t necessarily follow, for reasons stated oft in this thread. Particularly, the cost structures for each company might differ and probably do. As an extreme example consider if company A (the single company provider) has to pay its labor X, and Companies B, C, D, E, F combined pay their labr \< X, and all else is equal. Then what? Since the 2nd “therefore” relies on the first, we can dismiss it as conjecture for now. Look, since you are moving towards a mathematical description, which is great, then you should extend your model, and if you which to assert things such as “therefore”, then it should be no problem to present a proper proof of the assertion. > [@](#): > > **not\_alice** , notice that nearly every point you’ve been arguing is completely superfluous. Says you. > [@](#): > > I gave an objective function in 2, Uh no you didn’t. Maybe “function” doesn’t mean what you think it means. > [@](#): > > but the same argument works for **any** objective function. You could make the supposition, but you haven’t proved it, because it is not provable as a general case. I already gave a counter-example. > [@](#): > > Similarly, the argument works regardless of the size and shape of the city, or any other factor you (in all seriousness) stated or **emacknight** (sarcastically) stated. Feel free to present your proof, or at least summarize your experience and training in this area. I think if you try to actually work it through, you will find you are wrong. Nothing wrong is using the hypothesis under discussion, but please try to remain open to the possibility it is not correct. > [@](#): > > **emacknight** , your argument (if I understand it correctly) is correct as far as it goes, Exactly. You might not understand correctly. Not because of you, but because he isn’t stating himself with sufficient clarity to support his claims. I think more or less you did summarize what he has said pretty well, BTW. > [@](#): > > The real world is more complicated than mathematical models, Perhaps the real world as a whole is, but the trash problem we are discussing most certainly is not. > [@](#): > > and far more complicated than thought experiment models. Well said. > [@](#): > > What **not\_alice** has been trying to say is that there are myriad reasons why 5 may turn out not to be true. And they are all quantifiable and predictable in advance, with experience and effort. We don’t knwo if, in the OP’s town 1 or 5 (or 2 or 30) companies are optimal, nor the number of trucks that are needed. We simply don’t have enough data in this thread to make a decision, or even build a proper model. Examples? The OP had not made even a rudimentary guesstimate of the capaicity of the trucks, the time it takes them to stop, pull over, lift the trash and replace it, and move along. No guesstimate of the distribution of the fullness of the trashcans on pickup days. No description of the distribution of houses in the city, not the road systems, nor the situation at the dump(s), or where the trucks are stored each night, or if the trucks might be used on other days in other cities, or the costs of the trucks, or the obligations of the company to pay the city, etc. > [@](#): > > Or, baring that, there could even be computational reasons why a multiple provider system would come closer to optimal efficiency than a single provider system. Not sure what you mean by “computation reasons” to be honest. > [@](#): > > I hope this helps you understand each other. If not, I fully expect to receive the full measure of each of your vitriol. LOL this is GD, not the pit. I figure readers are learning, if nothing else, how to spot bogus arguments that look good - sort of an extended mathematical literacy example if nothing else. Because we are all exposed to claims like the OP all the time, in the media and elsewhere, maybe even in our own intuition. BTW, one thing I thought about earlier, since OP is focused on one truck for sure being the best solution to accomplish a job. What if we define the job as “transport the people on his street where they need to go during the day”. Would he advocate that the most efficient economic method to accomplish that is to make everybody share one vehicle, maybe a giant bus or something like that, that takes you where you need to go, picks you up, and so forth? - For anyone who doesn’t study these problems for a living, this might be translated (with some loss) to “The single provider _could_ use the exact same truck assignments as the five companies do, but a single provider could also use options that multiple providers couldn’t.” [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/166 "2010-07-11T00:00:25Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Your first “therefore” claim doesn’t necessarily follow, for reasons stated oft in this thread. Particularly, the cost structures for each company might differ and probably do. As an extreme example consider if company A (the single company provider) has to pay its labor X, and Companies B, C, D, E, F combined pay their labr \< X, and all else is equal. Then what? This is not the model that I’m using. If you feel the need to include labor costs, put it in the objective function. They are not part of the constraints. My only point is that, **under a simple vehicle routing problem model of the garbage system** , like the one I presented, the mathematical content of **emacknight** ’s argument is correct. Throughout this thread, the main point of contention is that **emacknight** assumes this type of model and you reject it, but neither of you really acknowledge this fact. > [@](#): > > Uh no you didn’t. Maybe “function” doesn’t mean what you think it means. I assure you that it does. I’m not going to write out an explicit objective function because (1) vBulletin doesn’t provide a way to write math notation (2) I don’t want to waste time defining what will end up being dozens of parameters and variables and (3) you seem to really enjoy nit-picking, and I don’t want to slog through dozens of pages of modeling minutia that will go no where in terms of resolving this argument. > [@](#): > > You could make the supposition, but you haven’t proved it, because it is not provable as a general case. I already gave a counter-example. What exactly do you want a proof of? The only thing that you’ve taken issue with is this: Let A be a set defined by a set of constraints M[sub]1[/sub] (i.e., x is in A if and only if x satisfies all constraints in M[sub]1[/sub]), and B be a set defined by the sets of constraints M[sub]1[/sub] and M[sub]2[/sub]. Then B is a (not necessarily strict) subset of A. > [@](#): > > Perhaps the real world as a whole is, but the trash problem we are discussing most certainly is not. Oh, but it is. What if the union workers go on strike, does your model take that into account? What if Al-Qaeda bombs the garbage dump? What if the union workers are all members of Al-Qaeda? The simple fact is that no model can take into account all real world situations, even for something as simple as a garbage pick-up. The models just wisely choose what possibilities are too ridiculous to put into the model. > [@](#): > > Not sure what you mean by “computation reasons” to be honest. Mostly the fact that many problems are in NP. For a sufficiently complicated TSP there’s not enough computer power in the world to solve it in a reasonable amount of time. > [@](#): > > LOL this is GD, not the pit. I figure readers are learning… As far as I can tell, no one is learning anything in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/167 "2010-07-11T00:32:11Z")
> [@Dr.Love](#): > > This is not the model that I’m using. If you feel the need to include labor costs, put it in the objective function. You haven’t describe a model or a function. Both will have variables, equations, etc. This is one of my big problems with this thread. People are using terms of art incorrectly, and then asserting that they know what they are talking about. You might as well be saying the sky is green on a sunny day, to be frank. > [@](#): > > They are not part of the constraints. I am sorry, which part of the invisible model described the constraints and their relationships? > [@](#): > > My only point is that, **under a simple vehicle routing problem model of the garbage system** , Define “simple”. A single truck routing model is essentially a TSP, which is pretty much the poster child for “not simple”. This has been well known for many decades. If you have a “simple” solution, then you have your hand in Warren Buffett’s _and_ Bill Gate’s wallets my friend, and hats off to you! Seriously, it owuld be that big of a deal to show that there is other than a brute force solution to a TSP (and by extension all NP-Hard problems). > [@](#): > > like the one I presented, the mathematical content of **emacknight** ’s argument is correct. No, to be frank again, it is just evidence of amatur analysis, with the poster(s) unwilling to say “Hmm, maybe there is something to learn here”. > [@](#): > > Throughout this thread, the main point of contention is that **emacknight** assumes this type of model and you reject it, but neither of you really acknowledge this fact. If you get what he is thinking, then please provide the full model, with actual equations and all, and then we will go from there, OK? Until then, there is nothing to discuss but that the OP postulated a hypothesis which has not been subject to any testing whatsoever. > [@](#): > > I assure you that it does. I’m not going to write out an explicit objective function because (1) vBulletin doesn’t provide a way to write math notation (2) I don’t want to waste time defining what will end up being dozens of parameters and variables and (3) you seem to really enjoy nit-picking, and I don’t want to slog through dozens of pages of modeling minutia that will go no where in terms of resolving this argument. What, your keyboard does not thave +/-/= keys? Scribble it would with a pen and post a link to it if you must. “Dozens of variables”? Meh. Try me. If you have something to show, then show it. Don’t pretend that “the margin is too small for me to show the model and proof” here. I pretty much call BS if you want to stick on that tack, because you don’t really need “mathematical notation” to describe these models, and even if you did, you can get pretty far without it, and some verbiage. Give it a try - you are the one that said how simple the model is. Here is a start: Let n(c) be number of companies, where n(c) \>=1 Let n(h) be number of houses in town, n(h) \>=1 Let H(i) be the company choice of house i, where i= 1..n, and H(i) \<= n(c) … See how it might go? What exactly do you want a proof of? That the most efficient system of trash pickups necessarily precludes 5 trucks on the OP’s street. That is his claim - he saw 5 trucks, and offers it as evidence that the system is inefficient by “total cost” whatever that means. I already showed how the cost could in fact be less with 5 trucks than with 1. So prove his claim is always true, and by implication that my counter example is false. The only thing that you’ve taken issue with is this: > [@](#): > > Let A be a set defined by a set of constraints M[sub]1[/sub] (i.e., x is in A if and only if x satisfies all constraints in M[sub]1[/sub]), and B be a set defined by the sets of constraints M[sub]1[/sub] and M[sub]2[/sub]. Then B is a (not necessarily strict) subset of A. Why not build a model of actual trash pickup in the OP’s town first. Then maybe we can move to a more general principle. Make the case with the problem as presented first. > [@](#): > > Oh, but it is. What if the union workers go on strike, does your model take that into account? If it is a concern, sure, labor supply, availability and costs are likely part of it. Strike or not, you have to take into account sick days, weekend availability, shift differentials, etc. These can vary from company to company, so yeah, now you are thinking! > [@](#): > > The simple fact is that no model can take into account all real world situations, even for something as simple as a garbage pick-up. These are weasel words that I bet come from someone who has never built models at all. I asked earlier, and I ask again - can you share your experience in these sorts of matters, so readers can judge your qualifications? Seriously, it is not so hard to build a model, nor are the constraints you describe hard to model. For a pro. > [@](#): > > The models just wisely choose what possibilities are too ridiculous to put into the model. And nothing either I or **Sam Stone** presented so far falls into that category. > [@](#): > > Mostly the fact that many problems are in NP. For a sufficiently complicated TSP there’s not enough computer power in the world to solve it in a reasonable amount of time. Ah, so now we have gone from “the trash problem is simple” to “We are talking about an NP hard problem after all”. OK, well, then, how are you going to model it and solve it then? The trash is piling up while you think about it 🙂 > [@](#): > > As far as I can tell, no one is learning anything in this thread. As long as you are speaking for yourself, I would agree with that, but I think you are about to get through it 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/168 "2010-07-11T01:58:35Z")
Be patient. Soon enough, like cable, one of the garbage companies will buy up the rest. Then that pesky competition goes and your price options will disappear, your rates will climb and service will get worse. Companies don’t like competition. Customers do. They will eliminate it. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/169 "2010-07-11T02:16:26Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Define “simple”. That the model can be written down in a reasonable number of lines. The TSP, for example, can be written in 5 lines. The models you’re asking us to write will surely require hundreds of equations. Worse than that, I think you’re also asking for real world parameter values! If you are, enjoy the feeling of moral superiority that comes from winning an internet argument because no one else was willing to do months of research to win said argument. I’m simply not doing that much work unless I’m getting a paper published out of it. Maybe if you pay me to do it. > [@](#): > > What, your keyboard does not thave +/-/= keys? My keyboard doesn’t have a key of the Greek letter Sigma. Below, I’m going to use “S” to represent the summation symbol. > [@](#): > > [QUOTE=Dr. Love] > What exactly do you want a proof of? That the most efficient system of trash pickups necessarily precludes 5 trucks on the OP’s street. That is his claim - he saw 5 trucks, and offers it as evidence that the system is inefficient by “total cost” whatever that means. \ Why not build a model of actual trash pickup in the OP’s town first. Then maybe we can move to a more general principle. Make the case with the problem as presented first. [/QUOTE] Wow. You have no idea what I’m actually arguing. I haven’t built, and **emacknight** didn’t build, a model because it isn’t necessary to do so explicitly in order to demonstrate the point. If you really want to play this game, maybe I will. I can make a simple TSP-based model of an uncapacitated garbage collection problem. Then, if you really feel that the model is lacking, we can discuss that. But first, let’s make sure we’re on the same page about the TSP. Suppose we have a graph (V,E), where V is the set of vertices and E is the set of edges. Associated with each edge (i,j) in E there is a cost c\_ij for taking that edge in a tour. We are given decision variables x\_ij, binary values, x\_ij = 1 if edge (i,j) is used in the tour, and is zero otherwise. The TSP is given by min S\_{(i,j) in E} c\_ij x\_ij subject to S\_{j in V : (i,j) in E} x\_ij = 1, for all i in V S\_{i in V : (i,j) in E} x\_ij = 1, for all j in V S\_{i in K, j in K : (i,j) in E} x\_ij \<= |K| - 1, for all K that is a proper subset of V x\_ij in {0,1}, for all (i,j) in E Do you understand this? If so, tell me why the third constraint (S\_{i in K} S\_{j in K} x\_ij \<= |K| - 1, for all K that is a proper subset of V) is needed to model the TSP. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/170 "2010-07-11T02:19:27Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Be patient. Soon enough, like cable, one of the garbage companies will buy up the rest. Then that pesky competition goes and your price options will disappear, your rates will climb and service will get worse. Companies don’t like competition. Customers do. They will eliminate it. Yeah we mentinoed this upthread. One way to mange that in this case is to have limited time licenses. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/171 "2010-07-11T02:34:00Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > No, a package of salt is not a commodity to you in that way. It might be a kitchen staple, but not a commodity. [This](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity) is good enough for my purposes right now. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Let’s say that initially everyone is assigned a trash company at random so every one has the same market share. > > But via marketing, they are allowed to try to get people to switch. > > Every week, people will switch. Some will leave Company A, some will arrive, this is called churn. So what you’re saying is that clients will switch back and forth between companies, based on little more than marketing and perhaps price. As if to suggest there isn’t much difference between the service provided, that a change in price won’t negate. Sounds to me like each company is providing the same service. Oh, and when **Dr. Love** said, “I assure you that it does. I’m not going to write out an explicit objective function because (1) vBulletin doesn’t provide a way to write math notation (2) I don’t want to waste time defining what will end up being dozens of parameters and variables and (3) **you seem to really enjoy nit-picking** , and I don’t want to slog through dozens of pages of modeling minutia that will go no where in terms of resolving this argument.” He wasn’t talking about his keyboard. **not\_alice** , you seem to REALLY like modeling. Why not play with this as a fun little challenge. Write a little model that has trucks picking up trash. Then write a model that has 5 companies picking up trash from the same area as the first, where they each get a _random_\* subset of the original client base. We’ll be here discussing the topic at hand, let us know how it goes. \*I don’t give a fuck what word you’d like to use there, or what definition you’d like to use. Enjoy. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/172 "2010-07-11T02:40:07Z")
> [@Dr.Love](#): > > That the model can be written down in a reasonable number of lines. The TSP, for example, can be written in 5 lines. The models you’re asking us to write will surely require hundreds of equations. How many lines have been written avoiding writing those hundred so f lines? besides, that was partly our point - it is not as simple as you think. Not that 100s of lines are going to phase **Sam Stone** or I. Check in when you get into the millions… > [@](#): > > Worse than that, I think you’re also asking for real world parameter values! Hey, the OP described a real world problem as simple, and others jumped into agree. You can make guestimates to start, that is fine. That is how it goes - I said upthread, in the real world these are iterative and collaborative efforts. I am pretty sure the OP can identify the truck models, and form that much will become apparent, particularly capacity. He can oberve the time it takes to pull over and dump the trash and then move on, let us know the mean time and std deviation. That would be a good start, but not hard to do. > [@](#): > > If you are, enjoy the feeling of moral superiority that comes from winning an internet argument because no one else was willing to do months of research to win said argument. LOL I guess that is a concession coupled with sour grapes. But remember, the OP said he has been observing this already since “last year”, that means at least 7 months, maybe even up to 19 months. Really, he can’t guesstimate the truck capacity or the service delivery times yet, but he is certain of the absolute hypothesis he presented? > [@](#): > > I’m simply not doing that much work unless I’m getting a paper published out of it. Maybe if you pay me to do it. Yawn. Get the truck capacities off the web, and ask the OP for the distribution of service times. Or even guesstimate from watching n your own neighborhood if you have something similar. I live on a similar street, but I am rarely awake when the trash guys come by. But how hard can it be? Find a truck and follow it for an hour. That’s a good start! > [@](#): > > My keyboard doesn’t have a key of the Greek letter Sigma. Below, I’m going to use “S” to represent the summation symbol. OK, traditionally in such cases, we use sum(…), but S is fine I suppose. > [@](#): > > Wow. You have no idea what I’m actually arguing. Yeah, that’s true! But you have now idea of what this thread has been about until you jumped in. You are somewhat off topic from what I can tell, but close enough and willing to write an equation that you might get pulled back in for the better. > [@](#): > > I can make a simple TSP-based model of an uncapacitated garbage collection problem. what does “uncapacitated” mean? > [@](#): > > Then, if you really feel that the model is lacking, we can discuss that. I think **Sam Stone** and/or I suggested that exercise about 150 posts or so ago. > [@](#): > > But first, let’s make sure we’re on the same page about the TSP. Suppose we have a graph (V,E), where V is the set of vertices and E is the set of edges. Associated with each edge (i,j) in E there is a cost c\_ij for taking that edge in a tour. We are given decision variables x\_ij, binary values, x\_ij = 1 if edge (i,j) is used in the tour, and is zero otherwise. The TSP is given by min S\_{(i,j) in E} c\_ij x\_ij subject to S\_{j in V : (i,j) in E} x\_ij = 1, for all i in V S\_{i in V : (i,j) in E} x\_ij = 1, for all j in V S\_{i in K, j in K : (i,j) in E} x\_ij \<= |K| - 1, for all K that is a proper subset of V x\_ij in {0,1}, for all (i,j) in E > [@](#): > > Do you understand this? If so, tell me why the third constraint (S\_{i in K} S\_{j in K} x\_ij \<= |K| - 1, for all K that is a proper subset of V) is needed to model the TSP. Why? Did you copy and paste it from somewhere? A generic TSP is pretty standard stuff. The more interesting parts are the modeling of the costs, and maybe an explanation as to why you are prepared to model this as a TSP as opposed to any of a zillion other ways to do it. Because whichever type of model it ends up being, # trucks and # companies are going to be parameters, and it is the resulting sensitivity analysis that is going to prove or disprove the OP’s hypothesis. Oh yeah, there is the secondary hypothesis too - that all of this is going to be “simple”. How will we know when we cross that line? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/173 "2010-07-11T02:51:12Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > So what you’re saying is that clients will switch back and forth between companies, based on little more than marketing and perhaps price. Why they do it or how they are incented doesn’t matter. They do it in every competitive service, be it phones, wireless, ISP, tv, supermarket shopping, car buying, whatever. People have loyalty, but only so far. So sorry, you can claim the products are undifferentiated, and always will be, but then you would have to make the same for Verizon vs. ATT vs. Sprint vs … Sure there is a lot of overlap of service, but there is a lot of difference too. > [@](#): > > As if to suggest there isn’t much difference between the service provided, that a change in price won’t negate. Sounds to me like each company is providing the same service. Yeah but you think posted the OP and are defending it to the death too. Don’t blame you, since early on you pulled your dick out to posture. Doesn’t make you right about anything though. > [@](#): > > Oh, and when **Dr. Love** said, “I assure you that it does. I’m not going to write out an explicit objective function because (1) vBulletin doesn’t provide a way to write math notation (2) I don’t want to waste time defining what will end up being dozens of parameters and variables and (3) **you seem to really enjoy nit-picking** , and I don’t want to slog through dozens of pages of modeling minutia that will go no where in terms of resolving this argument.” > > He wasn’t talking about his keyboard. LOL I type everything here using a keyboard, I assumed all of us do. What pray tell _was_ he talking about when he said the editor doesn’t provide a way to write math notation? How does he interact with the editor other than via keyboard? And aren’t you getting a little snippy anyway? > [@](#): > > **not\_alice** , you seem to REALLY like modeling. Why not play with this as a fun little challenge. Write a little model that has trucks picking up trash. Then write a model that has 5 companies picking up trash from the same area as the first, where they each get a _random_\* subset of the original client base. We’ll be here discussing the topic at hand, let us know how it goes. That IS the topic at hand, and I have been trying to get information from you to create a model to test your hypothesis, but you are not forthcoming. The only quantitative thing you have shared is that you think your dick is big, so I should pay attention to you. But maybe , without alluding to your dick, you might find a way to take a deep breath, and reconsider what aspects of your OP you might write differently if you had to. Just to remind you what you said, here it is in its entirety: > [@](#): > > Government Waste vs Market Inefficiencies > The debates involving health care and UHC, and now debates about farming, tend to present the notion of government waste as repudiation for socialist policies. The most recent being food rotting in government warehouses in Venezuela and the inability of government to distribute food. A simple fact hard to refute. > > But today is garbage day in my little neighbourhood, which means the free market is demonstrating inefficiencies. > > All of the past cities I’ve lived in had garbage removal as part of city taxes. Most of the time it was a government run program, but some times it was an external company like Waste Management. And in each of those cases government waste was apparent. All of the typical complaints people have of government programs existed. > > My city, on the other hand, has 5 separate companies offering waste removal–sounds like the perfect free market scenario. Each company has an incentive to optimize their routes so as to minimize drive time, to provide the best customer service, and to fuck up the least. Which should result in lower prices and a better product. All of the best parts of the free market we’re promised. > > Except for one simple problem: 5 separate trucks are going to drive by my garbage today before one of them stops to take my trash. The free market is providing 5 times as much garbage collection as we need. A process that to me is insanely inefficient,a that repetition is built into the price. So where government could contract to a single company, instead with have the same process run 5 times. > > So on this issue, which is better and which is worse? Full government take over of the service? Government contract leading to the inevitable sweet heart deal. Should we have government intervention to force efficiencies? Should we allow/prevent collusion between companies? Or continue to accept this aspect of inefficiency. Anything in there strike you as a claim that is not supported, but maybe could be if you put in the effort? Anything at all? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/174 "2010-07-11T02:57:04Z")
With regards to TSP. Are we all clear that the issue at hand is comparing 1 large TSP vs 5 small TSP working in the same area, where the 5 small TSPs draw from the client list of the large TSP? And are we all aware that of these 5 companies, the city contracted with one of them (WM) to collect recycling, where every house has recycling (tax funded)? Personally, I don’t like using this data set, too many oranges. But two questions stand, [1] do you think the collection process that WM uses for recycling looks like the system they use for their trash collections (first is entire set, second is it’s market share from first set). [2] Do you think the collection process that WM uses for recycling looks like the entire 5-company system? By that, do you think they generate 5 client sets from the original, then divide that set to 5 trucks {or however many trucks the 5-companies use}? Why or why not, please phrase your answers in the form of a question. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/175 "2010-07-11T03:18:41Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > How many lines have been written avoiding writing those hundred so f lines? > > besides, that was partly our point - it is not as simple as you think. Not that 100s of lines are going to phase **Sam Stone** or I. Check in when you get into the millions… Sure, when you’re using AMPL or LINDO or even C. vBulletin doesn’t have quite the same capabilities. > [@](#): > > Yeah, that’s true! But you have now idea of what this thread has been about until you jumped in. You are somewhat off topic from what I can tell, but close enough and willing to write an equation that you might get pulled back in for the better. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what I missed? The OP started out with a statement that he sees “too many” garbage trucks going down his street, and the garbage system was inefficient because of this. A number of posters remarked, correctly, that this observation was not sufficient to show that the system is inefficient. Much argument and a little dick measuring ensued. At some point, the OP conceded that he had not put up enough information to judge the efficiency of the system, and put up a different, subtler and more theoretical argument that the system is still inefficient. So far as I can tell, no one has directly addressed this new argument. > [@](#): > > what does “uncapacitated” mean? See, this is one of those terms of the art. It means that some elements of the problem (in this case garbage trucks) don’t have a limited capacity. See also the Uncapacitated Facility Location Problem and the Uncapacitated Lot Sizing Problem. > [@](#): > > Why? I’m not sure that you can. > [@](#): > > Did you copy and paste it from somewhere? I used a reference to make sure I didn’t write it down wrong. I also changed the notation of the index sets to better suit my planned expansion of the problem to a garbage collection model. > [@](#): > > The more interesting parts are the modeling of the costs… You’ve hit on one good reason why the model I’m trying to communicate–the model that I think **emacknight** is imaging–is not an accurate model of reality. The implication from point 5 to 6 (from feasible regions to objective values) depends on the fact that the costs are the same for all companies involved. There are some models out there for which 5 and 6 are both true statements. If you understand the assumptions under which they are true, and why those assumptions do not hold, then maybe some learning can take place in this thread. > [@](#): > > and maybe an explanation as to why you are prepared to model this as a TSP as opposed to any of a zillion other ways to do it. You brought up TSP. I’m just running with that. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/176 "2010-07-11T03:27:03Z")
**emacknight** , I think I understand your argument. Tell me if I have it right: Suppose we have a complete listing of the route that every truck (for each of the five companies) follows. Call this list S1. Imagine an alternate universe where only WM picks up trash, and suppose that we have a complete listing of the routes taken by every truck in this case. Call this list S2. You argue that alternate universe WM could, if they wanted to, use S1 to route their trucks. But they don’t. They use S2. There must be some benefit to S2 over S1, i.e., S2 must be more efficient than S1. Another way to say it: **any** complete list of truck routes that is implemented by the 5 companies could also be implemented by alternate universe WM. Are these correct? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/177 "2010-07-11T04:05:00Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Yawn. Get the truck capacities off the web, and ask the OP for the distribution of service times. Or even guesstimate from watching n your own neighborhood if you have something similar. I live on a similar street, but I am rarely awake when the trash guys come by. But how hard can it be? Find a truck and follow it for an hour. That’s a good \start! You keep asking for stuff that isn’t relevant. Either you don’t understand what’s going on, or you think that’s a masterful debate tactic. In either case we’ve all been ignoring it, but you haven’t caught on. All of the supposed variables you think you need don’t matter. Pick a truck capacity, pick a population, pick a street length, pick the colour of the kitten hiding behind the bin, pick the mittens that the kitten wears. You are comparing 1 large company vs 5 small ones. Make the trucks the same, the time it takes per pickup the same, labour costs the same, the number of kittens wearing mittens, even throw in some terrorists and snow. All the same. Each time you ask for an irrelevant piece of information, your appeal to authority gets weaker and weaker. But the amusement I get from it grows. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/178 "2010-07-11T04:21:51Z")
> [@Dr.Love](#): > > **emacknight** , I think I understand your argument. Tell me if I have it right: > > Suppose we have a complete listing of the route that every truck (for each of the five companies) follows. Call this list S1. Imagine an alternate universe where only WM picks up trash, and suppose that we have a complete listing of the routes taken by every truck in this case. Call this list S2. You argue that alternate universe WM could, if they wanted to, use S1 to route their trucks. But they don’t. They use S2. There must be some benefit to S2 over S1, i.e., S2 must be more efficient than S1. > > Another way to say it: **any** complete list of truck routes that is implemented by the 5 companies could also be implemented by alternate universe WM. > > Are these correct? Yup, that’s it. And once you do that, you can also go the other direction: Given that S1 is made up of 5 routes, we can call them S1\_sub\_n, n is 1-5, representing each of the 5 companies. Do any of the S1\_sub\_n mimic S2, a single provider going to assigned houses. Or do any of them mimic S1, a collection of 5 routes to what could be considered a random assignment of the entire set? My _assertion_ is that S1\_sub\_n, n=1-5, will resemble S2, and that the probability that any of them resemble S1 is P, where P approaches 0. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/179 "2010-07-11T04:24:54Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > It would have to be a mighty big cul de sac to start talking about economies of scale. But at that point, is it really a cul de sac? > > We mentioned that. None of that proves any thing, those are jsut some of the parameters of a model. Maybe smaller trucks are more efficient… > > None of what you suggests means 5 trucks can’t work better - they can. I don’t think anything is going to convince you that 5 trucks and 5 crews covering the same block are “LIKELY” to be less efficient than a single truck with a single crew. Its all up in the air until you get granular detail. > [@](#): > > They don’t need to coordinate. Look at baseball teams - 30 teams each coordinating their own travel, but in the end, I bet the global travel model is pretty close to optimized. they don’t need to consult with each other to fly the best routes individually, nor do they seek each other out to share trips where they can. You don’t think the baseball schedule is centrally coordinated? > [@](#): > > You don’t think the US wireless market has been and is competitive? You asked if the auction system was anything less than ideal and I gave you an example of when it has been less than ideal. When 4G systems roll out, you will see the two market giants grabbing even larger shares of the market as almost every phone manufacturer is going to happily manufacture phones for them and then scratch their heads as they try and figure out if its worth making phones for this substandard signal range and sell them to dozens of smaller carriers. The smaller carriers have now taken to trying to get the larger carriers to let their customers roam on their networks the way that long distance carriers can use AT&T’s networks. What advantages do you see to having up to 7 overlapping systems of cell towers in the same area? Lets take railroads for example. Sure you could see a use for multiple railroad tracks from Pittsburgh to Detroit but as some point are you really getting much out of the nth set of railroad tracks? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719/180 "2010-07-11T04:30:22Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Just to remind you what you said, here it is in its entirety: > > Anything in there strike you as a claim that is not supported, but maybe could be if you put in the effort? Anything at all? Anything in there spell out exactly what I considered the goals of the comparison/efficiencies to be? You know, the goals/efficiencies you kept asking for over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-waste-vs-market-inefficiencies/545719.md?page=10)