# Governmental Ineffeciency? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 13, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312 "2009-08-13T17:47:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/21 "2009-08-13T19:10:26Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Governments went to standing armies instead of mercenary armies because they do the job better. [/QUOTE] They didn’t do it as a matter of efficiency, they did it because of scale and control. You couldn’t scale up an army of mercenaries as you could a standing (and conscripted) army, and you didn’t have the same level of control with mercenary armies as you did with a conscripted army. It had very little (or nothing) to do with efficiency. > [@](#): > > The government is better at basic research because it does far more of it Do you have a cite for this? The government has more money to FUND basic research, but that doesn’t make them more efficient…it makes them have deeper pockets so that they can waste more while still getting better results. Again, this doesn’t show that the government is more efficient, only has more money to play with. > [@](#): > > And Americans spend more more for inferior care, a shorter lifespan and a less healthy population. Perhaps you’ve noticed that our current health care system is not a free market system? Our current system is the worst of both worlds, being neither a UHC nor a completely privatized one. It’s a Frankenstein Monster that does neither well. I don’t think pointing at the current bastardized health care mish mash system we have works as an argument either way, since it has aspects of both. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/22 "2009-08-13T19:11:54Z")
THe US Gov’t has also been amazingly effective at providing and maintaining a coherent transportation system; i.e. roads. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/23 "2009-08-13T19:12:59Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] This might be a valid comparison: This article says Blackwater charged $11 million a year for a 34-person security team in Iraq. That’s $324,000 per person. It doesn’t exactly say what it costs the US Army to employ 34 soldiers, but the article does note that General Petraeus makes $180,000 a year. [/QUOTE] How is it a valid comparison? You’d have to see what level of capabilities these Blackwater ops had. Are they the equivalent of Special Forces? If so, it takes something like a million dollars to train, equip and support a Special Forces soldier. It takes a lot to train, equip and support a REGULAR US soldier, that we all pay, but that has little to do with said soldiers salary. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/24 "2009-08-13T19:15:03Z")
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] THe US Gov’t has also been amazingly effective at providing and maintaining a coherent transportation system; i.e. roads. [/QUOTE] Is it a matter of efficiency or one of scale? I actually don’t know about roads…this may be one that actually DOES show that the government can be more efficient in building and maintaining roads than a private contractor. Of course, most road work is done by private contractors, contracting to the government, so… -XT ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/25 "2009-08-13T19:17:06Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The government has more money to FUND basic research, but that doesn’t make them more efficient… But all researchers (government and corporate) compete for that pool of money. When a NASA researcher submits a proposal to NASA to build an astronomical instrument, he is competing against researchers employed by Lockheed. If government research institutions were inherently less efficient and producing less results, all the funding would be going to private companies. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/26 "2009-08-13T19:17:47Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > They didn’t do it as a matter of efficiency, they did it because of scale and control. You couldn’t scale up an army of mercenaries as you could a standing (and conscripted) army, and you didn’t have the same level of control with mercenary armies as you did with a conscripted army. **It had very little (or nothing) to do with efficiency**. I bolded your last sentence, because it directly contradicts what you said prior. In fact, what you listed fits the very _definition_ of efficiency: > [@dictionary.com](#): > > 1. the state or quality of being efficient; competency in performance. > 2. **accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort** : The assembly line increased industry’s efficiency. > 3. the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine, etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage. Duh. So, even according to your so-called rebuttal of **Der Trihs** ’s point, he is correct. In fact, he should prolly thank you for supporting his point, however unintentional it was of you. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/27 "2009-08-13T19:22:45Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Is it a matter of efficiency or one of scale? I actually don’t know about roads…this may be one that actually DOES show that the government can be more efficient in building and maintaining roads than a private contractor. **Of course, most road work is done by private contractors, contracting to the government, so…** > > -XT :dubious: And most government clerical work is done by private citizens, contracting with the government. In fact, I would go so far as to say that ALL government work (in the US) is done by private citizens contracting with their fellow citizens to perform work for a fee. So what is your point? ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/28 "2009-08-13T19:22:50Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > How is it a valid comparison? You’d have to see what level of capabilities these Blackwater ops had. Well, I gave it a try anyway. Since you seem to know more about this issue than I, perhaps you can present a comparison that’s more valid? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/29 "2009-08-13T19:45:02Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > In 2007 Social Security took in $784.9 billion, and paid out $594.5 billion. > Administrative costs were .8% of money taken in. > > I think that compares pretty well to most charities or other organizations that take in and disburse funds. And if the Salvation Army had the ability to force people to donate to them under penalty of imprisonment, then I’m sure that their numbers would be even better! ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/30 "2009-08-13T19:47:59Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Perhaps you’ve noticed that our current health care system is not a free market system? Our current system is the worst of both worlds, being neither a UHC nor a completely privatized one. It’s a Frankenstein Monster that does neither well. I don’t think pointing at the current bastardized health care mish mash system we have works as an argument either way, since it has aspects of both. Ah, one of the old standards. If the free market fails, it’s because it wasn’t free market enough. Convenient, since no civilized society is going to allow an utterly unrestricted, untouched-by-government free market. Especially since such a thing is not even possible; free markets depend on governments to exist, to the extent they exist at all. So your perfect system will never exist and fail, so you’ll always have the government to blame. And historically when the medical industry was less regulated, it did a WORSE job; selling poisonous medicines and killing people right and left. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/31 "2009-08-13T20:07:51Z")
“Scale” is part of efficiency, not separate from it. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/32 "2009-08-13T20:16:45Z")
There’s no special quality intrinsic to seeking _profit_ that can magically make an organization “efficient.” We’ve seen massive blunders from corporations time and time again. It’s the scale of the organization that directly affects efficiency, not whether it is motivated by profit. Monetary profit is also not the only thing that motivates creativity and effort. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/33 "2009-08-13T20:34:41Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > “Scale” is part of efficiency, not separate from it. How? Efficiency is the ratio of input to output. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/34 "2009-08-13T20:38:08Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > What makes you think this? Wouldn’t they simply charge more to the junk mailers? Perhaps this would shift more of the cost to them, instead of having it subsidized by us…and perhaps that would force the junk mail companies to become more efficient or go out of business, ehe? > > -XT So, you think we subsidize junk mail? Quite the opposite. [Cite.](http://www.newsweek.com/id/161231) > [@](#): > > The Postal Service lost $1.1 billion in its latest quarter. That number would be even larger if it weren’t for direct mailings, which now constitute 52 percent of mail volume, up from 38 percent in 1990. Revenue from direct mail “is the financial underpinning of the Postal Service—it could not survive without it,” says Michael Coughlin, former deputy postmaster. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/35 "2009-08-13T20:50:00Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > Well, I gave it a try anyway. Since you seem to know more about this issue than I, perhaps you can present a comparison that’s more valid? You were absolutely correct. Here is [one cite I found.](http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a012809blackwaterexpel) One security guard, for a gas convoy, got $600 a day. Blackwater took another $215 a day in overhead, and it went through two more layers before we paid for it. The idea that you need to be Green Beret caliber to be a security guard for a convoy is idiotic of course, and our soldiers, paid a hell of a lot less, did it just fine. As for efficiency of government, D-Day seemed to go pretty well, as did the Apollo program. Anyone who has ever worked in any large company knows how inefficient it can be. Hell, going to the moon starting pretty much from scratch took less than twice as long as Intel designing a new microprocessor (Itanic) from scratch - and the results of Apollo were a lot better. Conservatives seem to hate the concept of government so much that it clouds their reasoning ability. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/36 "2009-08-13T20:55:39Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s an article of faith, not the truth. Yup, it became part of canon as one of Reagan’s many ‘death panel’ like assertions. The man was a Saint! ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/37 "2009-08-13T20:56:26Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > 1. Is government inherently ineffecient? Is it a natural outcome of a structure set up to administer an entire nation? Or is it specific to democracy? A republic? I’d say it’s _negative externalities_ that are inherently inefficient. The problem is that the organisation making the decision doesn’t need the approval of the one footing the bill, so they have less reason to minimise costs, and have a harder time measuring the full cost in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/38 "2009-08-13T20:59:42Z")
When IBM decided to get into the personal computer market, they went outside to get it done. They knew the huge layers of management had made the company slow to produce a new product. Corporations are not efficient. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/39 "2009-08-13T21:20:12Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] So, you think we subsidize junk mail? Quite the opposite. [/QUOTE] I didn’t make a statement one way or the other about junk mail being subsidized. I was responding to this: [QUOTE=the first supraliminal] If UPS had to deliver junk mail they would be out of business in a week. [/QUOTE] Perhaps you should have directed your reply to him as well, since it’s more relevant…unless you feel that the US Postal Service could make money at this but UPS couldn’t, being so much more efficient and all… -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312/40 "2009-08-13T21:28:46Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] Well, I gave it a try anyway. Since you seem to know more about this issue than I, perhaps you can present a comparison that’s more valid? [/QUOTE] I don’t believe there is a valid comparison, so I’m unsure how I’d present one. It’s your argument after all that there IS a valid comparison. I think the comparison you were implying was an apples to oranges one, and at any rate doesn’t demonstrate the supposed greater efficiency between the US military and a private para-military group. > [@](#): > > But all researchers (government and corporate) compete for that pool of money. When a NASA researcher submits a proposal to NASA to build an astronomical instrument, he is competing against researchers employed by Lockheed. If government research institutions were inherently less efficient and producing less results, all the funding would be going to private companies. In a perfect world perhaps you’d be correct. However, the government doesn’t always fund things based on the best results…there are political factors involved as well in just about any government project. At a federal level it’s important to know what state the institution is in…and which senators are on key funding committees. The government can simply spend more than a private institute can on research because they have more to spend than anyone else. So, even if a great deal of it is wasted they will still get results. This doesn’t demonstrate how the government is more efficient than private industry wrt research…to do so you’d need to demonstrate that the government get’s more bang for our buck than a private company does. If they are getting more bang for more bucks then this shows that the government is, perhaps, effective…but does not necessarily demonstrate they are more efficient. -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governmental-ineffeciency/506312.md?page=3)