We both know I could list all the positives and it wouldn't satisfy you. There are negatives too. I don't argue against that.Riggerjack wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:28 pmCitation needed.It's just not the continuous giant dumpster fire it is always described to be.
Yes, scale. It does create problems, but not having organizations of proper scale also creates other problems in a country this size.Riggerjack wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:28 pmThis is a good start for describing the problem, scale. Beyond this, look at the individual incentives. The larger the scale, the less individual incentives will align with the organization's goals. And the bigger the organization, the less capable it is in realigning incentives to goals. This applies to all human organizations, from churches to business to government. centralization only improves the center, by removing feedback and giving a more direct line of command. Look to the military to see this in action.I'm also suggesting that the larger the human organization the better the story is on "terrible" inefficiencies, as the larger the organization the larger the numbers in any inefficiency. However, this doesn't mean it's wildly inefficient just that the larger the organization the larger the numbers and the government is way bigger than the next largest business.
I'm not sure scale has a lot to do with aligning an individual's goals with the organization. It's easier to identify people in a larger organization that don't have the same goals as the organization, but that's just because 100 people in a very large organization stick out more to people thousands of miles away than 2 people from a small organization.
And, again, it's the scaling up of numbers/measurements that throughs humans for a loop. Finding out a large organization has 400 people doing some inefficient task seems like a lot until you take the size of an organization into account. All I'm suggesting is the big numbers screw with our heads and the mistakes/inefficiencies seem way worse than what they are. This doesn't mean the mistakes/inefficiencies aren't bad and shouldn't be identified and solved if possible. Though, this will never be 100%, which always seems to be the benchmark those that say, "government needs to be run like a business" use and then imply is occurring in business.
Where I will agree is that large organizations have a tougher time changing, redefining goals, etc. just because of their size.
I'm suggesting the poorly defined goals aren't usually due to ineptitude or malfeasance, but because the problem itself has no hard 100% solution. Many of the problems the government is trying to solve are squishy. They aren't like making 500,000 tons of steel, where each part of the process can be defined and measured.Riggerjack wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:24 pmIf this is correct, maybe combining nearly unlimited funds and poorly defined goals could be recognized as a problem by a rational, neutral observer, rather than a messy solution.Something needs to change. We are operating a 21st century country on a 19th century premise. A lot of what the government does is extremely complicated and very gray, which means it's difficult to identify the goal/win/achievement. This is why I hate it when people say it needs to be run more like a business. What 98% of businesses do is basic arithmetic compared to these government projects. The Fortune 500 companies I have worked for have well defined goals and they are still varying degrees of messy, so it's no surprise the government with bigger, more difficult, and sometimes less defined goals is too. Then throw in Congress screwing with how organizations function naturally (e.g., The NIH director only controls some of the specific health institutes under NIH. Institutes such as Cancer get their funding directly from Congress, thus no control by the director. Makes it hard to steer the ship.). It's just humans being humans.
The thing is, I want science to be funded. I want cancer to be researched, I want roads to be maintained, I even want people on welfare to have food and shelter. And I don't mind paying for it.
I'm sure this happens, but what would be the cost to stop 90% of this? Would it be more than just letting it play out?Riggerjack wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:24 pmWhat I object to, is oversight of oversight. The HR costs of having an HR department dedicated to the needs of the HR department. Continuing with a project that is directly contradictory to the other projects currently running, because it is both funded and approved. All of this is the reality of government today.
And, how much of this is really going on? $2B? $5B? $20B? $50B? If even if it's $50B that's still only 1.25% of total government expenditures.
My argument isn't that we shouldn't try to limit this, just that it's not the end of civilization like so many make it out to be.