"Milton Friedman had it right: when you spend someone else's money on someone else, you don't pay much attention to the results, and that's what we have in America today. The U.S. government spends billions of dollars, all of it someone else's, and gets an absolutely terrible return on its investment. But this is part and parcel of our culture: as long as we're doing something, results don't really count. The important thing is to be seen doing something, and the cheapest way to do something is to tell the government to do it. That way, we can feel good about ourselves for 'helping' while barely lifting a finger to do any real work. Spare me from that kind of generosity."

I agree the tendency is there, but the results are not always according to Friedman. It depends on the nature of what you are trying to do and how good the management is. For example, the Veterans Affairs medical system is definitely a Federal government operation. It is also the best large scale health system in the US, providing superior health care for less money. It does this by having a good computerized medical recordkeeping system and by having incentives toward preventive care. The incentives exist because the VA expects to keep its patients for life, not the 7 years average with private providers so that treatments that save money past that 7 yeasr mark are worthwhile. The private attitude tends to be "Why should I spend money that will reduce my competitions costs?

See Longman for more information:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html

In an organization as large as the U.S. government, it would be shocking if there were not some examples of successful programs. But if you look at the government as a whole, the return on investment is simply horrific.

I'll make you a deal, though. If you'll go along with tearing down a few dozen of the bad agencies, I'm more than willing to see the VA hospital program remain.

Unfortunately, I can't add much- your post is very well reasoned, Andre. You're also correct about this: "in an organization as large as the U.S. government, it would be shocking if there were not some examples of successful programs." But your default modes (skepticism toward government spending and its poor rate of return) are well-placed.

I think the difference between your viewpoint and Gary's (or Hilzoy's) has to do with the amount to which you each believe that one's own money is in fact one's own. To what extent does the individual American owe something back to the public-at-large for having the benefit of a public education, or of law enforcement and property protection, or of a public library? It's difficult to draw the line on what is one's own a state with a mixture of private ownership and public support. Where you see theft I imagine that Gary sees renegotiating the profit sharing agreement.

Nous, no doubt that there's a balance to be struck between Friedman's individualistic model and Robert Wright's non-zero sum game model, which extols the virtues of insuring risks on a broader basis. We have a mixed economy that recognizes the importance of public welfare, social security, education, law enforcement, libraries, etc. (Goldwater was the last pol to seriously challenge this arrangement; he was trounced). These are necessary and legitimate tools for spreading risk and sharing wealth. Yet, the Friedman model recognizes that the individual profit motive is a driving economic engine that can be throttled or extinguished by too much risk-spreading. Ergo, the balance to be sought. I'm sympathetic with Andrew's sensibilities in a pragmatic sense- too often, government spending is not analyzed to see whether it achieved its intended aim.

There are also realistic politic limits to Friedman's theory, as Newt Gingrich discovered when he tried to shut down the federal government. The public gave the nod to Bill Clinton and to the public sector; Newt never quite recovered.

"Let's note first that Gary sees no difference between raising the minimum wage and spending tax dollars"

Or we could not note it, since it's not true.

What's true is that I'm not clear what the relevant distinction is as regards your point, since in my view the relevant similarity that they're both examples of governmental command-and-control, and government doing things that affect individuals in ways some will object to, over the ways in which, as you quite correctly note, there are significant differences in these types of actions.

But saying that the important similarity is, in my view, more important than the distinctions is quite different from asserting that there's no distinction, and is quite different from the entirely incorrect assertion that I neither see nor acknowledge any distinction.

"Nonetheless, the idea that an ordinance that requires businesses to spend a minimum amount on labor is no different that the use of tax dollars is a strange idea to me,"

Me, too. But you're objecting to my response to "[i]t's nice to know that there are plenty of voters out there who are quite willing to be generous with everyone else's money," by referring to all the other ways governments are "generous with everyone else's money," and switching to "the difference between tax monies being raised to pay for something and private industry being forced to do something at the point of a gun" even though in the first quote you said nothing about the distinction.

And I could list an endless list of other governmental mandates on businesses, or individuals or groups, if you prefer; referring to the use of tax dollars directly was simply me being vaguer, and is an example of why I said I wasn't up to the discussion at that moment. That's all. Not any actual meat there, I'm afraid.

Random list of governmental mandates your original objection would seem to equally apply to: restrictions on how many hours employees can be made to work by employers, child labor laws, meat inspection laws, traffic laws, anti-discrimination housing/accomodation laws, copyright laws, anti-fraud laws... really, practically any governmental regulation at all. In every case, they restrict people's freedom to do things they might like to do, and people can be found to argue a case for why it's not fair to restrict that freedom (why should the government interfere with my ability to lie to you?; you're free to make up your own mind as to whether you believe that I have the right to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, and why should goverment punish my free speech claim that I do?; or why should government arbitrarily enforce a speed limit and restrict my freedom to drive at 110?; why shouldn't I have the right to manufacture copies of your novel and sell them without paying you? -- I'm not restricting your right to publish your own version, so why should you have the right to restrict my freedom to do so? -- etc., etc.).

Or if you'd prefer to limit the argument to "why should government have the right to spend my tax money on things I object to?," rather than the restriction on the freedom of the employer/the ability to regulate employers, is that an argument you'd like to make? If not, how is the specific case of the minimum wage truly unusual?

You write that "As is obvious from my perspective, when a government spends tax money, there is a clear relationship between the public good which is ostensibly being advanced and the government action. We want to fix some potholes? The local government issues some bonds to raise money, then uses those funds to repair the roads. The minimum wage, on the other hand, blurs that line almost to indistinction. The government isn't paying these people the minimum wage, after all."

But while one is free to argue the argument-of-effectiveness, as in "that regulation is a bad idea because the actual effect is insufficiently successful at achieving the goal" -- which is the actual argument you seem to be making -- then a) again, there's nothing special about the minimum wage here; it's simply a matter of opinion and preference as to whether most laws do or don't succeed at that goal; and b) it's not the point you made in the first place, which is simply "that there are plenty of voters out there who are quite willing to be generous with everyone else's money."

You didn't say a word about the "clear relationship between the public good which is ostensibly being advanced and the government action...."

But okay, I'm perfectly happy to accept that that's what you were thinking, and it's so obvious to you that it didn't need to be said.

That just brings us back to whether your opinion is "correct" or not, and since we haven't yet established a metric to measure that "clear relationship between the public good," etc., it would seem to be an unanswerable question -- or at least, simply a matter of opinion and preference -- until we establish and agree on that metric.

Which sufficiently answers my own original question to my own satisfaction, anyway. Thanks for responding.

"Because, after all, government policy has been so strikingly successful in getting people out of poverty."

It actually has, but we'll have to argue that another time; the numbers are pretty clear, though, when you look at the relevant statistics before and after the New Deal and before and after the Great Society.

"Where you see theft I imagine that Gary sees renegotiating the profit sharing agreement."

Something like that, yes. Yes, I don't believe that one's own wealth is magically generated in a vacuum, outside of society, purely by one's self, and that the rest of the economy, and the government's contributions to it, as well as that of all the other individuals and corporations, are irrelevant to how much wealth you'd wind up with.

Neither do I believe that wealth, including yours, all belongs inherently to the government, either, though, of course. My short answer is that I believe it's Very Complicated, and that depending on the context, you have a strong claim on much of "your" wealth, but simply that it's not Pure And Absolute. But reframing that as assert\ing that I believe you have only a minor claim, or that the government inherently has a greater claim, would be completely wrong.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: