2681
2682

The 30-second guide to government spending (i.redd.it)

Zephine が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 443
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]pupperboy 342 ポイント343 ポイント  (61子コメント)

Concern for costs and quality especially go out the window when you are spending the money of future generations.

[–]lemonpartyFuck Che 88 ポイント89 ポイント  (56子コメント)

At twenty trillion, I wonder how many generations that is.

[–]socrates_scrotumgreen party 40 ポイント41 ポイント  (33子コメント)

Well, say we had $200 billion in surplus (we are not even close at the moment) in the Federal Budget every year. It would take 5 years to pay back $1 trillion. We would need to have $200 billion for about 100 years to pay back $20 trillion.

[–]garynuman9 55 ポイント56 ポイント  (26子コメント)

This assumes we use something of value to trade with. we don't. We, since the Nixon shock, and the rest of the world use fiat currency which has no intrensic value, backed by nothing but feelings (ie: the full faith and credit bit) . We could pay off the national debt tomorrow simply by printing the currency to cover it. It would crash the world economy instantly, but we would be debt free.

As such- like when Cheney said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"- it's not acknowledging poor fiscal restraint leads to problems down the road, it's simply saying it doesn't matter much when the entire world economy is tied to yours through petrodollars, etc... And when all the transactions take place with something that has no real value, what's it matter- power is all that matters at that point- no one can call us on our shit because if we collapse everyone collapses.

Not that I agree with this approach at all, but it's the current state of things and why the national debt is more or less meaningless. It's no different than the nuclear weapons... Anyone can call bullshit, but we take everyone down with us...

Edit: misspellings, wrote this real quick standing at the bar waiting for a drink

[–]socrates_scrotumgreen party 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well said. The value of the dollar is important. Currency valuation is almost like the value of the stock for a public company. Apple has a ton of cash in reserves, but they also have debt. Them taking on debt may not hurt their stock price, but it's what they do with the debt that could. Our buying bombs with our debt instead of investing it in the people and infrastructure should take our valuation down.

[–]garynuman9 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

oh i agree fully- please don't take my enumeration of the way things are as an endorsement of the logic behind it.

I suspect that my political leanings are at odds with a majority of this sub- i arrived at this post through r/all- that said even the things we disagree on come down to a cost/benefit analysis - For example I would strongly endorse a universal health care system as it would lower the cost of healthcare for everyone by encouraging those who currently wait until their ailment requires an er visit to go to the significantly- fuck, exponentially, less expensive primary care Dr long before it gets to that point.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is I agree with your premise- the currency we spend on the military really should hurt the valuation of the dollar,- we spend an irrationally irresponsible portion of our discretionary budget on it- though through the currency we've spent on the military we've cornered the market on power and essentially exempted ourselves from it's valuation being affected by any sort of rational market forces... Which is what separates us from the other countries that do the exact same thing- say north korea for example...

edit: used money where I should have said currency- in normal usage totally interchangeable but for the sake of clarity, given that the difference between the two is central to my point, it could lead to confusion.

[–]Droppinbodies 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Once you realize this you kind of understand how fucked we are.

[–]BigD_Rocks 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

No currency has intrinsic value. By placing gold or anything else in its place, the same concept remains, except the ability to print more of it.

[–][deleted] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Gold is a valuable conductor.

[–]garynuman9 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you can just print more of it it's not money. Money implies something of inherent value being used as a medium of exchange- like gold. Scarcity imparts value. The scarcity bit is the important part. It is finite and you're using a portion of the total existent to trade for something "worth" that portion of the total you're offering for it.

Fiat currency, by the very nature of being printable in any amount, does not meet this definition in any way. If you're having difficulty understanding the distinction Google Zimbabwe and/or hyperinflation.

[–]john22544 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Gold has limited industrial use. It's​ price is mostly determined by feelings too.

[–]garynuman9 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (11子コメント)

It's absolutely astonishing im finding myself having to explain this to self professed libertarians.

Gold's utility to industry has NOTHING to do with it's historical usage as a medium of exchange.

Gold became valuable because it was scarce. This leads to the following:

  1. There is a finite amount of gold on this planet.

  2. As gold is extracted from the earth the it becomes progressively more difficult and cost intensive to go ever deeper (or to previously uncharted lands, in the case of European colonialism) to get more. This lends to it's stability as a commodity. No one is going to disrupt markets by showing up with tons of gold they were able to extract for next to nothing. It's a scarce material and increasingly hard to find.

  3. Silver is more abundant- hence it historically being second to gold, but still scare compared to other metals.

  4. Aluminum, due to it's initial difficulty to produce was at one point in time was signifigantly more valuable that gold- hence it's at the time extravagant usage to cap the Washington monument. Essentially the entire value is derived from the scarcity. It's why aluminum is now used to make cans and other disposable things, it's no longer scarce, ergo it no longer holds value.

  5. You seem to be confusing the valuation of gold with the retail sale of diamonds- which is a market that represents how you seem to thing gold works. Diamonds are comparatively not scarce, it's a captive industry whose distribution is controlled by what can only be called a cartel. Their retail value is not representative of their natural scarcity or real value, but artificial limitations created by the few companies that control mining and distribution that manipulate the market.

  6. The theories that led to gold being used as a medium of exchange have been abstracted and used to give derived value to crypto-currency. Their is a finite amount of Bitcoin that will ever exist. As more people got interested in it the compute cost- or mining difficulty- continued to rise in direct relation to the number of people trying to obtain it, it became harder to extract- the same as gold which went from being found on the ground>mined>eventually colonial armada's sailing the world because they had exhausted the attainable supply locally- Bitcoin went from CPU mining >GPU mining > ASIC's. It's all about it being limited and progressively more expensive to get.

What the fuck am I rambling on about

Gold has value because it is finite and scarce compared to other finite resources. This makes it a good medium of exchange. It has nothing to do with it's uses and everything to do with the fact that it is more scarce than most every other metal.

Gold can be considered a commodity or a medium of exchange or just simply gold. It's a good thing to use though as there isn't much of it, and demand will always outstrip supply.

Contrast this with fiat currency who's only limitations of availability are a regulatory agency's willingness to print it. That's how you get the 100 trillion dollar bill I have in my wallet. When you base your medium of exchange on faith in and credit of a government things can go very wrong very quickly. Gold does not have these weaknesses. That inherent strength makes markets harder to manipulate though, hence as banking and investment interests gained power and prominence we've departed from it to the fiat system we have now.

[–]jackstraw97 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (10子コメント)

No one is going to disrupt markets by showing up with tons of gold...

Didn't Mansa Musa do precisely that?

Edit: formatting

[–]garynuman9 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (9子コメント)

The guy who accrued massive amounts of easily attainable gold from regions previously untapped? That sent ships to points of the world previously thought to be unreachable? In the 1200's.

Yup, he did that.

The same way Spain did in South America during their short period of dominance? Yup.

He seized huge quantities from areas that were previously untapped and concentrated them in a region that used gold as a medium of trade/exchange. Absolutely.

You've found an exception. The great thing about a finite resource though is that even in the 1200's he realized that he had broken the market of the era and thusly borrowed literally as much gold has his retinue could carry in an attempt to correct for the influx. He took advantage of places where gold was still easy to obtain. He also had the foresight to know that he was worthless if gold became worthless hence the borrowing at high interest to correct.

Not only does this not disprove my points it

  1. validates the libertarian view that markets are self correcting.

  2. Shows that there are indeed andvatages of pegging value to a physical object. If this happened with fiat there would be no incentive to do everything possible to drive the valuation back up.

[–]jackstraw97 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I wasn't really trying to disprove anything -- rather just to provoke some interesting dialogue

[–]hotheat 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

What I find intriguing is the idea of asteroid mining, and the massive amounts of precious metals that could be obtained, which of course would wreak havoc on the gold/silver/titanium markets.

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    [–]RPDBF 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Thanks for these explanations, always favored the gold standard but not well enough to articulate. Any books you recommend on the gold standard?

    [–]JonnyRichterClassical Liberal 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Precisely. Value is always subjective. I'm not sure why so many people think it's necessary for a currency to work properly. We're much better off using gold for its properties than to "back" our money and let it sit in a vault doing nothing.

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

        [–]ViktorVlibertarian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Oh psh. If we continue at this rate, it'll be erased in a few hours on one crisp morning at 9AM EST.

        [–]langlier 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        you're assuming we are no longer generating interest on that money.

        [–]socrates_scrotumgreen party 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        We already pay interest on that money. But yeah for simplicity interest is not taken into account.

        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

          [–]catonic 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          It's all a Ponzi scheme. All it takes for it to fail is for a single generation to simply leave no heirs.

          [–]Andy_B_Goode/r/The_Johnson 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (19子コメント)

          Would paying down the entire federal debt even be desirable? Right now about $13b $13 trillion of it is held by the US public, which seems like a mutually beneficial relationship to me. Americans get a stable form of investment, and the US government gets useable capital. What reason is there to try to eliminate that?

          [–]Lineartsclassical liberal 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

          The problem is not that the debt exists, it is that the government has taken money that could have been spent by private individuals on stuff that benefits us, and instead has been wasted on fighter jets to blow up foreign desert people.

          What reason is there to try to eliminate that?

          Eliminating the debt wouldn't eliminate the option to buy treasury bonds.

          [–]Opticine 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

          How could you eliminate the debt without restricting the ability to buy treasury bonds? Treasury bonds are about half the debt, and people will keep buying them.

          [–]Lineartsclassical liberal 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          How could you eliminate the debt without restricting the ability to buy treasury bonds?

          There's no reason the government couldn't pay off 90% of the debt but still sell treasuries. (It could even pay off 100% and still sell them although at that point it would no longer be a net borrower.)

          [–]Physical_removal 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Holy fuck

          [–]battle 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (10子コメント)

          LOL at "stable form of investment"

          [–]Lineartsclassical liberal 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          US treasuries are basically the safest investment out there. If I buy a 10-year bond there's a >99.99% chance I'll get my money back in ten years. The US government would never not make payments on its bonds - that would threaten Congress's ability to keep borrowing and giving out pork to the lobbyists who fund their re-election campaigns, so the two parties are strongly incentivized not to upset that.

          [–]Andy_B_Goode/r/The_Johnson 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (8子コメント)

          What's more stable than a US government bond?

          [–]AccidentProneSamminarchist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The debt held by the public isn't necessarily held by Americans. It's just bonds bought on the open market. Currently international investors own about twice the amount that private domestic investors do.

          So the lion share of interest payments from taxpayers either go to our own government or foreign investors.

          And IMO yes, we should pay it down because its incredibly dangerous. We are seeing really low rates right now, but treasury rates are revolving, meaning the government never pays them off only sells new ones at whatever the new rate is. While the T bond rate right now may just be a couple of percent, meaning "only" a couple hundred billion per year to service it, the interest rate is largely set by the market (with help from the Fed). In the 80's the average treasury bond rates got up to around 15%, which today would mean literally trillions to just service the debt per year.

          Which would mean we'd have to borrow trillions to service the interest, which is an incredibly dangerous proposition for a whole lot of reasons.

          Decent breakdown on debt holdings. National Priorities is a balanced budget group so they are biased, but their numbers are sound;

          https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-federal-debt-who/

          コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

              [–]royalroadweed 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Those future generations aren't going to vote for x politician's reelection so they don't matter.

              [–]eitauisunity 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

              This is the most disturbing aspect of our current situation. All of the money we are borrowing today is barely going to be paid back in 4 generations. Imagine being born and all of the taxes you pay in life are going to principle and interest for something that was bought and paid for long before your great grandparents were even a twinkle in anyone's eye.

              Talk about taxation without representation.

              This is the fundamental problem of statism: governments do not solve problems, they simply shift around who bears the costs of a problem, usually to a group of people in society who are too disenfranchised to do anything about it. Eventually a group will only go so long being disenfranchised until they rally and speak out to get the state to shuffle things around for someone else to bear the costs of a problem. There is no better stooge than people who don't even exist yet. How could they possibly object?

              The real answer to that question is they will refuse to participate in that system and any generations before them that are still living will be left holding the bag while all of the politicians who crafted this mess will be safely in their graves.

              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                [–]bship 45 ポイント46 ポイント  (32子コメント)

                Isn't this Milton Friedman's work?

                [–]aahsteve 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                I believe it's in his book Free to Choose, or perhaps a different one. He also talks about it in a lecture or two.

                Not sure if he originated the concept or is reiterating it like he does with "The Pencil" lesson.

                [–]HEADPOCKET 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Yes.

                [–]machocamacho88libertarian party 118 ポイント119 ポイント  (150子コメント)

                I remember working for the government. The perception is that tax payer funds are free money. When you go on a trip and get an an extra $150 per diem just to eat for a day (90's), you begin to appreciate just how cool it is to be fed the hard work and labor of the masses, so you can eat ridiculously nice meals while staying in a 5 star hotel, all without touching your taxpayer funded salary.

                [–]saffir 95 ポイント96 ポイント  (50子コメント)

                I, too, also worked for the government. At the end of every year, our team needed to find ways to spend the rest of our budget. We bought 3x 60" plasma TVs and brand new 18" LCDs for all the computers.

                Except this was 1996 when each monitor cost $800+ and the TVs were in the 10s of thousands

                [–]lemonpartyFuck Che 63 ポイント64 ポイント  (12子コメント)

                I'll do you one worse. I saw almost this exact same thing, only they didn't even unbox the electronics because we really didn't have any use for them. They put them straight into storage. They also requested a larger storage budget the next year.

                Baseline budgeting is fucking cancer. I don't think even our resident cadre of leftists that show up in every thread will debate me on that one....

                [–]Gunn4r 58 ポイント59 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                As a resident leftist, I, in fact, will agree that baseline budgeting is straight up cancer, aids, and dick warts all rolled up into one!

                [–]charlietango13 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                The blue waffle of budgeting!

                [–]lemonpartyFuck Che 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                I think that's official. let's just call it Blue Waffle Budgeting

                [–]ksnyder1 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                How do you go about fixing a problem like that?

                [–]mogulman31 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                You elect a congress that decides budget based on need and utility rather than campaign donations and rhetoric.

                [–]hastala 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Read: You don't.

                [–]Druchiiii 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                Sounds like a pretty solid common ground to stand on.

                [–]Skyrmir 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                But we really need 3000 more tanks and a hundred more bombers...

                [–]Druchiiii 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Alright well they can do that and we can send them to their lobbying jobs a little early.

                [–]lemonpartyFuck Che 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Baseline budgeting isn't even tied to campaign donations. It just literally gives every department their same budget as last year plus growth, as long as they spent all of their money last year.

                The only way around it is to just slash the shit across the board.

                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                    [–]slappyhooper 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (11子コメント)

                    Even the military is like this. I was an infantry Marine for 8 years. Marines have a pretty well-earned reputation for doing more with less money and resources. That being said, I've seen "training" packages two weeks before the fiscal year ended that were literally nothing but bringing companies on line and blasting away hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo as quickly as they could be loaded. Rifles were getting so hot they were going down. we called them "Dump Ex's" (Magazine Dump Exercise) There was literally no point to it except to burn up ammo as quickly as possible. The reasoning? The Battalion had "X" amount allocated for ammo, and if we didn't use it, they might trim our budget the next year.

                    In the field, I've seen tray rations cooked in quantities of 3-4 times what we actually needed to consume to "use them up" and I'm not shitting you, once they were "used" they were dumped in a trench in the ground and bulldozed. Those rations are good for 15-20 years. There's simply no reason for that kind of waste. This was a microcosm. I'm serious that the Army is probably four or five times worse, and I have no idea about the other armed services, but they probably do the same thing.

                    Side note, I guarded embassies for three years, and I still know a lot of State Department Employees. A lot of them are screaming bloody murder about the proposed budget cuts, but let me tell you, there's so much fat that could be trimmed that nobody would notice, it's unbelievable.

                    [–]AnActualCommunist 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                    even the military is like this

                    implying the U.S. military isnt the biggest sinkhole of taxpayer funds to ever exist

                    [–]slappyhooper 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                    Technically, it's not. Medicare and Medicaid are nearly double the military budget.

                    I was speaking as a Marine. I mean, a lot of the guys were driving around in Humvees that were as old or older than they were, living in barracks that should have been condemned a decade prior. My point was, there's this weird myopia that occurs when you're spending money that's "free", and even penny-pinching services like the Marine Corps aren't immune.

                    [–]AnActualCommunist 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    By sinkhole I mean throwing money away with no real benefit to society. And when I talk about tje military being wasteful, I mean the contracting end of it, not the actual boots on the grouns. We spend an ungodly amount of money on warmachines that we don't need, and the vast majority will never see use, simply because only practical purpose would be in a war with China or Russia, which would go nuclear anyway. At least the vast spending on healthcare keeps people alive and fed, rather than throwing it away on corporate welfare.

                    [–]babyfacelaue 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    The actual buying of equipment isn't shit for the military budget. I'll find it soon, but an army officer posted a loooonnng explanation about military spending and the proposed increase.

                    Ok I can't link to it (on mobile) but it's close to the top of this week on /r/neutralpolitics

                    [–]Viciousfragger 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    TIL the word "myopia" "Lack of imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight" -per google

                    Thanks bud!

                    [–]Dartht33bagger 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    What a waste of resources. I can't believe people actually setup wastes like this.

                    [–]Majsharan 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    Most government entities could have their budgets cut in half and no one would notice.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                      [–]Halgrind 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      I think your memory is off, the biggest plasma TV available in 1997 was 42".

                      [–]saffir 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      ... to the public. This is the government we're talking about.

                      [–]anarchism4thewin 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (13子コメント)

                      What

                      [–]saffir 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (12子コメント)

                      Government budgets are use-it-or-lose-it, the latter of which lowers your budget for next year. Therefore all government departments find creative ways to use it all.

                      [–]broodmetal 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      This is true and is the biggest the waste of government.

                      [–]pedanterica 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Both this, and the thing you replied to, are my experience in the private sector as well.

                      コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                        [–]tchock23 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                        Going to replace how it works in the government with how it works in corporations, since people seem to think corporations are meccas of efficient spending:

                        "I remember working for a [corporation]. The perception is that [division budgets] are free money. When you go on a trip and get an extra $150 per diem just to eat for a day [today], you begin to appreciate just how cool it is to be fed [continuous payments from your (often grossly over-charged) customers], so you can eat ridiculously nice meals while staying in a 5 star hotel, all without touching your [cushy middle-manager, customer-funded] salary."

                        Truth is when you place human beings in large groups (government or corporations) they exhibit similar behaviors...

                        [–]sphigel 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                        since people seem to think corporations are meccas of efficient spending

                        People lambast government for wasteful spending because when the government wastes money they're wasting taxpayers money. Why would I give a shit how a company chooses to spend its own money?

                        [–]pedleyr 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        That's a damn good point - I was going to say the exact same thing as the person you responded to, but I accept now that I was missing the point. Thanks.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                          [–]ShelSilverstain 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Yup. I do jobs with huge per-diems, even though they cater breakfast and lunch and the client takes us all to dinner on their dime

                          [–]lossyvibrations 49 ポイント50 ポイント  (38子コメント)

                          I worked for the government (NASA) for a decade. I've never experienced that sort of spending.

                          The only time my per diem even came close to $100 a day was when I had to travel to work in some places where the costs were very high (Switzerland comes to mind) and our hotels were capped at $150 per night.

                          Edit: not that there isn't waste in government, but nickel and diming employees who are already working unpaid overtime and forking out hundreds in child care when they travel over $15 worth of food a day is ridiculous.

                          [–]LedgeNdairy1 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (16子コメント)

                          My guess was he worked in defense. This is still very common i the defense industry today. Very frustrating and seeing it first hand for myself is one of the reasons i am libertarian

                          [–]broodmetal 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (9子コメント)

                          No it isn't. I work in defense and we don't get that much. Food is 64 per day and hotel depends on area. If it's a day trip you get nothing.

                          [–]LedgeNdairy1 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          I work in defense too and this is the case. In depends where you go obviously, different areas have different rates. Your seriously gonna tell me the gov isnt wasteful when doing this? Pls.

                          [–]ViktorVlibertarian 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Welcome to SAS and affiliated contractors, who get higher than the GSA cuts.

                          I do contracting work for the gov on and off, and food can be anywhere from 41 to 71 a day CONUS, hotels from 98 to 240 (DC is some expensive shit), but if you're traveling as SAS or you're an exec selling into a space? You're using tax payer dollars for that first class ticket and expensive hotel.

                          [–]Gunn4r 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                          So you're saying people are just making wild generalizations about things they, at best, only know about anecdotally?!?! WHO WOULD DO THAT?!?!?!

                          [–]too_spicy_for_soros 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                          I mean, he refuted an anecdote with a generalization based on an anecdote so. . .

                          コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                            [–]Red_Eye_InsomniacIndividualist 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            I worked for NASA on the contractor side for a few years. I had the same experience. My per diem was enough to eat and live comfortably, but nothing extravagant. My hotel rooms were capped at $85 a night (more in California of course), so it would be a standard Marriot/Holiday Inn type room.

                            An agency like NASA doesn't have the budget for such extravagances because they don't really have enough money to fullfil their assigned mission. Any excess money they have inevitably has to go to cover overruns caused by unrealistic scheduling to avoid slip that happens anyway.

                            [–]lemonpartyFuck Che 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                            You probably didn't work with budget people, around the end of the fiscal year.

                            I worked for the dept. of energy for a pretty short 2 years. They had people whose entire jobs were to make sure that baselines were completely spent at the end of the year.

                            [–]lossyvibrations 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                            Yes, and my experience was the same in the private sector as well. My manager didn't get a bonus for not spending money, he got a bonus for producing new contracts and sales.

                            [–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

                            [deleted]

                              [–]lossyvibrations 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              There's two things at play. In the private sector, the customer does eat those costs - if you've ever flown on a Boeing plane,'you contributed to per diems that far exceed government levels.

                              With government travel, part of the reason for per diems is to wipe out corruption. In the past, contractors could pay for lavish hotels and $100 dinners. It's now illegal to accept that.

                              [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

                              [deleted]

                                [–]machocamacho88libertarian party 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                Pretty much what I am referring to....though rates do vary depending on destination, and obviously some travel more than others. Now imagine that cost applied to every single person working for the government who has to travel somewhere.

                                Example: I once stayed at this hotel for a week. I was one of 50 or so. What do you think that little week cost US taxpayers?

                                [–]lossyvibrations 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                The costs I've experienced are pretty reasonable for travel. Most places in the US I got about $60 a day, which is three meals. I doubt i'd ever get more than $150 a night for ahotel, which wouldn't put me up there.

                                [–]machocamacho88libertarian party 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                The costs I've experienced are pretty reasonable for travel.

                                That's pretty much the mindset I was talking about, not to mention a quad 4 mentality. Fact is government travel in this day and age represents an unnecessary expense given certain technological advances. Why should tax payers pay for you or I to travel across the country to some conference when you can be in attendance by other less expensive means?

                                [–]lossyvibrations 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                Let's say travel to the biggest conference in my field is 1% of my salary. If that Spurs conversations or contracts, it's a huge win for my employer.

                                [–]machocamacho88libertarian party 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                That makes sense for a private employer trying to get more contracts......for the government, not so much.

                                [–]lossyvibrations 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                Why not? We're as much trying to get contracts and keep ourselves funded as anyone else.

                                [–]ViktorVlibertarian 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                And here you hit the nail on the head.

                                US Gov is an industry of mega-corps that collude to achieve outcomes. Much like Walmart and Amazon or Comcast and TimeWarner.

                                So the gov should be as limited as possible because, like a big corporation, it's susceptible to corruption, waste, fraud, and incorrect goals (producing useless product) just like any other company. Only we can't go buy another company's product, so we need to do extra diligence.

                                You can get rich selling to the US gov. That's a problem.

                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                    [–]Anti-Marxist- 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (16子コメント)

                                    I don't know why you're being downvoted. This is an good story on government waste

                                    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

                                    [deleted]

                                      [–]RichGunzUSAPatriot 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                      I think people are downvoting him for wasting taxpayer dollars, but they are hypocrites. Everyone of us would gladly spend taxpayer dollars on ourselves if we could. Id wanna stay in 5 star hotels and fly 1st class too.

                                      [–]broodmetal 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      That's not how it works. Depending on the area per diem ranges from 70-150 is the highest I've personally seen for per diem on hotel costs. None of which will pay for a 5 star hotel. Flights are coach and you have no choice unless paid for out of pocket. Now if you are talking about Congress I can't comment on that. But for regular blue collar workers that's how it is.

                                      [–]gimpbully 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      1st class?! Then you do not wanna work for govt.

                                      [–]lemonpartyFuck Che 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                      You're just making the case that there is really no such thing as good government, and all we can do is minimize it to minimize damage.

                                      [–]RichGunzUSAPatriot 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                      That was my point. I dont blame polititians for wanting to spend money that isnt theirs, Im blaming the gov for giving them access to so much money.

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                        [–]contrarian_barbarian 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        He's being downvoted because everyone who actually understands the system knows it's BS. The per-diem rates are all published in a publicly accessible manner at the GSA's website and apply to all federal service.

                                        [–]monkeybreath 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                        I worked for the Canadian government. We were very cost conscious. We were spending taxpayer's money, so we were spending our own money. We wanted it to be well-spent. The only people who didn't care were the people who saw government as a free meal-ticket, and thankfully we didn't hire many of those.

                                        Edit: my projects saved the tax-payer over $500 million over a 15-year period over the previous methods of getting the services we needed.

                                        [–]broodmetal 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (29子コメント)

                                        Completely false. Per diem is not 150. Unless you count hotel costs into that. Food per diem per day when you are away from your assigned work place is 64 bucks. And that's only if you stay somewhere over night.

                                        [–]machocamacho88libertarian party 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (28子コメント)

                                        Here are some rates in California as an example mr completely false:

                                        https://gsa.gov/portal/category/100120

                                        You will note some are over $200 per day. San Francisco is $267 ffs.

                                        [–]broodmetal 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (24子コメント)

                                        Because San Fran is one of the highest cost places in the country. Of course per diem for a hotel will be more. Should government workers who are sent to these places sleep in the street? Food per diem is still only 76 dollars there.

                                        Just like Bah for the military is way higher in those areas also.

                                        [–]De__eB 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (17子コメント)

                                        "Only" 76 dollars a day for food?

                                        [–]lossyvibrations 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (16子コメント)

                                        Yes, on travel in SF that's pretty moderate. Have you ever traveled for work before? Between three meals and a coffee or two, you're easily at $75 in SF. A decent dinner alone is gonna be $30 with taxes and tip.

                                        [–]De__eB 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (15子コメント)

                                        Yeah, I travel a lot actually.

                                        I usually eat a continental breakfast at the hotel, Chipotle, Panera, Qdoba or similar fast casual place for lunch and dinner.

                                        Spending $76 taxpayer dollars a fucking day on food is outrageous. I don't have to go to a table service restaurant for fucking dinner every night on a work trip.

                                        [–]lossyvibrations 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        Ah, I was just reminded by a colleague why they set it up to eat moderately decently - you mentioned below having a catered lunch provided. That's illegal for government contractors. So let's say I work for NASA and am overseeing a $300k purchase, and go out to eat with Boeing. To limit any chance of bribery I'm forbidden from accepting gifts or food; but because I'm traveling in the private sector sphere that is what meals cost. Basically we decided to given an extra $20-25 a day over what you can do cheaply to avoid influence peddling.

                                        Hell, we can't even accept tote bags from conferences.

                                        [–]lossyvibrations 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                        Ok, then you've never worked in a serious profession. That's ok. When the government travels, we interact with other professionals in our field. While we might only make half their salary and go to chipotle and the grocery store to craft a $15 meal at home, that's not going to fly with other professionals. Asking professionals to eat at chipotle and then craft something in their hotel later that night from a grocery store to save $10 is penny smart and pound foolish.

                                        Edit: also; the whole point of work trips is to have sit down meals with people you work with. You think chipotle can provide a professional environment for 8 people to sit at a table and discuss work?

                                        [–]De__eB 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                        Why are you stretching what I'm suggesting? Nobody said craft something at the hotel and the savings are a lot more than $10.

                                        I rarely spend more than $25/day on food while on travel. Saving $50 taxpayer dollars per person per day isn't being pound foolish. Wasting $75/day on you entitled fucks is pound foolish.

                                        There's also no obligation that just because you have a professional career you spend wastefully on food. I work in a professional field.

                                        Edit for your edit: If I'm sitting down with 8 people and discussing work, usually it's in a boardroom at their office with a catered lunch. That costs me $0 by the way.

                                        [–]lossyvibrations 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                        If it's at a boardroom with a catered lunch, it's costing someone probably $30-50. The money is still being spent.

                                        And yes, I'm a middle aged professional. Suggesting that while I'm on travel for work, already giving up free time and putting in unpaid overtime, I should also eat fucking fast food three times a day is insane.

                                        and yes, most people if they are eating a shitty diet like you propose during the day are going to need to stop by a grocery store and buy some fresh fruits and veggies.

                                        Seriously, you take catered lunches for your job but bitch about people not wanting to east fast food? There's nothing wrong with bringing a little professionalism to travel. You're whining about someone spendifn another $15-20 a day than you think is optimal, while they're also giving the taxpayer hours of free overtime. Do some fucking math.

                                        [–]gimpbully 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        If I'm sitting down with 8 people and discussing work, usually it's in a boardroom at their office with a catered lunch. That costs me $0 by the way.

                                        And that's why the policy states that if lunch is provided, your per diem gets docked 1/3.

                                        [–]ViktorVlibertarian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        Honestly, I've seen blatant violations of FAR done over these meals and if I could, I'd introduce a regulation that bans gov employees from interacting with contractors outside sanctioned events or the federal workplace.

                                        And as one of those professionals you're talking to - I'd have far more respect for a govvie if they wanted to eat at a low cost place to save the tax payer money.

                                        I've seen it before, too, and I made sure to work a team a few extra hours unbilled a week to enhance delivery just to make that person look good enough to get a promotion, too.

                                        [–]Zerichon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        You're a fucking cunt. Keep justifying theft.

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                          [–]gimpbully 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          It's important to note that there are policies around the per diem. For instance, first day (the day you fly in) you get half per diem (edit: same with the the day you fly out). If, say, the conference you're at provides breakfast and lunch, you get 1/3 per diem.

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                              [–]Factushima 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              Those days are over.

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                                [–]RedBloodedMeatEater 84 ポイント85 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                I remember when there was mostly news and stuff here. Now it is just graphics and memes. :(

                                                [–]raideratoLP.org 57 ポイント58 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                "Be the change you want to see in the subreddit." - Bastiat

                                                [–]AustNerevarNet Neutrality is Integral Towards Progress and Free Speech 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                The problem isn't the posters, its the up voters who only look at the images or, worse, only read the titles but never come to the comments. They aren't even educated on how to make the subreddit better because they aren't even aware its a problem.

                                                [–]BreaksFull 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                I think it's pretty optimistic of the average buyer to put them all in Q1. There's way too many garbage quality products that are wildly successful for me to have that much faith in the average consumer being an informed one.

                                                [–]sweYoda 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                Yeah well, imagine when that kind of a person has the responsibility to spend other peoples money on other people. Can't get any worse.

                                                [–]BreaksFull 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                I suspect it depends partially on the spender. I'd be willing to bet there's a reasonable number of government employees who actually take their jobs seriously or have some sense of professional pride and put some effort into smart spending.

                                                [–]sweYoda 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                Ofc, but there is still the matter of choice. What they think is the "best" might not be what you desire. Perhaps you are happy enough with a service that costs half as much and is half as bad, or that cost as much but is just different.

                                                [–]BreaksFull 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                Value and quality is subjective to a degree of course, but not so much when it comes to something like, say, pet food. Either you have healthy, quality pet food or you don't. And a disheartening amount of people buy garbage pet food based solely on a few dumb commercials they saw, doing no research on how good it could be for their pets.

                                                [–]Pag_Elodea 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                • Something you think is garbage may not necessarily be so for another person. Just because you may want to buy something does not mean someone else will.
                                                • People trade cost and quality according to their own constraints. If everyone only preferred having small quantities of high quality stuff, you would probably be here complaining about everyone not caring about cost.
                                                • Forcing people to buy something they don't want because you think they are uninformed is tyranny. If you think so many people are uninformed, why aren't you informing them?
                                                • The only way to learn is to make mistakes whether simulated or real.
                                                • Their money, their time. If they want to blow it on something dumb, who are you to tell them they can't? Do you think the G in Government stands for God?

                                                [–]BreaksFull 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                Quality is subjective to a degree, but only to a degree. In some cases quality is objective, like in the case of food. The amount of people who buy garbage pet food brands with virtually no research on its quality or potential effects on their pets is rather disheartening to me.

                                                And you're making a lot of assumptions. I didn't say I want to specify and enforce every purchase choice people make from the seat of the big G, just that trusting your average consumer to make wise, researched purchases is overly optimistic in my view.

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                  [–]ebone23John Galt's cabin boy 84 ポイント85 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                  The 30 second guide to shitposting:

                                                  1. go to /r/Libertarian
                                                  2. shitpost
                                                  3. get upvoted
                                                  4. repeat

                                                  [–]AnExoticLlama 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                  Especially potent if posts have minimal thought put into them and make sweeping assumptions about how bad gubment is

                                                  [–]Mentalpopcorn 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  Don't forget that you should under no circumstances provide evidence for your claims. What's important is that you appeal to libertarian intuitions, not that what you're posting is factual.

                                                  [–]worklederp 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  3.5 Have top comment pointing out why the post is moronic

                                                  [–]sumo_kitty 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                                  I don't think the way I budget to buy household items can apply to large projects that span years and involve multiple contracts. If how do I have any more influence over infrastructure in a libertarian government vs our current government. I don't have the time nor the care to find a contractor to quote me to fix potholes. I don't have enough personal money to resolve the issue. So either way someone else is overseeing this project. I rather the group overseeing the project ideally not looking to profit off a road.

                                                  [–]Cozy_Conditioning 48 ポイント49 ポイント  (21子コメント)

                                                  Any large organization works this way. Representatives spend taxpayers' money, and CEOs spend shareholders' money.

                                                  Since you can't buy a highway overpass for yourself, it's kind of a moot point though.

                                                  [–]Galgus 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (14子コメント)

                                                  Shareholders have more power over a CEO than average taxpayers do over representatives, so the CEO has more incentive to spend it well for them.

                                                  [–]wsh009friedmanite 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                  That may be true, but let's not pretend that managers (CEOs, etc) are held completely accountable to the owners (investors). Case in point: Enron.

                                                  [–]RididLeave Me Alone 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                  Well as a shareholder, you can opt out if you don't like the direction the CEO is taking the company or spending money. Just sell your shares and invest in a company that is run better. If you opt out of taxes for the same reasons, Uncle Sam breaks down your door and locks you in a cage with a gun pointed at your head.

                                                  [–]Cozy_Conditioning 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                  That statement is simply not true in the general sense. There are just far too many factors.

                                                  [–]Chris_Pacia 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                  Exactly. In the case of a corporation you have the power of exit. No such power exists with government. /u/Cozy_Conditioning's comment is absurd.

                                                  [–]Miss_spelled_meme 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                  You opted out of Comcast?

                                                  [–]nowaygreg 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  Depends on whether you live in an area where there's actual competition or not

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                                                      [–]TheJucheisLoose[🍰] 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                      To be fair, this chart isn't necessarily accurate in all cases. Gifts would go into quadrant 3, and anyone with any sense/class would have at least relatively high concern for quality for a gift they're buying for someone else, as it reflects on them.

                                                      [–]Pag_Elodea 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                      as it reflects on them.

                                                      Gifts are a mix of q1 and q3. That is a permutation of spending money on oneself. You are buying reputation, social standing, or maybe a warm fuzzy feeling etc.

                                                      Quadrant 3 assumes cases (or just the portion) in which you receive no benefit whatsoever. Say a gift for a stranger you have never met in which you gain nothing by this. No happy feeling, no social bonding, no religious cognitive reinforcement etc.

                                                      [–]TheJucheisLoose[🍰] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      Quadrant 3 assumes cases (or just the portion) in which you receive no benefit whatsoever. Say a gift for a stranger you have never met in which you gain nothing by this. No happy feeling, no social bonding, no religious cognitive reinforcement etc.

                                                      Can't think of any realistic real-world application for this. I think we can safely disregard #3 as unrealistic, which may call into question the entire chart.

                                                      [–]lossyvibrations 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      Maybe for certain departments with immense budgets (like Defense), but for instance government science labs work cheap compared to private sector couterparts; even with all of the additional accounting, reporting, safety, and other transparency rules that have to be followed.

                                                      When you get a grant in science, you have a fixed budget to spend. Same probably goes for block grants for social spending. As an administrator of that money, you have the same incentives - trying to get as many results for the least amount of money.

                                                      [–]itscrunchtime 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      You must buy your friends shitty gifts

                                                      [–]blahblahyaddaydadda 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                      Box 3 makes zero sense. If I'm buying something for someone else, I want it to be good quality and a good price. Don't just assume everyone's an ass trying to screw their friends, family or community in general.

                                                      [–]Pag_Elodea 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      Gifts are a mix of quadrant 1 and 3. When you buy a gift for a friend, you benefit either emotionally or socially as a result. Would you buy a gift for a close friend the same way you would for a stranger you have never met and never will meet? The difference is not who they are, but who they are to you.

                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                        [–]gmiller18 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        But can't we just override our human nature and create a utopian society -the essence of every leftist argument

                                                        [–]haqshenas 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        Case in point: Trump's Mar-a-lago trips.

                                                        [–]GWsublime 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (15子コメント)

                                                        Given that the government is made up of citizens, the government would actually be spending in quadrant 1. Asset managers, however, would be spending in quadrant 4. Asset managers would generally seem to have both a high concern for quality and costs, meaning that this graphic is full of shit.

                                                        [–]Agent_Orange_G 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (14子コメント)

                                                        Government is the citizens is a falacy. If you ever worked in government you would know government is in quadrant 4.

                                                        [–]Halgrind 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                                        I interned in FEMA's Chicago office, everyone I worked with was very dedicated to making the most of the funds available, very aware that lives were potentially in the balance with the policies and contracts they were drawing up. That was because the regional administrator was passionate about it and made sure to hire people who cared.

                                                        Meanwhile, I now work in for-profit healthcare. I did ordering for a time, and we had to order from the approved vendors. Even when they were selling items for three times the price as Amazon. But because of the accounts payable system/procedures that I still don't understand, cutting a check every 30 days is easier than paying with a credit card, so they gave me a hard time when I tried. So in the end I just purchased items at the inflated prices. Then every year or so they would see what was used the most and try to negotiate a better price for the next year.

                                                        So, in my limited experience, there's nothing inherently wasteful about government and nothing inherently efficient about private businesses, it's all about hiring the right managers and oversight/procedures.

                                                        [–]GWsublime 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                        You missed fully half the argument. Asset managers are inarguably in the "fourth quadrant". Is it your contention that they do an equivalent job to the government? Or that all person spending is better in terms of cost and quality than Asset management spending?

                                                        Lets take a closer look at quadrant 3, while were at it, which would suggest that all gifts have no concern for quality and all concern for cost.

                                                        Or is it possible that the graphic is full of shit?

                                                        [–]Agent_Orange_G 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                        A private asset manager would do a better job than the government in general. If they didn't they will lose customers and go out of business.

                                                        I'm not sure asset managers even fit into this graphic at all.

                                                        It doesn't say anything about no/all concern.

                                                        [–]zachster77 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (27子コメント)

                                                        This is also a great explanation of why the current insurance industry fails at providing efficient services to its customers.

                                                        But this breaks down when society needs things that cannot be bought for individual use (like roads). And if you believe society benefits from having a healthy, educated, safe citizenry, then there are many other things that look like they're designed for individual use, but actually the whole society is making use of their benefits.

                                                        So it's tricky.

                                                        [–]CruzinferBruzinrepublican party 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                        Which is why you, can purchase or not purchase insurance. Unless a democrat is in charge, of course.

                                                        [–]postmaster3000 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (17子コメント)

                                                        Arguments like yours assume that government is the best resource for delivering education to the people. Given that pedagogy predates the modern state, that would have to be proven first.

                                                        [–]ElPeneMasExtranoactual libertarian 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                        pedagogy predates the modern state

                                                        It was also highly limited to the children of the privileged classes.

                                                        [–]postmaster3000 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                        That's because peasants had no money back then. The most direct solution to a lack of money is to provide money.

                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                                                          [–]tscott26point2ancap 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                          Do you mean all insurance or just health insurance?

                                                          [–]zachster77 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                          I'm not familiar with all types of insurance, but from what I can see there's a conflict of interest (illustrated in OP's graphic) when you abstract liability from the consumer. It's intrinsic to the system. But that doesn't mean it's not in the best interests of society bear the costs of that conflict. It just needs to be considered. But I stand by my main point that the test needs to be whether society as a whole benefits from the service provided to the individual.

                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                            [–]bathroomstalin 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                            You don't have to be autistic to be a libertarian, but it helps.

                                                            [–]chaozhammer 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            Don't insult autistic people like that

                                                            [–]w0rdd 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            Can confirm, purchased "medical insurance" through the government.

                                                            [–]soma115 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            Except for Switzerland. Swiss spend money on their own needs.

                                                            [–]mrobnauseous 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            tru dat

                                                            [–][deleted] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            This meme is quadrant 3

                                                            [–]SuperWalter 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                                            libertarianism is a fundamentally flawed ideology, spread solely by teenagers who don't understand how the world actually works

                                                            [–][deleted] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                            You mean communism?

                                                            [–]AnExoticLlama -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                            Nah, not just teenagers. There are plenty of people with only a high school education that follow it as well.

                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                              [–]Le_jack_of_no_trades 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              Source: a random JPEG on the internet.

                                                              [–]ars_moriendi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                              Spoken like someone who's never read the rules on government procurement bids.

                                                              [–]Error400BadRequest 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              I don't think anyone has, it's quite sizeable.

                                                              That said, auctions can be manipulated in practice even when the rules appear fair in principle.

                                                              Bids are rarely scored on lowest price. Options are generally weighed on a variety of factors, and the process is complicated and subject to manipulation / favoritism of a particular firm, not to mention some firms can be excluded from the processes altogether..

                                                              Government Procurements aren't as fair as you might think, and that's before you consider the possibility of firms cooperating to fix prices in more oligopolistic markets.

                                                              [–]aaron_hoffmanNAP 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              different design: http://politicalinfographic.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-four-ways-money-can-be-spent-by.html

                                                              http://imgur.com/057NePM

                                                              [–]nukfan94Sell my rights back to me. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              I agree to an extent, but I'm not sure if all government spending can be lumped into a 4-quadrant table.

                                                              [–]loveforeternity 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              incentives

                                                              [–]kennewickman 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              But if you are the government.

                                                              [–]kfijatass 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              I dare say the quality of government spending is as good as the combined policies, laws and institutions combined efficiency multiplied by the strength of democracy, ie to what extent people are informed/care about enforcing said factors and how engaged they are to make it happen.

                                                              [–]Bluedemonfox 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              Usually it is actually the middle ground where it would be cost effective but I am afraid if it is going to be a service goods it will always be shitty.

                                                              [–]Eudaimonics 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              Businesses would be 2 & 3. Large corporations approach 4.

                                                              This is assuming an educated consumer to be fair.

                                                              [–]snorkleboy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              Wouldn't that include most financial services, spending other people money for different people?

                                                              [–]cyanydeez 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              yeah people are dumb, never trusted them.

                                                              [–]paqmanbiker 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              Crap this falls right in line with the guys I am paying to finish my basement.

                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (84 返事)