What is greatest contributor to our deficit?

[Kuciwalker]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

[KrazyHorse]

Okay, I guess I can't reasonably expect an institution that takes half of a society's income and uses it to provide free services to not cause people to work less.

Now, in addition to this, there is the fact that governments are worse at deciding what I want than I am. Therefore, government spending (which is accounted at a cost basis in national accounts) actually gives a lower benefit than it looks (for things other than provision of true public goods and in-cash transfers)

[giblets]

Well, hopefully it's something a majority of the population wanted to pay that much in taxes for.

[Hauldren Collider]

The fact that a majority of people want it isn't a reason the government should force it on everyone.

FACT 1: There are more women than men in the US.
FACT 2: Men do not require tampons.
Logic!

[giblets]

People who need tampons are not a majority

[KrazyHorse]

Well, hopefully it's something a majority of the population wanted to pay that much in taxes for.

You are missing the point.

[Jon Miller]

Now, in addition to this, there is the fact that governments are worse at deciding what I want than I am. Therefore, government spending (which is accounted at a cost basis in national accounts) actually gives a lower benefit than it looks (for things other than provision of true public goods and in-cash transfers)

You are much more intelligent than the average.

There are a lot of people who make very poor decisions, consistently. Additionally, there are their children and the people who they interact with to consider.

A large criminal underclass makes life uncertain for most everyone, even those who make better than average decisions.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I may be much more intelligent than the average, but I make no claim that I am smart enough to make other people's decisions for them, even if I know them really well. I am DEFINITELY not smart enough to design GENERIC ways to make other people's decisions for them better than they make them for themselves, and neither is the government (the agents of which don't even have the right incentives to make good choices!)

Cash trumps in-kind redistributions unless it provisions public goods (or corrects one of the smaller examples of market failure). And even public goods need to be run through a smart cost/benefit analysis...

[DaShi]

The problem is that there is no incentive to do a smart cost/benefit analysis in government.

[KrazyHorse]

I agree, which is why my bias is toward lower provision of public goods and lower redistribution rates than in an "ideal" world where the government could be counted on to design these things effectively.

[Hauldren Collider]

Jon, if most people are dumber than KrazyHorse, yet they can still vote, why the hell would it be a good idea to let a democratic government start allocating resources willy-nilly?

[Jon Miller]

Because we are a representative government, and more intelligent people should get power?

Of course, we should perhaps increase the pay.

And I do think we do depend a bit on needing public minded individuals to get power, just like we depend a bit on public minded individuals to become police officers/etc.

JM
(Everyone agrees we need police officers... sure the pay attracts some, and the power, but the public minded ones are a needed component... especially to keep them doing their job.)

[KrazyHorse]

Jon, you still haven't internalized the idea of bounded rationality. You are applying it to individuals in society, but not in government. In fact, government is constrained MUCH more by the problems posed by bounds on information, time to devote to problems etc. In addition, those in government face poor incentives, whereas those making decisions about their own welfare face good incentives.

The best governments can do is to impose generic allocative rules on people (e.g. we will force you to save 10% of your salary, or spend 10k a year on health insurance), with absolutely NO concession to the fact that individuals value different things differently, and should be allowed to optimize their own basket of consumption accordingly. That is idiotic and welfare-destroying. Believing otherwise implies an utter contempt for the vast majority of human beings and their ability to run their own lives reasonably well.

[Jon Miller]

But we can make rules that are smarter then that. We aren't, but some countries are.

And are social security needs fixed a bit, but it isn't that bad. It says 'pay a certain amount in, and even in a catostrophy that you didn't plan for, you won't be starving (too much) on the streets.

And a bunch of people starving on the streets causes revolutions. So there is good reason for the wealthy/intelligent to support this too.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I know people who spend everything they have on stuff. When they get their money they buy XBox360s/etc for their kids and so on.

At some point, generally within a year or two, everything disappears. Mabe thy leave their kids with relatives.

They live heavily based on federal assistance.

Why shouldn't the government provide 'rules' for them?