Just thinking about this today. The best and brightest people in general want to be compensated for their skills. While I would never say that our current crop of elected officials are the "best and brightest", most of them are competent people. Can the case be made that a certain level of graft is needed in order for us to get the gov't we need? It's too far out of hand today - no doubt about it. However, if all corruption was stamped out of our gov't completely - would there be enough competent people who would want to run for office? We don't have that many altruists around these days. Also, power hungry people still have some connection to wanting money as well.

Anyways, food for thought for those interested in this type of discussion.

(12-15-2017 09:01 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Just thinking about this today. The best and brightest people in general want to be compensated for their skills. While I would never say that our current crop of elected officials are the "best and brightest", most of them are competent people. Can the case be made that a certain level of graft is needed in order for us to get the gov't we need? It's too far out of hand today - no doubt about it. However, if all corruption was stamped out of our gov't completely - would there be enough competent people who would want to run for office? We don't have that many altruists around these days. Also, power hungry people still have some connection to wanting money as well.

Anyways, food for thought for those interested in this type of discussion.

1) I don't think most of them are competent anymore.
2) Not every place is a swamp. Austin and Houston are not like New Orleans, Chicago and Atlanta.
3) There are too many people who think about graft like you do in New Orleans, Chicago and Atlanta.

In local government, some of them earn a lot more than they would in a real job. And there are a LOT of Hank Johnson types in local government in the Atlanta area. People who are just flat out stupid. Watch some local school board meetings.

I think a better idea is to drastically reduce the size and scope of government, making it less relevant if government is "effective."

If you removed politics from graft, would graft still exist?

Governments are never very good at being efficient or often even worth a crap at whatever it is they are trying to accomplish.

It kind of comes with the territory, them not being very good - because they don't have to be very good. In the private sector, if you or your product/service sucks - the customer avoids you and your business fails and is no longer. Not so with government, they can suck and be inefficient.......then come back and ask for more money. There really isn't a failure mechanism......

Given the above, I think that the smaller and less encompassing government is, the better.

For those in government however, the opposite thinking rules because the more encompassing government is, the more power those in government hold - and power = money.......and none of them are keen on giving up any of that power/money.

I'm almost of the opinion that periodically, all governments need some upheaval and cleansing. I just wish it weren't so bloody and destructive when it happens....

Graft is ingrained in human nature. It cannot be removed. You could enact all the laws in the world (the laws on the books are probably sufficient), but they would still have to be enforced by judges and the DoJ, which are staffed by other human beings.

When growing up, I always felt that governments jobs were designed to pay a little below the private sector, with the benefit of job security and a guaranteed retirement (as opposed to private sector paying more with less security and retirement benefits). That model seemed to attract stable, but not particularly ambitious workers

That paradigm has shifted, in my opinion, to government paying as well or better than the private sector while still retaining all of the benefits of the older model. Thus, more aggressive and ambitious people are entering the government workforce, and along with those characteristics comes an increase, in my opinion, in the likelihood of graft.

I tend to agree with Lord Stanley on this. I'd prefer a smaller government staffed by a less ambitious workforce. "Effective government" is not something I really want in all aspects of my life.

(12-15-2017 10:55 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  When growing up, I always felt that governments jobs were designed to pay a little below the private sector, with the benefit of job security and a guaranteed retirement (as opposed to private sector paying more with less security and retirement benefits). That model seemed to attract stable, but not particularly ambitious workers
That paradigm has shifted, in my opinion, to government paying as well or better than the private sector while still retaining all of the benefits of the older model. Thus, more aggressive and ambitious people are entering the government workforce, and along with those characteristics comes an increase, in my opinion, in the likelihood of graft.
I tend to agree with Lord Stanley on this. I'd prefer a smaller government staffed by a less ambitious workforce. "Effective government" is not something I really want in all aspects of my life.

Agree.

(12-15-2017 10:55 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  That paradigm has shifted, in my opinion, to government paying as well or better than the private sector while still retaining all of the benefits of the older model. Thus, more aggressive and ambitious people are entering the government workforce, and along with those characteristics comes an increase, in my opinion, in the likelihood of graft.

Yes, and since the beginning of time the bureaucracy – all bureaucracy – runs by rules of its own. Those rules usually have more to do with sustaining bureaucracy itself than to solving whatever problem or administering whatever service that bureaucracy is supposed to be doing.

And that's worse than an overpaid bureaucracy.

(12-15-2017 10:55 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  "Effective government" is not something I really want in all aspects of my life.

When we hear claims that we need a large government to understand and effectively manage the complexities of government processes and regulations, as if often the case today, then the government has made the strongest case possible against itself.

(12-15-2017 11:14 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 10:55 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  That paradigm has shifted, in my opinion, to government paying as well or better than the private sector while still retaining all of the benefits of the older model. Thus, more aggressive and ambitious people are entering the government workforce, and along with those characteristics comes an increase, in my opinion, in the likelihood of graft.

Yes, and since the beginning of time the bureaucracy – all bureaucracy – runs by rules of its own. Those rules usually have more to do with sustaining bureaucracy itself than to solving whatever problem or administering whatever service that bureaucracy is supposed to be doing.

And that's worse than an overpaid bureaucracy.

(12-15-2017 10:55 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  "Effective government" is not something I really want in all aspects of my life.

When we hear claims that we need a large government to understand and effectively manage the complexities of government processes and regulations, as if often the case today, then the government has made the strongest case possible against itself.

I believe Milton Friedman made the claim that the Fed is not necessary regarding setting interest rates and the expansion of the money supply - assuming we adhere to his theory on monetarist policy. His views were that the money supply should be expanded at a small, constant rate in order to have an economy with long, sustainable growth.

Unless I misunderstand his views on the money supply, it seems his belief was to remove it as a policy tool completely and to address recessions/depressions strictly by fiscal policy only. I could be wrong on that.