I say thank God for government waste. If government is doing bad things, it’s only the waste that prevents the harm from being greater
– Milton Friedman
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the daySeptember 15th, 2007 |
 10 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Not a good quote, and it does not fit with the late Milton Friedman’s other opinions.
Take the example of World War II, would Milton Friedman have favoured more money wasted – and less resources getting to the “sharp end” of combat?
As Milton Friedman was not an anarchist (indeed he supported World War II) clearly not.
Take a local example.
Whatever one thinks about a council financed library, is it better for the library to be run well (in so far as a council can run anything well) or for the money not to be spent on looking after books – but instead for local drunks and junkies to be allowed to come in and mess up the library for everyone else?
The anarchist Murry Rothbard (no supporter of the idea of government libraries) argued the former.
If we lose the fight over government doing something (such as run a library) it should be done as least badly as possible.
Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and others call the opposing opinion (that we should allow government activities to be as badly run as possible – in the hope of discrediting goverment) “infantile leftism”, and they were correct. Waste and corruption in government should be opposesd – not celebrated.
See I can say nice things about Murry Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and so on (well at least some times).
Of course, what Milton Friedman meant is that we wish that *some* hated agencies such as IRS aren’t too efficient, so we can somehow survive.
(I’m sure he didn’t want the army to be inefficient… he wasn’t dumb).
I would also add that if such agencies (for example: permit issuing agencies) are also corrupt – it’s better, you can have your business resolved for a fee.
Unless they take your bribe and then hit you anyway Jacob.
As for the I.R.S. they are inefficient – they sometimes attack (“audit” and so on) people who have paid all the taxes the statutes demand.
As you know the lives of these people are ruined.
It would be better if the I.R.S. only went after people who really had not paid the taxes demanded by the statutes.
Still I get your point.
When it comes to collecting high taxes and enforcing the endless web of regulations it is not good for the government to be good at it.
Mr Prodi in Italy boasts of increased revenue due to a crackdown on nonpayment of full taxes.
He fails to see (or pretends to fail to see) that this is a de facto tax increase.
Of course there have also been official tax increases under Mr Prodi.
I wonder if the people at the “Economist” magazine (which supported Mr Prodi at the last Italian elections) are now ashamed of themselves.
I hope so – but I doubt it.
Why would they do that ? That’s considered dishonest. That’s not done. It’s no good. If they did that nobody would do “business” with them anymore, and they would be denounced. They have their reputation to cultivate. The bribe thing works pretty well and smooth, all over the world.
So much of government waste seems to be in the form of taking us down unfruitful paths and back again to point zero. So much of government today (as a part of trying to be all things to all people) is to set about doing X and then doing its best to negate X. They can have it both ways as both are “positive actions” in that the government is doing something for all constituents, who are ultimately at odds with each other. But nothing is gained, or nothing that could not have been gained without government intervention and then at a much smaller cost, leaving more for other advancements. Ultimately most government programs seem to be a way to get money into people’s pockets either through direct transfer with nothing in return, or through the cycle described above. All the while individual ingenuity is tied up and stonewalled, and when someone actually does succeed at real innovation, they are taxed into oblivion.
I object to state run stuff partially philosophically but mainly because the state makes a complete horlicks of pretty much anything it touches.
I object vastly more to the extra (above inflation?, above Tory plans?) extra 64 billion quid the UKGov has admitted has been “largely wasted” on the NHS than if that money had delivered a genuine improvement.
If the government could spend my money on my behalf better than I could then… Well, fine, I guess (up to a point)… But I will believe it when Boeing is put out of business by genetically engineered flying pigs. I don’t believe this because of any philosophical or economic theory. You don’t need theoretical arguments when you’ve got empirical evidence out the kazoo. I have seen Labour and Tory fuck things up alike for decades.
Good point Jacob, although there are sometimes “crack downs” (in China for example).
Not only do the powers-that-be sweep in (executing people left, right and centre) but even some of the people who were “bought” do not “stay bought”.
“What do you mean you bribed me at the same time that you bribed those other people, you will not repeat such lies again after I kill you”.
More basically a society that is governed by bribes is simply no good.
It is like Sicily for centuries.
“I am O.K. I have bribed the local authorities to let me…..”
“The Mafia are demanded money, or my whole business, I will go to the authorities for help, oh they are ignoring me – it is as if they had been bribed”.
Doing business in Latin America looks fine – for example the official taxes in Mexico are low.
The real taxes are very high – indeed they can be everything you have (including your life). The local officials and police are often criminals and even when they are not they often do not dare to oppose the criminal gangs.
Nobody looks at “official taxes”. What matters is the “current” rate, or the market rate – i.e. how much you have to pay in total, bribes+taxes, to be able to operate. This is usually far lower than “official taxes”, which supports my claim that bribes help.
In non-bribing countries – your tax depends not only on posted rates and regulations, but much more on the way those rates and regulations are implemented – i.e. on the whim of some Internal Revenue official, which is a mighty unpredictable thing.
If you end up in court, you depend on equally whimsical and unpredicatble judgements – after you incur huge expenses. And you pay additional fees for tax consulting.
In bribing countries there are market rates, known to all. You know, the market rates for completing this or that transaction vs. gov. officials. You enjoy the certainty that it can be done. It works pretty smoth in Latin America.
.
That, I hear, would be true for Russia. Now, don’t you confuse Russia with South America. The Russians lack experience, lack finesse, things don’t yet work there properly. They’ll learn, maybe.
I suspect a lot of people would rather do business in Sweden (on paper the highest taxes in the OECD) than in most of Latin America.
Chile is said to be fairly honest (a social democrat government yes – but one is unlikely to have endless bribes demanded or to be kidnapped and for ransom) – but the rest of the area, well……
Even El Salvador (which has had a conservative pro free market Administration since 1989) has a lot of problems.
Also even if one pays the money in many parts of Latin American this does NOT mean that the kidnap victim will not be cut up.
I defer to your knowledge of the world. But I doubt that paying bribes in most of Latin America is the nice clean predictable affair you imply it is.
Corrupt officials, corrupt police and corrupt courts are rather unpredictable (and nasty) things.
Of course what one wants is an honest country AND low taxes.
After all Sweden was no more dishonest when it had very low taxes indeed. If anything it was far more honest.
Officials and courts may still be honest – but things like street crime (once totally unknown) have appeared in recent decades.
I suspect all people would rather do business where they can make a buck. For the same profit, you would chose Sweden over Argentina or Brasil, (after factoring in the cost of living), but making a profit is easier in SA.
Kidnappings aren’t such a prevailing threat as you depict it, it’s mainly a Colombian specialty, and mainly of political nature, and the numbers aren’t big.
A society with minimal government intervention would make the venerable custom of bakseesh obsolete. I would, of course, not lament it in this case.