kfl@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (01/05/87)
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU,
mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
cc: ametek!walton@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU
I think there is little point in arguing against statism by
asserting that everything the government does gets screwed up. The
majority of it does, but there are occasional successes, which are not
surprising considering that trillions of dollars are spent.
For instance the Washington DC subway system is clean and runs
smoothly and is well lit and free of crime. This is unsurprising when
you learn that it cost several BILLION dollars. Of course it hasn't a
hope of breaking even. Fares would have to be set to about $100 with
no reduction of ridership for it to pay for itself. It would have
cost much less for the government to have purchased a new car for
everyone within two miles of a subway station.
Unlike many libertarians I am no great fan of the automobile. I
think cars are too expensive, ugly, and much too dangerous. I think
that if drivers had to pay the full cost of the roads they use that
there would be more of a market for mass transit. I like mass
transit. If only it weren't run by the government and didn't have to
compete with subsidized cars and didn't get stuck in traffic jams
caused by cars, it would be much more convenient.
Ironically, it is mostly drivers that DO pay for the roads, so they
aren't really getting a free ride (no pun intended). However, they
are paying much of the cost of driving in the form of taxes, taxes
that wouldn't be any lower if they stopped driving. So they have no
incentive to drive less. Also, while it is cars that cause traffic
jams, an individual who switches to riding the bus will still get
caught in traffic jams, since not everyone else switches at the same
time. (In some areas, highway lanes are set aside for buses, which I
think is a good idea.)
One reason why so much commuting is done is because of zoning laws,
which force people to live far from where they work.
Cars cost more than they should because of pro-union laws,
protectionist import tariffs, overregulation of factories, and
taxation of factories and dealerships. Roads cost (the user) less
than they should - usage is free. I don't know how it would all
balance out if there were no taxes or subsidies.
The transportation question is a complicated one, and there is
little hope of being able to figure out what is most efficient until
government stops shifting money around and lets the free market sort
things out.
...Keith
-------WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (01/05/87)
To: KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU
cc: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU,
ametek!walton@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU
From: KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU
I think there is little point in arguing against statism by
asserting that everything the government does gets screwed up.
Agreed. The assertion implies that when there exists a government,
there exist screw-ups. It seems to be a cope-out by implying that the
situation is hopeless. I don't think it is.
The majority of it does, but there are occasional successes, which
are not surprising considering that trillions of dollars are spent.
It is even more surprising that there are successes without such a
high price tag. Take for example Singapore. A few years ago (I don't
have the latest information) its airline ranked among the top 3 in the
world---it was up there with Japan Airlines and Pan Am. SIA
(Singapore International Airline) is also very profitable. So is its
postal service. It has a good educational system and its state
universities are among the best in the region (it also has a small
number of private universities). They seem to have a good
accountability system e.g. they do act on "customer" complaints in
their postal and rent collection services. They do punish incompetent
and corrupt government employees. They have effective measures to
prevent police officers and other government officials from taking
petty bribes (this is still a problem in some countries in that
region). Their government has developed and implemented very
successful economic plans (this is also true of countries like South
Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia). The government has played a very
important and active role in making the economy grow at rapid rates.
In about 20 or so years, Singapore was transformed from a society that
was economically dependent on the presence of a huge British base to a
rapidly industrializing, middle-class society. Their new economic
plan calls for moving into high tech (AI, biotech, agri-business,
wafer processing, etc) and there are also plans to encourage more
entrepreneurial participation in the economy.
I can also mention the highly successful school system of Iceland
(they have one of the highest if not the highest literacy rate in the
world) or at a local level, the public school systems of Massachusetts
towns like Lexington, Lincoln, or Weston. One can also include the
successful school system of Marxist leaning countries like Tanzania
which has the highest literacy rate in Africa. Or for that matter,
notice how statist countries like China have been able to solve the
problem of starvation a lot better than some less statist countries.
There seem to be two solutions for tackling the problem of government
incompetence---privatization and better accountability. Privatization
is feasible only to an extent, there are still things that only the
government can do (e.g. maintaining the court system, national
defense). Hence the second solution is always needed.
I do think that government can be made to do a better job (in those
things that only the government can do) if we adopt a good
accountability system at all levels of government. I don't see why
market-based incentives should not be used inside the government to
make it more efficient. Consider a government agency that is supposed
to show a profit e.g. the postal service. If it is losing money, fire
the person at the top and all his/her closest aides. If the agency
makes a profit, give them a reward. Also allow the top guy to take
those actions (together with the responsibilities) that any CEO can
take e.g. accept whichever bids he/she thinks is the best, hire and
fire workers when he/she needs to, cut services when necessary, etc.
However not all government agencies have a such clear-cut performance
measure. Other measures (I don't know what yet) will have to be
developed.
(-: However there is a danger of an efficient government, in the wrong
hands it can do bad things very efficiently. So maybe we should keep
the government in the current incompetent state. That will also keep
those who are into government bashing busy. :-)
Willie
-------
-------walton@csvax.caltech.edu@ametek.UUCP (01/20/87)
I agree with everything you said, Keith, particularly your last point
that the entire question is too complex to argue about efficiently,
since everyone can point to some information which supports their
point of view.
There are separate bus/carpool lanes on some of the LA
freeways, and they help a bit, but they aren't nearly widespread
enough. In an infamous experiment, such a lane was installed on one
of the busiest freeways in 1976, but public outcry was so great and
the resulting tie-ups so huge that they had to remove it. Now they're
finally building a subway, which will probably turn out much the same
as Washington D.C's--quiet, safe, clean, well-lit, and horrendously
expensive. I don't want to subsidize a subway either!
-------