rjt

Why when we are faced with a problem do we tend to throw money at it?

People having kids they cant afford to look after- throw money at them.

NHS in trouble- throw money at it.

People starving in the third world- lob them some lolly for their dictators to spend.

Yet so often when I say these things on my university disscussion forums I am shouted down for being a extremist.

Does it not make more sense to actually look at the causes of a problem before throwing money at it?

harryaldridge

uh......yeah!

I don't think even the most rabid statist like Gordon Brown thinks simply throwing money without improving how it is spent is a good idea.

I think the trap government falls into is that they believe that if the problme has not been solved then the department involved must not have enough resources. This is probably led from the team involved who would love more resources (wouldn't we all) developing a plan to expand the shceme/initiative and how much money that will require. Then the person controlling the budget, who does not have expereicne of the scheme hands over the cash. This problem is created because the top-down structure of government. Ok, companies have a certain amount of top-down control but the chain is much shorter and companies tend be be focussed on a specific market and so all peopel in the chain are more experienced of the issues.

The way to improve services is to move towards a bottom up approach. This started to be done with the internal market in the NHS and Blair's choice agenda. Unfortunately none of these measures went far enough and consequently are just ****-ups.

Bringing markets into education with school vouchers, or introducing health insurance to replace the NHS are all fundamental to improving the efficiency of existing services. SOling poverty in third world requires trade not aid. Aid is spent top-down, trade provides incentives bottom-up.

I could go on more abotu this, but you get the picture. We desperately need to remove services from teh hands of government and place in the hands of the market (remember market doesn't just mean privatise, but enabling choice by allowing funds to flow from the user, not the manager).

pentameter

'We', as private individuals, generally don't and can't.

'We', as a society - effectively the politicians in charge - do for a variety of reasons;

It's easier than thinking and taking hard decisions, which might make them unpopular.

It isn't their money.

It's very easy to allow the public sector to grow, but incredibly hard to prune it back.

It creates a large section of dependent voters.



Have you noticed the way that 'investment' is increasingly used for 'spending'? An unpleasant corruption of the language.

rjt

I think that is right although on the subject of indviduals not throwing money at the problem they obviously cant throw the same ammount as govenrement can but who can forget the hysteria over live aid or every year with children in need, I remember being branded a scrouge and really quite wicked by my teachers because I refused to give to the live aid collection when I was at school, I stated very clearly that much of the money would be wasted as it would fall into the hands of dictators who would spend it on themselves, but I was simply told to shut up as I was being cruel to starving children.

There is a wave of sickening self rightousness that sweeps this country sometimes.

g hall

rjt
Sometimes
I think egged on by the tabloid media and the celeb culture it's most of the time - of course they can afford it.
As a percentage of disposable income I wonder how much they do give ?
After all Sir Terry got paid for Children in Need - as if he needed it

rjt

One of the things that irritated me about comic releif recently was when I was told that to vote in Celebrity Fame Accademy it would cost 50p to cdall and at least 34p would go to comic relief what happens to the other 16p, no doubt it is boosting the profits of the rich telephone companys

Totally sickening that Wogan got paid to present Children in Need.

pentameter

I know someone who takes the view that charities are businesses, and the business they are in is begging.

It's an interesting point of view.

I don't like Comic Relief etc. because they seem to ride on the celebrity culture and mass hysteria. If you want to give to charities, give to charities, but as a matter of personal conscience, not coercion and going with the herd.

With regard to your teachers, I thought that they were supposed to stamp out bullying, not give lessons in it.

rjt

Ah yes but you see I showed I was capable of independant thinking and did not conform to what they thought society expected of me.

allanon

That's why they do it.

That's how they do it.


It is unavoidable in a tax raising democracy.

Totally depressing.

harryaldridge

Milton Friedman sums up government waste very succinctly (video at ):

There are four ways in which you can spend money:

1. You can spend your own money on yourself.

When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.

2. You can spend your own money on somebody else.

For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.

3. I can spend somebody else’s money on myself.

And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!

4. Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else.

And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.