Money and Power

[pioneer]

Whether one considers the equation money equals power right or wrong it is sort of a fact of modern cultural life. Based on this observation it gives insight as to why govenment is so inefficient relative to the private sector. In the private sector, if one wish to achieve power with money they need to figure out a way to make money. They have to provide goods or services than will make them money. The more money they make the more power they achieve. The equation sort of implies goods and services equal money and money equals power.

 

In the govenment their money comes from taxes. They create money by providing the good and service called higher taxes. If someone went to the store and on one rack we had higher taxes and on the other rack DVD players, it may be a tough choice, but most people would buy the DVD player. So essentially, they create their money for power by offering a service that nobody really wants. I am not saying tax money doesn't do a lot of good things, only the money=power equation for govenment and for the private sector are very different.

 

When you compare the efficiency of govenment and the private sector these two equations cut to the heart of why govenment is wasteful. The private sector has to provide value up front to get your money. The public sector promises you value after they take your money. You hope they come through with no guarentee.

 

With money=power the more power someone in the public sector wants, the more money they need to control. This sort of creates a conflict of interest between delivering the promised goods and services, efficiently, and their own need for money=power. In other words, if they can do the job for $1M or $2M, the $2M adds up to more power. Being too efficient sort of makes one less powerful since you have less money. In the private sector, the opposite is true, since they are providing goods and services up front, instead of after the fact with a nebulous promise. If they can do cheaper that means their money will grow so they can have more power. But in the private sector money only grows if they do it less efficiently, so that more money needs to get pumped in.

 

If you had a public service, which is more expensive than in the private sector, and asked it to trim its budget, to even half the cost savings, the whole fight is not due to inability to be efficient but loss of money=power. We need taxes to provide services that only a govenment can provide. But it would make more sense to require high value up front, with power being equated, not with money, but with the ability to provide high value.

 

The problem is that taxes are analogous to stolen money that the thieves didn' t have to work for, other than force you to hand it over. It is easy money that the theif then uses to look important to his friends. He is not required to mow your lawn or paint your house for value back. Even he throws you a little bone, you are surprised you recieved any value at all. But if you go the private sector you expect to get your money's worth.

 

What I would do is say, OK this private high school is highly accredited and will cost $5000/year. I expect my govenment to be able to do the same. That is the value I expect for my my tax money. If you can't deliver then given me back my money and I will spend it there. Aren't their consumer laws in place that address businesses that rip people off. That extra $3000/year is so you can pretend to be powerful and important. It provides no value to me, so give it back. We still get the job done and the money goes where it multiples and not divides.

 

This was dedicated to Labor Day here in the states, where people work hard so the govenment beaurocracies can maximize power=money.