May 8, 2013 | 56 comments
March 20, 2013 | 204 comments
February 25, 2013 | 70 comments
February 14, 2013 | 203 comments
October 19, 2012 | 148 comments
They’re drifting even further apart.
Most everyone realizes there are differences between the economy’s public and private sectors. However, they may not appreciate just how great the difference is.
We have an ongoing debate about the size of government, and by implication the size of the private sector. When choices are made about what responsibilities and functions to assign to the government, a crucial consideration should be the relative competencies of the private vs. the public sectors.
Consider, for example, differences in how the two sectors take advantage of advances in technology. In the private sector old products become better and cheaper, and new products flow with increasing frequency.
My 2009 car is the same make and body style of a 1990 one I owned years ago. It is significantly better in every way — more powerful, 25 percent better gas mileage, better brakes, more safety features, better handling, and more fun. The application of numerous breakthroughs in technology would be too numerous to count. The inflation-adjusted sticker price has actually declined. I have seen similar improvements in virtually every consumer product I buy and use.
The private sector’s products all around us — food, shelter, clothing, automobiles, home appliances, entertainment, for example. The public sector’s products include defense, the justice system, roads and highways, public schools, income redistribution (welfare), laws, and regulations.
Many of the government sector’s outputs are more like anti-products than products. Regulations stifle innovation, decrease productivity, increase costs, and generally drive people crazy. Rather than wealth creation, regulations result in wealth prevention.
In the private sector virtually every product and every service has been profoundly affected by the technological revolution. The government sector, on the other hand, seems to have no learning mechanism. The private sector is responsive and dynamic; the public sector is almost catatonic. In the private sector new products are introduced at a dizzying rate of speed.
The private sector provides ideal growing conditions for creativity. A striking example of this is the explosion of “apps” (applications) for “smart phones.” (A smart phone is a cell phone that connects to the internet.) The two leading providers of apps are Apple and Google. The current population of available apps is over 350,000 and still growing. Many of the apps are free or cost only one or two dollars.
What these apps can do for you is absolutely mind boggling. The proliferation of the apps is a dramatic example of R.W. Emerson’s observation, “Invention breeds invention.” The apps’ universe has provided creative opportunities for thousands of widely dispersed innovators and entrepreneurs. Hundreds of thousands of innovative people are diligently “finding a need and filling it.”
The government sector is “so yesterday.” Is there any example of technology noticeably increasing the efficiency of government? Does government productivity ever increase? We have expended trillions of dollars on the “war on poverty” and the incidence of poverty is as basically unchanged. Public schools consume a large fraction of state and local budgets. Public schools have grown progressively more dysfunctional over the past several decades.
One of the public “products” most of us are forced to “consume” is the Internal Revenue Code. During the almost hundred years of its existence its efficiency has consistently grown worse. Its birth coincided with that of the Model T Ford. Automobiles are vastly superior to those of the early 20th century, the IRC has evolved backwards. In terms of resources consumed and the burden on the economy, the costs of collecting a dollar of revenue has increased dramatically over the life span of the Internal Revenue Service. The Model T is a museum piece. The IRC should be.
The relative shares and importance of the public and private sectors are only partially a political decision. It isn’t simply about spending money and passing new laws and regulations. The public sector is certainly doing enough of that.
There is in effect an undeclared race between the public and private sectors in regard to satisfying human wants. Who’s winning that race? Which sector is doing a better job of affecting peoples’ lives in a positive way? In fulfilling human wants the private sector is leaving the public sector in the dust. People get more and more value from the private sector and the same or less value from government activity even though the cost of government has increased at an exponential rate.
Why is there so much difference in how the two sectors function? Two important reasons are incentives and competition.
The University of Rochester economist, Steven Landsburg, says, “Most of economics can be summarized in four words: ‘People respond to incentives.’ The rest is commentary.” Although I think that’s an exaggeration, there is much truth in it. The private sector is vastly more effective and efficient than the government mostly because of the differences in the incentive structures. In the private sector you can get rich filling needs and solving problems. The public sector’s incentive structure is totally dysfunctional.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?