= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Oscar_Cunningham comments on [LINK] How rational is the US federal state - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (19)
I know nothing about the US so all this disscussion is way over my head, but isn't the US population only about 300 million? I don't know what kind of scholarships you're talking about, but 126 million is about half the population, which seems implausible.
That's the joke. The article implies Pell Grants "and stuff" are making up 70% of our wellfare spending . Pell Grants are a scholarship with a maximum reward of $5,550. Hence if we were actually spending the way that they're implying, then 40% of our total population is in college in any given year.
I'm was trying to point out the absurdity of the their 'rounding'
Ah okay, I've clearly just missed your sarcasm then.
From the article:
This number is meaningless for measuring the amount spend on poverty reduction, however broadly that is defined. No one thinks money spent on (1) fraud prevention, (2) food safety, (3) basic research, (4) judicial salaries for civil dispute resolution, or similar programs alleviate poverty.
Edit: When I say "alleviate poverty," I mean charity. Or, as the linked article calls it: "welfare"
I think you just shocked the countless thousands of economists who believe that functioning institutions are key to growing economies and alleviating poverty.
My point was that it isn't charity. Many of those programs (particularly functioning judiciary and basic research) easily produce more value than they cost. But they aren't welfare - despite the contrary assertion from the link.
Thus, dividing this type of spending by the number of people below the poverty line is confused and misleading.
Has no charity ever used the institution argument/strategy in its investments?
I'm not trying to draw the line between institution building and charity. I'm only saying that US government (federal and state) discretionary spending(1) per person below the poverty line is a funky and worthless statistic.
Taking it seriously seems to imply that the value of institutions is realized only by those below the poverty line, with no benefit to the middle class or the wealth. And the statistic obfuscates the fact that the direct purpose of many of the programs is not poverty alleviation or reduction. We may hope for indirect benefits - the rising tide lifts all boats. But the programs I mentioned would be worthwhile even if they did nothing to reduce poverty.
In short, the article is a mindkilled talking point, and deserves criticism for that reason alone.
(1) Just to be clear, discretionary spending (I think this is what the article is referencing) has a technical meaning: it excludes defense and Social Security spending (maybe also Medicaid). Discretionary spending is roughly 30-40% of federal spending.
Nitpick: I believe that defense is discretionary and medicare is mandatory. The distinction is a bit phony though, since congress can change mandatory spending by statute, and Congress has only limited real maneuvering room to radically alter the Federal workforce (discretionary) from year to year.
I agree, the distinction is totally phony. The whole purpose is to allow the two sides to talk about cutting spending without talking about politically impossible spending cuts - without admitting that they aren't talking about most of the spending.
I can't understand what you mean by this. Maybe the confusion is in your use of "no one thinks" or "alleviate poverty"?