= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern 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)
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.