Talk:Government success

Market Failure Without Government Success?
How can we have a huge article on market failure without there even being an article on government success? So I took the liberty of creating a stub. If you believe that the idea of government success isn't notable enough to warrant its own article...then please feel free to share your objections. --Xerographica (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that this is a real concept in economics, but people who think "there is no way to determine whether the government is producing anything that people truly value" must be incredibly unimaginative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.168.243 (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're missing the first part of that sentence, "in the absence of consumer choice...". --Xerographica (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right I am. Somewhat intentionally though, since to say that consumer choice is the only way to measure what people value is still remarkably unimaginative, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.168.243 (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I struggle to see how imagination, of the lack thereof, is economically relevant to the topic of government success. Yes, people have definitely imagined and developed new ways to measure people's values...but those ways still fall incredibly short of demonstrated preference.  But if it's imagination you want...then consider some of the imaginative ways that people have conveyed this concept...
 * Actions speak louder than words
 * Have one's cake and eat it too
 * Opportunity cost
 * Put your money where your mouth is
 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
 * What you're willing to spend/sacrifice/forgo/give up/exchange/trade...is what demonstrates your values. The fact that you're choosing to give up your limited time...sacrificing all the alternative uses of your finite resource...in order to express your concern over this entry...demonstrates how much you value relieving your anxiety in this area.  Markets work because consumers can choose to shift their resources to producers that are successfully producing things that are important...a priority...valuable...for consumers.
 * Does the government successfully produce anything that citizens would choose to sacrifice for? In the absence of their choices, we just can't truly know.  Tax choice is one way to solve this problem...and civic crowdfunding will hopefully help to highlight this problem.  --Xerographica (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not the imagination itself which is relevant, but the fact that we are left with the absurdity that the only measure of valuation in consumer choice. The link you provided did not manage to move too far away from this form of valuation: "a group needs to know how much everybody is willing to pay for the public good". Consider Intrinsic value (ethics). Consider the value I place on my dad's existence - this is not measurable in terms of spending power/consumer choice/opportunity costs etc because this is not the kind of value I am placing.
 * The relevance here is that the public sector operates in a different manner to the private sector (and again the third). In the public sector, although of course actions should still strive to be cost effective, the sort of value to be considered is of a different kind. The role of the government is to protect, amongst others, the common good and the human rights of its citizens. Things which are probably not (easily or appropriately) measured by the notion of consumer choice. How much would you pay to ensure not being tortured? How much would you pay to know that the judicial system is fair and honest?
 * That is, while I agree that "What you're willing to spend/sacrifice/forgo/give up/exchange/trade...is what demonstrates your values", I disagree that this is the only way. A child of divorced parents choosing to spend this Christmas with mum rather than dad does not mean she values mum more. An inability to afford the time or money to buy an old building to prevent its destruction does not mean you do not value it. Enjoying access to a nature reserve for free (as a public area) does not mean that you place no value on it at all.
 * Therefore, I disagree that there is no way to determine whether the government is producing anything that people truly value in the absence of consumer choice. Consider  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black mountains (talk • contribs) 12:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But the objective is to determine how society's limited/scarce resources should be used. If one part of society raises $500,000 to conserve an old building...but another part of society is willing to spend $1,500,000 (dollar voting) to destroy the old building and build a new one its place (creative destruction)...then clearly society has indicated how that space should be used.  Neither putting it to a vote nor having representatives decide...would accurately reflect society's true value for that space.  Therefore, both those methods...and any other based on contingent valuation would result in an inefficient allocation of society's limited resources.
 * So yes, the government can successfully save 1000s and 1000s of old buildings, it can successfully preserve millions and millions of acres of old growth forest, it can successfully invade Canada and it can successfully erect a giant pure gold statue of Obama...but in the absence of each and every taxpayer considering the opportunity costs...there's no way to know whether society truly would have valued those projects sufficiently to realize them (Ceteris paribus...taxpayers would still have to pay the same amount of taxes and they would only be able to spend their taxes in the public sector). --Xerographica (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In your first example, society has not clearly decided what to do with the building. It could result from the fact that 500,000 could only spare $1 while one could spare $1,250,000. But this is besides the point really because that is a political discussion which it looks likely we will disagree on. However, I would suggest considering that the point of paying taxes is not to ask what you will get out of it.
 * My point is simple - to say that "in the absence of consumer choice, there is no way to determine whether the government is producing anything that people truly value" is false. There are clearly other methods for determining value (consider my examples above). I suggest changing the opening paragraph to:
 * "Government success is a concept within economic theory describing whether the allocation of goods and services by a government is efficient according to economic measures more often used in the private sector. Since the public sector operates in a different manner to the private sector, the concept of consumer choice is not a viable approach here as government spending is based on notions of the common good, solidarity, or fraternity. To fill this void, one proposed method to assess this economic value of government spending is through tax choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black mountains (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See, the problem is that you think resources should be allocated by politics rather than by economics. What are the chances that 500,000 people could truly only spare $1?  From the entry on demonstrated preference...


 * Economics Joke #l: Two economists walked past a Porsche showroom. One of them pointed at a shiny car in the window and said, "I want that." "Obviously not," the other replied. - David D. Friedman, How Economists Think


 * Those 500,000 people could certainly have stopped paying rent...and/or sold their computers, televisions, iPods, Kindles, microwaves, refrigerators, washing machines, record collections...and/or skipped a few meals...but they didn't because all those things and more were a far greater priority for them (they also could have gone into debt but avoiding additional debt is evidently a priority). But when they buy all those things...their money has to go somewhere.  It goes to the people who produce the things that they value more than they value saving an old building.  Their demonstrated preferences explains exactly why one person ended up with the $1,500,000 to build a new building that would sell the things that 500,000 people would consider a more important priority than the salvation of an old building.


 * Therefore, you're completely mistaken to say that society has not clearly decided what should be done with that old building. Don't get me wrong...society can make mistakes with their dollar voting just as much as they can with their political voting.  But freedom means that we're allowed to make mistakes with our own resources.  Markets work because the people who waste the least amount of resources end up with the greatest amount of resources.


 * I'm not a libertarian intent on dismantling the government. I just want you, and everybody else, to understand how allocating resources by politics rather than economics with the noble intention of trying to help people actually harms them because, as a result, we all end up with less of the goods/services that we have all clearly demonstrated preferences for.


 * Here's my edit of your rewrite...


 * Government success is a concept within economic theory concerned with whether the allocation of goods and services by a government is efficient. Since, in the public sector, spending is based on notions of the common good, solidarity, or fraternity, one proposed method to ensure allocative efficiency is to implement tax choice. This would give taxpayers the opportunity to put their taxes where their hearts/mouths are.


 * Alternatively, you're more than welcome to create a criticisms section. --Xerographica (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're correct in thinking that I think that resources should be allocated by politics as well as economics, sociology, philosophy, ecology etc. (consider how our decision making is clearly not always guided by economics, and this is ok!). On this point we will have to agree to disagree. I feel some of the criticisms you feel I'm making (i.e. for a Criticisms Section) are along these lines and so wouldn't really belong on this article. Anyway, back to the point. I see how tax choice provides an analogy for consumer choice in this regard, but am still not convinced it deals with the issue that public spending is based on different motives (it is a duty to pay taxes, not a choice; in a perfect world, taxation would be about justice, not charity). So, I will insert you version for now, but with the suggested change to:


 * Government success is a concept within economic theory concerned with whether the allocation of goods and services by a government is efficient. Since, in the public sector, spending is based on notions of the common good, solidarity, or fraternity, it is questionable whether economic measures from the private sector are appropriate here. However, a proposed method to ensure allocative efficiency is to implement tax choice. This would give taxpayers the opportunity to put their taxes where their hearts/mouths are, but diminishes the ability of the state to protect its citizens. Black mountains (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Government failure
To the extent we can say anything here, the article probably should be merged with government failure. I'm not sure about the name of the merged article, so I'm requesting comment here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that government success isn't notable enough a concept to warrant its own entry? --Xerographica (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say, instead, it's not common enough.... But what I really mean is that any government action is either a success or a failure, and what causes one is what prevents the other.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting that this entry should be merged with government failure. Therefore, you don't believe that the concept of "government success" is notable enough to warrant its own entry.  I don't see any other possible explanation.  A concept either is...or isn't...notable enough to warrant its own entry.  --Xerographica (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I'm saying they are of precisely equal notability, and are about the same topic.  I might claim a WP:POVFORK, but that's not quite correct. It's more of an arbitrary fork, than a POV fork.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd put it as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK violation &mdash; everything which should be in one article should be in the other. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How could they be about the same topic when success is the opposite of failure? --Xerographica (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See, for example, irreflexive. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)