5 ms·

In general, we do make the worst deals. I know this place hates Trump, but that statement is not false. The major issue of having a business-driven economy is

In general, we do make the worst deals. I know this place hates Trump, but that statement is not false. The major issue of having a business-driven economy is that the best (or most "tactical") businessmen are running businesses, not the government. As it stands right now, there is very little incentive for US government officials to run things efficiently. Whether they're promoted for incompetence, applauded for employing so many government employees, or getting paid by dirty contractors, it all leads towards the corrupt situation at hand. I don't know the solution, but true campaign finance reform, removing corporate money from politics, would be the best blanket to start with. Good luck with all that, though... Take a look at how Hong Kong's rail system operates, that's the best model I've seen.

Bartweiss 10y ago
There's also an argument that a mandate to select the lowest bid massively increases cost overruns, even when everyone in government is sincere and not corrupt. If you're selecting a crappy company that lied about their bid over a competent, accurate higher bidder, you tend to get massive cost overruns that outweigh the promised savings. Everything looks good up front ("we'll build a new railway for only $XXX,000,000!") but in practice it's a disaster.
- MicroBerto 10y ago
  That falls under the category of "bad deals" too.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    It does, I don't disagree, but it seems worth separating "bad deals we actively picked" from "bad deals our laws forced us to make".
    - MicroBerto 10y ago
      Correct, and leads me back to my original point. Our nation's best minds are simply not in politics - they're in business, engineering, finance, or are retired. Anyone even suggesting that we take the lowest bid by default is unfit for office.
      - nikdaheratik 10y ago
        Except that is exactly what the law says they must do in some cases. In some cases it is left up to discretion, or we are allowed to choose a U.S. company bid over a foreign company, but government procurement does not work the same as private enterprise. OTOH, the scale we're talking about is also vastly different, and the companies involved are ultimately responsible to the taxpayers rather than just being responsible to their shareholders so there is more overhead and paperwork as well.

Bartweiss 10y ago

There's also an argument that a mandate to select the lowest bid massively increases cost overruns, even when everyone in government is sincere and not corrupt. If you're selecting a crappy company that lied about their bid over a competent, accurate higher bidder, you tend to get massive cost overruns that outweigh the promised savings. Everything looks good up front ("we'll build a new railway for only $XXX,000,000!") but in practice it's a disaster.

MicroBerto 10y ago
That falls under the category of "bad deals" too.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  It does, I don't disagree, but it seems worth separating "bad deals we actively picked" from "bad deals our laws forced us to make".
  - MicroBerto 10y ago
    Correct, and leads me back to my original point. Our nation's best minds are simply not in politics - they're in business, engineering, finance, or are retired. Anyone even suggesting that we take the lowest bid by default is unfit for office.
    - nikdaheratik 10y ago
      Except that is exactly what the law says they must do in some cases. In some cases it is left up to discretion, or we are allowed to choose a U.S. company bid over a foreign company, but government procurement does not work the same as private enterprise. OTOH, the scale we're talking about is also vastly different, and the companies involved are ultimately responsible to the taxpayers rather than just being responsible to their shareholders so there is more overhead and paperwork as well.