[luckylion]

> your definition of "work" is a moral/aesethic one, rather than a functional one

Do you think that a power plant that produces energy at $10000/kwh "works" next to one that produces energy at $0.1/kwh?

I don't see "works" as a binary, I consider it relative to expectations and possibilities. I hoped the burger example would illustrate that, but maybe it was too close to reality since it probably exists.

Let me try another way: it's great to have clean water, but if you spend all X on providing clean water while others create the same with X/1000, whatever you're doing to produce clean water is not working. But of course it "working" as in "okay, there's clean water", but it's not working in a societal sense, we cannot sustain doing that, we must look for another option.

[mjburgess]

Sure, I misread your point. Such burgers do exist, and I thought you were talking about those.

For sure, efficiency is part of "working". I guess my baseline for "working" is a far lower level of efficiency than yours.

Yours is certainly contextually-relevant to our society (ie., we should always hope for better efficiency). But I think when taking a step back to answer the binary question "does government work?" our baseline has to be against governments which dont (rather than some minor local inefficiency).

Governments which don't work produce civil wars, mafias, mob patronage structures, impoverished citizens, etc.

It is those governments we shouldn't trust, rather than a somewhat incompetent western bureaucracy which should mostly get the benefit of the doubt towards "working".