[zozbot234]

But of course there is a reason. A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Its only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from the government. Small-scale philanthropy thus has a key role to play here.

Funding for basic educational standards and a minimal social safety net is already a huge spending commitment for even the most successful governments, and it's not clear if "welfare" can expand beyond that.

[nicoburns]

> A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Its only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from the government.

Why would you say that? By that logic a charitable institution has no one with a stake in it's long-term success. It's only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from donors. There's nothing about governments which makes them inherently incapable of hiring motivated staff.

In my experience, government workers, be they school teachers, nurses, librarians, or community workers are often some of most highly motivated workers I have met.

> it's not clear if "welfare" can expand beyond that.

It is clear if you believe that such funding is available from philanthropic sources. It's just a question of who we wish to give control of those resources to.

[mschuster91]

> A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success.

Of course it has: pissed-off voters. Mismanaged government-funded institutions such as DMVs or social security systems are a regular troublemaker for politicians.

[sokoloff]

Is this feedback process the explanation for why those previously underperforming and frequently complained about government departments have now been fixed?

[Matl]

> Is this feedback process the explanation for why those previously underperforming and frequently complained about government departments have now been fixed?

Perhaps the constant demonizing of public services by private interests, (who btw often rely on government contracts to function), and certain politicians bought by these interests could be a contributing factor in why not?

But let me hear about how private healthcare and broadband is killing it please.

[sokoloff]

I think that's a lot of the issue: many people (including myself) are in fact happy with their private healthcare and broadband service.

(I have Comcast, so it's not like I've even got the "best", but I'd way rather deal with Comcast or Blue Cross than any government agency...)

[default-kramer]

Counter-anecdote: I've only had AT&T and Time Warner Cable (now "Spectrum") and I would rather deal with any government agency than either of those two. Specifically I would rate my water+sewer and electricity 5/5 stars while I would rate TWC and AT&T something close to negative infinity.

[nicoburns]

Are you imagining a monolithic federal-level agency? Most municipal broadband schemes are run like small non-profit businesses that just happen to be publicly/community owned.

Let me put it this way: Comcast is the only reason why a lot of the US doesn't have gigabit internet at cheap prices.

[nicoburns]

It seems to be mostly cultural inertia. People accept that the government department is underperforming because they expect government departments to be underperforming. Which they expect because that has generally been true in their experience. Which is the case because nobody demands better.

It's a vicious circle, but not an inevitable one. There are plenty of examples of well-functioning government departments, and in some countries there is no significant difference between the performance of publicly run institutions and their private counterparts (although there is of course plenty of variance within both of those groups).

[Paradigma11]

Yes.

[sokoloff]

Great. I'll have to check that out the next time I go to my DMV. I look forward to seeing these improvements after such a long and consistent track record of dreadful experience.