[0xDEAFBEAD]

You're strawmanning.

>It is about the distribution of resources to reach goals. It would be quite easy for example to ensure, that every school meets some standards, enabling children to learn well.

In the US, educational spending went up massively without much improvement in outcomes:

https://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/primary_scost.gif

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/02/dave-brat/...

Small-government types like me aren't against good things. We just believe that it takes much more than simply throwing resources at a problem to solve it.

In my view, the "you're just against good things" finger-pointing merely gets in the way of a constructive discussion regarding what actually works.

Based on what I've read about WW2, the US was able to rapidly mobilize because it had great leadership at the time. We're not able to mobilize in the same way nowadays because our government leadership sucks. The civic culture is weaker (in part due to political polarization, and also demoralization due to our failures in Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). There's lots of anti-Americanism in America nowadays. Even the right has become anti-American. (Arguably, that's a good thing if it gets us in fewer wars!) And politicians seem to care more about signalling to their constituents that "something is being done" rather than actually succeeding at the thing.

Salaries are higher and projects are more exciting in the private sector. US multinationals are growing fast, and starving the US government of the brilliant, hardworking individuals that would be needed for the government to do awesome stuff. The government turns those people off due to red tape, lower salaries, and a generally bad working environment. I graduated from one of the top universities in the US, and I don't remember talking to any student who even considered working for the government.

[amanaplanacanal]

You seem to be arguing against yourself here. At the beginning you are arguing for small government and against throwing money at problems, and at the end you are saying that we can't get good government because salaries are too low.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

I think good salaries are necessary but far from sufficient. This blog seems good, here's a post on hiring in particular:

https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/dear-mr-kupor-please-fix-fede...

[mrguyorama]

>In the US, educational spending went up massively without much improvement in outcomes:

Funding to school systems increased.

Not funding to education. Paying the superintendent more money doesn't teach the kids any better, especially when the teachers still can't afford basic office supplies.

This is a persistent myth in the US that "oh no actually we spend so much on education".

No. We've spent decades giving more and more and more of the US's resources to MBAs and middle managers who ignore their domain experts and just take home huge salaries and wonder why we aren't making any progress.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

I'm not taking your claims at face value without a solid citation. But in any case, they would seem to underscore my point that just throwing money at a problem isn't sufficient. The money has to be spent in the right way, and it's not obvious how to do that in advance.

And rent-seekers are omnipresent. Greed motivates workers in the public sector just like it motivates workers in the private sector. There's nothing about the phrase "you are now working for the government" which makes someone magically less greedy. That's another point that your account underscores (assuming your account is accurate).