[acdha]

> economic efficacy of social programs probably varies wildly, especially when we're talking about government social programs.

As opposed to literally everyone having to figure this out on their own? Say what you will about government programs, they're going to be more consistent than what you get pushing the problem out to millions of individual actors.

[dnautics]

>they're going to be more consistent than what you get pushing the problem out to millions of individual actors.

There are data that suggest otherwise: Walmart, not FEMA was the best at doling out aid during Katrina; on the other side of the political spectrum, the same could be arguably be said for OWS during Sandy. On the other hand, if you're going to argue that the government is consistently bad at doling out aid, you may be right, but I don't know how good the government is at providing welfare or social services. I presume it's not exceptionally good, or else private food banks, homeless shelters, and charities wouldn't have to exist.

[acdha]

> There are data that suggest otherwise: Walmart, not FEMA was the best at doling out aid during Katrina

This isn't what I was saying at all: I was merely saying that consistency is the wrong angle to complain about. Efficiency is a separate discussion but the one thing a large government program will be is consistent – for better or worse.

[baddox]

> Say what you will about government programs, they're going to be more consistent than what you get pushing the problem out to millions of individual actors.

What I'll say is that I think this is a ludicrous assumption to make, for the same reason that it would be ludicrous to assume that government food distribution or automobile production would be more consistent than pushing the problem out to millions of individual actors.

[acdha]

> What I'll say is that I think this is a ludicrous assumption to make,

You should read for comprehension next time: I'm not saying anything about efficiency, merely that consistency is an odd angle to pick.