Not sure I get that. A dollar spent is a dollar spent. If you're spending it on silly things, it doesn't matter if you're the government or private enterprise (who both sometimes spend their dollars on silly things).
A dollar spent is a dollar spent, but GDP is about production, not spending. If you spend a dollar for 1 iron nail or 1 dollar for 100 iron nails, it is not the same production even if by dollar measure it is the same value.
Governments are usually very inefficient. Corporations are also inefficient, but it is not the topic. The point is that we need to look more to the outcome than the money "value" because some governments made-up work has no value, but if you include it in GDP you inflate the GDP falsely.
If you want to start arguing about a more abstract worth of that $1 then you should do it for everything, and then you are certainly doomed.
Is a gazillion dollars spent on an NFT "productive" in the way that spending money on building a house is productive? What multiple should you be using. Is a dollar spent on medical treatment for somebody on medicaid worth less than a dollar somebody spends on some fireworks to blow up on the 4th? These calculations become impossible.
"I dunno, I bet government spending is only worth half of what they pay so I'll just pick 50%" is not a reasonable approach here.
> Standard GDP might overstate. Maybe you need a 50% haircut on government spending in the calculation
Well you have to also see the counter point which is sometimes companies spend a $1B and go bankrupt like pets.com.
And sometimes the government spends money to backstop the financial system like in 2008 and literally save the entire US financial system and on top of that the government makes money off the bail out.
In this case the government spending was infinitely more valuable than the private spending.
Yes. Let's compare SwissLife, a private healthcare insurance, to French 'securité sociale' healthcare bit.
For every 100€ put in french national healthcare, 89 to 93 (depending on the year) are spent on healthcare. The rest is used for distribution and administrative tasks (and during a short time, debt repayment).
What do you think SwissLife give it's insured back for ever 100€ they are paid? Between 12 an 15% are administrative costs (they have more expensive lawyers and contest more claims), 2% R&D (??for some reason, probably to claim tax rebates), and between 5 and 12% are dividends. So between 81 and 71 euros are given back. Do that seem more efficient?
But that won't last, each time private companies compete with public one, the EU commission had to create new rules, like ARENH for electricity, or worse, the separation between SNCF, SNCF reseau, SNCF fret/geodis to prevent economies of scale and local optimisation (that killed small train stations and most french fret). Now that SNCF fret managed to come back (under a new name) and outcompete everyone, again (mostly because train fret died), they just broke it again for spurious reasons. Liberalist fuckers just don't want exception to their rules, and since they can't economically bully state companies like they bullied Lip and probably any worker cooperative that became too big or too well-known, they use their political weight to send them to the ground instead.
That is not the measure in discussion. If SwissLife brings a better outcome from the 71 Euros than French national healthcare from 93 Euros (best case for French and worst from Swiss), then it is still better with SwissLife. Measure the outcome, not the money spent.
There are plenty of examples where government is vastly more efficient than private sector. Medicare is vastly more efficient than private insurance. USPS is more efficient than private carriers. Another example is government pay. Usually much lower than the equivalent job at a private sector company. That's because private sector companies fail ALL THE TIME, and the COST of that inefficiency (waste of a failed company) is passed on to you via higher prices for those functions.
Also efficiency shouldn't be the goal of everything we do all the time. Sometimes resilience is more important, which comes at the cost of efficiency.
Usually much lower than the equivalent job at a private sector company.
People often state this, without acknowledging that:
- many government employees would not meet the bar for an equivalent job in the private sector
- the environment and red tape means that even an equally skilled employee would be less productive than they would be in a private sector firm that's subject to competitive pressures
- for many government employees, headline salary is only about a two thirds of total compensation (look up San Francisco employees' total comp on the Transparent California web site).
Productivity in what sense? Education is literally a long term investment. As you stated, a local school district which may mean Pre-K through 12th grade (in the US) means that the children won’t be participating “productively” in the economy for potentially decades.
I cannot even fathom how hard the economy would crash if large swaths of the workforce were illiterate.
If I told you I would give you either $27k to spend as you wish on education, or let your kid go to a SF public school (which would spend the $27k as it seems fit), which would you choose? I'd pick the former.
if large swaths of the workforce were illiterate
I live in one of the richest cities in the US. Here, about 50% of 11th graders attending public schools can read and write at a level that meets the minimum state standards (which is a low bar).
Comparing private schools and state schools is far from easy without going really deep into the subject. Superfically comparing grades without taking into account the self-selecting nature of private education vs state schooling. The school bodies are very different and thus the burden on resources.
Another note worth considering is that state and companies have different roles. Take NASA vs SpaceX. SpaceX launches cheaper rockets. But NASA for example does alot of its work in Alabama, which is supporting a poor regions econonmy and its communities. It might be more optimal to do this in Silicon Valley, or even China but as a government organisation this is part of it's remit. Like wise space science for the purpose of knowledge. SpaceX only remit is cheap rockets. Comparing the two on launch costs which I see alot, misses alot of the purpose of the spending.
"Jobs in Alabama" does not fly anyone to the moon, good engineering does. SpaceX, if we like it or not, does good engineering by making the cost of rockets low, anybody can spend money but not everybody will deliver results and even rarer, people will deliver great results. There is no "social care" in NASA as an acronym.
NASA is a government agency and as a government agency it is used as a vehicle to implement the general purpose of the government.
To put a different example of the point. If the cheapest way to launch items into space was for NASA to buy rockets off Russia, would that be what it would do? No, because government policy includes independent launch capacity.
NASA isn't a private company, it is a tool of government and as such it can have have a wider role in society then a compariable private company will have.
> But is a government dollar really as productive as a private sector dollar?
Yes.
What? A dollar is a dollar, duh. If you want to claim otherwise, you're the one who needs to show evidence. Why should the government selling a $1000 bond and spending it on a free gadget for a craven bureaucrat behave any differently than me putting a $1000 iPhone on a credit card? Money is money.
> Because when you're spending your own money, you are forced to decide whether something is worth it.
Define "worth it" macroeconomically. There is no "value" idea at scale with a meaning separate from "money". Every transaction happens, definitionally, because the two parties think it's "worth it".
Edit: to focus a bit and extend the metaphor above: if the government buys an iPhone for the notional corrupt IRS agent who doesn't need it, you'd say it's not "worth it". But Apple Computer books that revenue either way. The world you're imagining where "less productive" government spending doesn't happen is a smaller economy. And that's bad, because it means that Apple hires fewer geeks and those of us who can't get those FAANG jobs see less upward wage pressure.
Money is money, at scale. The Economy can't tell what you're using it for, it just cares that you trade it for stuff.
> When the government spends your money, you don't get to decide whether a particular transaction is good value.
And here's the root. That is an argument from principles of libertarian morality, not economics. It's fine if you want to claim that it's immoral for the government to tax and spend your hard earned assets. I just won't engage, because that's tiresome.
It's not fine to claim that the government stealing and spending your Lockian Sacred Property is "not productive" in a discussion about economics, because that is a word with meaning in the field and you're using it wrong.
(Edit: as stated, I'm not going to engage in a discussion on libertarianism in an economics thread. I'm merely pointing out that you have the economics wrong.)
I made no claim about the morality of taxation and government spending.
I'm merely observing that, when we attempt to measure economic activity via GDP, we run into a fundamental valuation problem with the government component (G). Private consumption (C) and investment (I) are valued using market prices derived from voluntary exchanges. These prices, imperfect as they are, provide at least some signal about the perceived value placed on those goods and services by willing participants.
Government spending, for the most part, lacks this direct market-based valuation mechanism derived from voluntary choice.
Because there are usually no market prices for government outputs (like defense, regulatory agencies, or infrastructure projects before user fees), GDP accounting defaults to valuing them at cost. So, if the government spends $1 billion, it adds $1 billion to the 'G' component of GDP. This is convenient from an accounting perspective, but it doesn't actually tell us whether that $1 billion expenditure generated $1 billion (or more, or perhaps much less) in genuine economic value or utility *as perceived by the citizens who ultimately fund it*.
Therefore, questioning whether government spending represents "good value" or is truly "productive" in the same sense as market activity is relevant if you're trying to get a useful measure. (This is true irrespective of your opinion about the morality of taxation.)
It's a well-known limitation in how we construct and interpret GDP figures.
But is a government dollar really as productive as a private sector dollar?
$1b billion for the local school district. Compare that to $1 billion spent by a private operator?
Standard GDP might overstate. Maybe you need a 50% haircut on government spending in the calculation.