Serious Government

One reason that the government contribution to GDP can not be examined is because of the remarkable warmth the "G" creates in the cold GDP = C+I+G+X equation. Government, as opposed to the rapacious and self-centered private sector, has good motives, an evenhanded outlook that treats all citizens equally and does things for the betterment of all that may not be economically advantageous.

How could we evaluate the economic value of what government does? What is the economic value of the building of a school? Or a road? There certainly seem to be some social value to all but there is also some social value to a church social; should they be underwritten? It seems reasonable that an educated populous is more economically valuable that an uneducated one, it seems that roads would encourage easier and faster economic activity than cow paths but how exactly are those advantages quantified? Should the government build hospitals, which seem to have social value? How about libraries? Libraries have a lot of social value; should we build them? If so, how many? Is it possible to build too many libraries? How should we analyze the right number of libraries? And how to we evaluate a successful road or school?


But even if we accept as true that the government "has good motives, an evenhanded outlook that treats all citizens equally and does things for the betterment of all that may not be economically advantageous" that does not excuse the government from honest and clear self assessment. Modern surgeons have a regular monthly or bimonthly self assessment called M&M, Mortality and Morbidity. It is a conference attended by the hospital surgeons where the recent surgical errors, misjudgments and bad results are discussed. The discussion, often among friends, is brutal. Cases are dissected like cadavers, thinking processes are probed, behavior and decision-making are laid bare. There is never any animosity; the truth and improvement guided by the truth are the only objectives.

The General Accounting Office spoke before a congressional committee a few years ago and said that they estimated 7% of federal programs were lost to graft before they were implemented. Nobody blinked. Very few businesses in the private world could afford that kind of loss because they are serious. The physicians in M&M conference hear every word of the discussion because they are serious. What makes people serious is risk, the risk of loss or failure or death--risk the involved people are responsible for. Improvements in government will certainly come from visionaries and philosophers, but up until now, such visionaries have been few and most of them have been murderous.

Making governmental personal responsible for planning their projects, defending them, and analyzing their social and financial success or failure would be a refreshing start in developing governmental programs that create value. That's what everybody else does.