Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Government, Inc

"the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem"  
An Economist's Protest (1975), Milton Friedman

Dissatisfied with the government? Disappointed with the opposition parties? Distraught that we don't have any viable solutions to our current political systems? Since we support deregulated governments on the rationale that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, it's only sensible that the government takes the same form, right? Why not turn the government itself into a business?

The Firm
For one, we tender out the role of government to the highest bidder. An organiation with that kind of money must be good at making and spending it. The knowledge and skills associated with business have already worked well in New Zealand under Rogernomics, take for example the 1989 local restructuring, which saw much more streamlined and efficient services, with vastly improved accountability and fiscal responsibility. If we can get central government to this level, we'd be winning.

Secondly, why not float the government on the stock exchange? The value of the government would fluctuate as investors have more or less confidence in the performance of the organization, and the investment would pay for huge amounts of infrastructure and services. Shareholders would be able to appoint leaders they felt confident were working to a high enough standard, on the basis they had a plan and outlook for their investors. The vision involved with a business is something the government severely lacks, election promises are frequently broken without repercussion, whereas business stockholders change the leadership when expectations are not met. Politicians are not voted out for doing a bad job, new politicians are voted in because they have more exciting promises. The new government would be required to have a plan to give investors confidence in the viability of the organization. Returns must be made, promises must be kept.

Thirdly, look at who's already in government! Politics is a hobby for businesspeople, while this sounds like it's off to a good start, there is less accountability in government as opposed to business. The rich become powerful, and hold on to their positions until voters tire of them, rather than out of dissatisfaction of broken promises. Politics is something businesspeople love to get into; the current New Zealand Prime Minister was a businessman, the deputy leader of ACT is a businessman, the National party is largely supported by businessmen. The offer to turn government into a company is an offer rich people will buy into with big money.

The Reality
Obviously this is all a ridiculous idea, but it highlights the inefficiencies of government. I personally think the government would be wrong to become a business itself, as it clearly has its own place as a unique kind of organization. However, the large monolithic and inefficient government is not a sustainable way to run the country. Competition is something the government cannot sustain, so it must learn other ways of being efficient, thinking of the government as a type of monopoly, and taking advantage of the benefits of a monopoly while minimizing the negatives. The downsides to a monopoly are the same as government; high prices, low efficiency, low innovation and misallocation of resources. 

A government has no competition that forces it to innovate, to streamline and become more efficient, or to make its services more affordable. This is where resources aren't allocated to their efficient optimum and the great deal of power they yield is abused, not out of corruption, but out of being incapable to manage such a large array of sectors. The answer is not bigger government to match the size of its services, which leaves the same inefficiencies; but to reduce the number of services to match the capability of government.

Sticking to its day job is the most efficient way for government to go. What can be competed for, ideally should be, leaving government intervention and inefficiency can vastly improve the services. Education and healthcare can benefit from becoming more competitive. While I do not advocate total free market control of such services, a market style of competition can benefit them greatly, such as school vouchers and a mixed market healthcare system. Scaling back the size of government would mean leaving government to take care of its core services and fulfill its mission, such as law and order, defense, provision for the poor. Far-leftists advocate government control of many services in the name of ensuring the welfare of the poor, when really their systems give welfare to both rich and poor, which wastes valuable resources and becomes inefficient. Providing adequate healthcare for the poor leaves room for the free market to provide more comfortable healthcare for those willing to pay for it, educating an adequate national curriculum leaves room for the free market to provide alternative curriculums with different approaches. 

While government cannot itself be a business, it has a lot to learn from it. The currently unrivaled level of efficiency and accountability needs to be seen in government to ensure we have a more sustainable and effective system. A monolithic monopolistic government has a great deal of drawbacks which need to be minimized, the answer being a smaller government that proves true to its mission, rather than becoming bigger and intervening in sectors which are hampered by its presence.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Dr Sharples vs Dr Brash: Māori Radicalism

"We might have our differences, but we are one people with a common destiny in our rich variety of culture, race and tradition." 
Nelson Mandela, ANC victory speech, Johannesburg, 2 May 1994

Dr Don Brash (leader of ACT Party, PhD in Economics) and  Dr Pita Sharples (leader of Māori Party, PhD in Anthropolgy)  went head-to-head in a tevleised debate on Māori Television's 'Native Affairs' show, sparked by the advertisement the ACT Party published in the New Zealand Herald newspaper. The advertisement is headlined "Fed Up With Pandering to Maori Radicals?"

I watched the debate live on TV, with respect already for both Dr Sharples and Dr Brash, and having expectations for Dr Brash having met the man and supporting his policies up to that point. The impression most objective thinkers were under was that Dr Brash was campaigning on 'one law for all' as his maxim whereby all New Zealanders were given perfectly equal treatment before the law, eliminating affirmative action and discrimination towards any group; and Dr Sharples representing a party concerned with Māori rights and perspectives, but with a holistically positive goal in the future. Dr Sharples reiterated the idea of a better future for EVERYONE. Who won the debate is a an answer I will not give as it depends on each person, I support 'one law for all' and also a better future for everyone, not some. In my opinion, having one law for all is THE KEY to creating a better future for all.

Pragmatism, Not Populism
As a usual supporter of ACT and Dr Brash, the policies that he offers are of freer markets with less barriers to entry. Dr Brash is probably the most qualified and respected economist in the country. We trust his judgment in economic policy. So why is he focusing so heavily on race relations and not the economy? 

We understand the ACT position on equal rights and equal opportunity, which gives everyone equal access to the economic benefits available in this country, Dr Brash for some reason ignored the economic advantages of his perspective and just argued against Dr Sharples' view and quarreled over quotidian points like the Wanganui/Whanganui debate. Is this really the kind of issue we need to focus on? Is the rate of economic development and the level of poverty in the country not more important?

Dr Brash's theory has colossal economic benefit, but this was strangely absent. Equal access to the benefits of a free market economy and increased accountability of government spending is the way to go, where spending by the government is for every New Zealander that needs a hand. A united approach where we all have the opportunity to strive for our own success makes us all capable of becoming what we want, realizing our own potential. Having discriminatory policies obviously creates another barrier to this kind of opportunity, and in the case of affirmative action, gives a group of people opportunities and benefits they may not want or need at the cost of those who would appreciate them.

The ACT party has gained it's reputation for being promoters of small government and strong economic policy; these are the policies that have kept ACT in Parliament and built up its support base. The idea is that ACT's economic policies should solve social issues.

And the winner is...
Dr Sharples was good to rebut Dr Brash with the saying that the Māori are concerned with a united way forward that gives a future to all New Zealanders. Dr Sharples did not explain exactly how this would happen in his perspective, and unfortunately my understanding of Māori Party policy is that it would involve affirmative action policies and some socialist economic management. All New Zealanders should be able to agree with the idea of a better New Zealand for all of us to share, Dr Brash did not elaborate enough on how this better New Zealand comes from equal laws that give equal opportunity to gain the fruits from this country. Dr Brash still made many good points, those of us that believe in one law for all stand by this principle, however Dr Sharples may not have been convinced what kind of benefits could be made through the policy.

What next?
The target audience for these policies are people who value personal and economic freedom, equal opportunity, and want to see a better and stronger economy for New Zealand. Labeling most Māori politicians as 'radicals' may not advance the cause, but the real vote-winner for Dr Brash and the way forward is to concentrate on economic policy, reminding people of the benefits of a strong economy and equal access to making gains from it.

The way forward should be a united one, having a colorblind and non-discriminatory legislative policy (one law for all) ensures the equal treatment of people, leaving individuals personally responsible for their own gains and losses compared to others. While Māori seats and other legal issues are a small formality, the key is to pave a way forward that is to create the new economic policies to benefit New Zealanders in a way that advantages everyone.