- THIS guy’s calling for government efficiency?…
- Efficient government is impossible…
- Want the #1 stock to buy before the SpaceX IPO? Get the free ticker here.
Dear Reader,
“This morning we are introducing COGE — the Commission on Government Efficiency,” came yesterday’s announcement.
It continued:
“This Commission will find ways for our city to work smarter, faster, and more effectively… [city residents] deserve a city government as careful with their money as they are.”
Is this the declaration of some Republican stoneheart who prioritizes efficiency in government “over the needs of people?”
The answer is no.
It is instead the declaration of New York City’s “democratic socialist” mayor, Mamdani.
Wait, What?
Yet does not the Commission on Government Efficiency resemble, strongly, the Department of Government Efficiency established by President Trump… and directed by his dreaded henchman Mr. Musk?
The answer is yes. The two, in concept, are twins.
Thus COGE succeeds DOGE.
Yet I do not recall Democratic politicians throwing in with DOGE — and here I understate the facts. Why then would they throw in with COGE?
After all: Is not the Democratic Party often labeled the party of government? Active governments, busy across multiple fronts, are rarely known for efficiency.
Double Standard!
Several commentators have razzed Mr. Mamdani over his apparent separate standards. For example, a certain Yehuda Teitelbaum:
- Wait I thought Elon was evil because he tried to save everyone money and cut government inefficiency?
- Or is that only when Elon does it?
And a certain Anthony Galli:
I Want Big Government, so I Want Efficient Government
Yet Mr. Mamdani denies any resemblance of COGE to DOGE. He argues that the latter wielded an axe against essential human services.
And that the former, meantime, will not wield an axe against essential services. It will in fact provide superexcellent human services.
And that is precisely why he is training his sights on government inefficiency:
- Government efficiency, these are words that somehow have been understood as if they are Republican priorities, when in fact they are the priorities of anyone who believes in the public sector.
- And yet Elon Musk took that language and used it to cut as many jobs that were as critical as possible for so many of the neediest people across the country and across the world.
- Ours is going to be a focus on actually delivering efficiency. Not as a byword for cutting services, but actually a sincere commitment to efficiency.
The Impossibility of Government Efficiency
Here we have a plea for what has often been labeled “good government.”
That is, government that is responsive, efficient and competent.
That is, government run to businesslike settings.
That is, government that exists in beautiful theory… but never in hard practice.
The Commission on Government Efficiency? The Department of Government Efficiency?
As I have argued before:
As well erect a Department of Square Circles, a Department of Honest Lies, a Department of Sane Asylums.
Any such project is destined for the hellbox. That is because the entire project is at war with itself.
As efficiency is natural to private enterprise, inefficiency is simply natural to government.
Government runs a monopoly, after all — a monopoly on power. And what monopoly is efficient?
A private concern is jealous of its capital and guards it with terrific ferocity. Yet the government runs to a different accounting.
Government is not the least responsive to the pitiless profit incentive central to efficiency.
It gains not one thing from efficiency.
Inefficiency Is Inherent to Government
The late libertarian economist Murray Rothbard:
- The well-known inefficiencies of government operation are not empirical accidents… They are inherent in all government enterprise…
- There is a fatal flaw that permeates every conceivable scheme of government enterprise and ineluctably prevents it from rational pricing and efficient allocation of resources.
- Because of this flaw, government enterprise can never be operated on a “business” basis, no matter what the government’s intentions…
That “fatal flaw” is precisely what?
- It is the fact that government can obtain… resources by means of its coercive tax power…
- Private firms can get funds only from consumers and investors… Government, on the other hand, can get as much money as it likes…
- Government… has no requirement for meeting a profit-and-loss test of valued service to consumers, to enable it to obtain funds. Private enterprise can get funds only from satisfied, valuing customers and from investors guided by profits and losses. Government can get funds literally at its own whim.
Government Has no Skin in the Game
But Mr. Rothbard, why must a wrench cost the Pentagon $5,000 or some other enormity? Can’t we demand efficiency in this one example, at least?
- Proponents of government enterprise may retort that the government could simply tell its bureau to act as if it were a profit-making enterprise and to establish itself in the same way as a private business.
- (But), it is impossible to play enterprise. Enterprise means risking one’s own money in investment. Bureaucratic managers and politicians have no real incentive to develop entrepreneurial skill… They do not risk loss of their money in the enterprise…
- [They] have no incentive to be efficient. In fact, the skills they will develop will not be the economic skills of production, but political skills… These skills are very different from the productive ones, and therefore different people will rise to the top in the government from those who succeed in the market.
COGE Will Fail
Thus Mr. Mamdani’s Committee on Government Efficiency — precisely like Mr. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency — will come inevitably to grief.
Government and efficiency simply do not mix.
To pursue efficient government is to pursue the wind.
Regards,
Brian Maher
for Freedom Financial News
