alt Hacker NewsCompanies manage to handle all 3 of those things without the inefficiently (or at least a lot less of it).
As for the terrible salaries and mountains of political crap, that's the real issue here. But these are changeable and shouldn't just be accepted as inevitable as is so often done by defenders of government bureaucracy.
Replies
Can you tell me which companies have run very, very large financial systems in the US for the last 250 years?
> Companies manage to handle all 3 of those things without the inefficiently (or at least a lot less of it).
Do they?
The first two results on Google for "government vs private efficiency" are https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publicati... and https://www.epsu.org/article/public-and-private-sector-effic..., which both suggest that it is a myth that companies are inherently more efficient than government.
It's also worth mentioning that governments and companies inherently must operate differently. Governments are not set up to recoup investment; in fact, proponents of small government (as opposed to no government) generally recognize that the role of government is to assist in preventing "tragedy of the commons" by funding initiatives and programs that fundamentally do not make sense for a single market player to address. I.e. government helps when there isn't a good path for a single market player to see a good/reliable economic and market-competitive return from their investment.
A profound number of companies fail every year and cease to exist, which is probably more inefficient (and also not an outcome that many would consider acceptable in a government context.)
Of the ones that survive[1], some may be more efficient, but whether they remain efficient, effective and extant in the long term is not a given.
> Companies manage to handle all 3 of those things without the inefficiently (or at least a lot less of it).
Have you… never worked for a large company? They’re incredibly inefficient! And also, the staff cost a whole lot more.