> The US Federal Government is an utter horror show. It was once an amazingly capable collection of efficient, nimble organizations. It could hire rogues and mavericks when needed, and was able to fire the desk-riders too. It's now a rotted-out shell. Success happens in-spite of, and never because-of, the organizations themselves.

Not sure how this is related to your point about money, but I do think it's cultural. To work in the civil service right is not something our current culture rewards and/or admires. As such, you get a paucity of talent, hustle, and hard workers.

“The punishment suffered by the wise who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of bad men.” - Plato

Bingo. See also: many nonprofit organizations for the exact same reason. DC is a world unto itself.

I don't think guaranteed revenue is the problem, it's guaranteed employment.

We tried tying money to success in our education system with No Child Left Behind and it was a disaster. When you have an organization that is struggling to make effective use of their budget, the solution is to replace the ineffective leadership, not decimate their budget and expect them to do better.

Japanese business school philosophy seems to be fire the leaders first, then the followers. It's a sort of 'both' solution spread over a couple of fiscal cycles.

If you ever get bought by a Japanese conglomerate and your boss gets fired, rather than being relieved you should be worried, because you're next if things don't improve. I can't fault that logic, but it does seem to make at least some westerners a little complacent, cross-purposefully.

When was the this golden age of US federal government efficiency?

Perhaps not efficiency. Accomplishment. With limited budgets.

I'll take shipbuilding, tank manufacture, aircraft construction, and logistics for World War Two, from a prior activity of about nil, as an example of accomplishment.

You probably meant this in jest, but a few projects come to mind such as the federal highways, the moon landing, the Manhattan project.

I doubt we'd be able to do that today at at least the same efficiency.

Most of these projects were driven by competition with USSR. I.e., push for results under limited resources. With globalization we have eliminated it and are now left to rot, splinter and wait until the competition between the shards of the former empire sparks progress again.

Except, there's also China with superior morale, superior education and superior efficiency, that might have better plans for the resources left behind a fallen empire...

The United States appears to only know how to wage war and even that has been iffy since WWII. China is poised to decimate us. They’ve been playing the long game for decades now. What have we been doing? Enriching defense contractors and having very little to show for it.

Because the general public doesn't care neither about China, nor about institutional accountability. The media diverts their attention towards conveniently picked unquantifiable problems, so they are busy fighting each other over minor differences, while refusing to notice that BOTH sides are being quietly pushed into poverty via the post-2008 economic policies.

(Late, I know -- a comment in this thread was referenced a few days later.) Yeah, 2008 was a banner year for the U.S. economy (not to mention the world economies). The economy was humming along so smoothly that, IIRC, McCain was able to take a vacation from his busy presidential campaign for a little rest and relaxation. And then Obama had to come along and ruin everything. Bummer! :(

The whole “China long game” feels so lazy. Did you forget that this is the same Chinese government that isn’t resilient enough to handle challenges to it (HK, Taiwan, Tibet, Tianimen Square (sp?)) and it’s the same government where Evergrande is happening because local governments in China just feel like reporting numbers because they’re scared that Xi will get mad if they report real numbers instead of “growth forever”.

China also has a huge population problem coming and it’s likely that they have already peaked economically (you’ll notice states like China get much more belligerent and bellicose as they fail ala Russia) and even that is due to government mismanagement.

So, my point is China isn’t some grand strategic master. They are a country with their own problems, likely even worse than most countries because problem exposition is strongly discouraged.

This doesn’t mean that America or any other country doesn’t have problems, but China isn’t particularly special here.

> Chinese government that isn’t resilient enough to handle challenges to it (HK, Taiwan, Tibet, Tianimen Square (sp?))

Uh, what?

HK democracy for example is seen as such a threat to China that it must defacto invade HK to stop democracy from overthrowing the CCP. Same with these other areas and Chinese involvement.

> HK democracy for example is seen as such a threat to China that it must defacto invade HK to stop democracy from overthrowing the CCP.

Which it has largely done, and moves on. Saying it's not resilient enough to handle the situation seems to be wishful thinking in that case (and is obviously false in the case of Tiananmen Square or Tibet.)

That’s my point. The CCP appears so weak that anything scary must be attacked viciously. Admit no fault. Allow no dissent. If the CCP was stable and strong it wouldn’t need to invade HK. The invasion demonstrates the weakness.

Oh no, it's not a weakness. It's the authoritarian version of a team building exercise.