Private is not 100% efficient but it is much more efficient because if you don't make a profit you no longer exist. A government program can't go broke. Government programs simply get money with zero effect on their budget or revenue if they execute poorly or well. That's why removing an 'optional' HR role like DEI that does not actual produce anything measurable is slow hanging fruit. You are reducing cost and the result will not actually effect the outcome. It's an unnecessary ideological add-on, not a function. It's like removing the training on how to use a coffee machine in an office that doesn't drink coffee.

Hmmm, A few corporations come to mind that are considered too big to fail (banks a decade and half ago, intel atm,...). Seems like they have aquired government-like powers :D

Second point. Nuclear safety inspectors don't produce anything, they just cost us. Lets call them red tape. Simply fire all of them, energy costs will go down and nothing will happen in short term. But somewhere down the line a president will be asked how the hell they thought that running nuclear reactors without safety inspectors was a good idea.

Now, I honestly don't know if DEI is useful in the long run or not, but because you see it as ideological add-on makes me think that you know even less. People can make anything seem like its ideological (vaccines, wearing masks, climate change,...), but usually that just mean they don't know what they are talking about.

Too big to fail was a joke, they should have made them sell their assets or ownership to other companies and shareholders who would cover the losses. Not one person who owned the company before should have been allowed to remain owning anything, without additional paid in capital. Anything related to safety, social security and veterans benefits, was/is mentioned specifically as exempt to the cuts/payment pauses from what I've seen.

Wild red herring fallacy, I’ll bite.

The private sector is indeed filled with lots of inefficiencies, but due to the profit motive and presence of competition, there’s massive incentives to correct those inefficiencies slowly over time. You'll make more profit doing so!

Hence, the private sector is constantly self correcting itself and becoming more efficient via creative destruction. You can just look at the numbers, even the Chinese Communist Party understand this. Turns out the profit motive combined with competitive instincts of humans results in a consistently greater good.

Not sure you’re aware, but the government doesn’t do that. Hence why the US is massively indebted. Unfortunately the US debtors aren’t doing so great these days so it can’t continue even at current rates. Instead of DOGE they should have named it “The department of not finding the level of US debt that leads to currency debasement and collapse.”

I never thought I’d need to explain the elementary school 101 of why communism is bad and why debt is not endless on HN but apparently this place is turning into Reddit.

>>The private sector is indeed filled with lots of inefficiencies, but due to the profit motive and presence of competition, there’s massive incentives to correct those inefficiencies slowly over time. You'll make more profit doing so!

Instead of correcting inefficiencies it's more profitable for private sector to: 1. merge/acquire competition, create monopoly, 2. lobby government for monopoly status (ISPs)/protection from competition with tarrifs (automakers)/... 3. sue competition out of business 4. aggressively use patents,...

Also found it funny that someone starts post with 'red herring' and ends with 'educating' parent post about communism :D

When stating "all profit is waste" you've officially changed the topic of discussion to communism.

Basic logic would dictate a response addressing that head-on is not a red herring.

I did not understand his post as 'all profit is waste', this is what he said: >>The amount of resources used to feed profit alone are a huge waste.

I believe that this can sometimes be true. For example, lets say that CEO want to raise profits by 20% by end of fiscal year and uses 50% more resources for that compared to current resource/profit use. This might be good idea for CEO, if his bonus is tied to profit, but for company it might be better to develop business that is going to bring more profit / resource spent a few years down the line.

I think both government and private sector have waste. It's just that reason for waste is different, and it doesn't make sense to compere them directly. Also, combating waste should be done differently in private vs public sector.

This is simple. Look at Medicare Advantage plans versus traditional Medicare. The same amount of care costs 23% _extra_ using Medicare Advantage. How is this more efficient? It's not.