>using it in an inefficient manner

Inefficient for whom?

For the people who are getting something in return for "other people's money", it's investing.

I'm not saying that it's cool. But, it is what it is.

Thanks for sharing. There seems to be confusion, however. I am not arguing that it's good for society or anyone other than the corporations that profit (i.e. the glaziers, if you will).

I am simply saying that there is a design to the way things currently work. It is not random, accidental, or born of some myopic undervaluing of human capital.

>Inefficient for whom?

For those whose income is being reduced.

Right. But, who benefits?

I'm not arguing that it's good for taxpayers or government employees. I think you're forgetting the context of my original comment. My point is simply that these choices--i.e. paying below market rates to employees, while spending exorbitantly on contracts with corporations--are not a matter of accidental waste or the relative importance of projects, as seemed to be implied by the comment to which I replied.

That "waste" is profitable. And it happens that those who profit also tend to have cozy relationships and armies of lobbyists.