Oates

What a bitch that we should be required to pay 0.50% of our entire taxable incomes to fund services for people with disabilities. I was hoping to be able to piss that dollar a day up the wall, what were you planning to use yours for?

Amazulu

same as you

renth

Oh look, Julia Gillard has opened a BE account.

In my case I was going to donate that money to Medecins Sans Frontiers but I'm not going to be able to do that now, which is a real shame.

GarryP

Actually that ain't necessarily true.

Right wingers will have coronaries, but that's a little bit of propaganda that's not borne out by the facts - it just gets repeated so often that nobody questions it. To understand, you have to recognise that the people in government and the people in industry are basically the same people, same upbringing, same education, etc. People can and do swap from one to the other during their careers. What's different are the drivers placed upon them, and the behaviours that those drivers create.

In addition, there are two basic models of 'getting things done'. The one you promote as 'free market' is an evolutionary, natural selection, dog eat dog competition between greedy actors exploring the solution space - searching for a 'winning' set of parameters (where winning often means counter-productive for the wider society and short term). The other, the 'government' model is to pick a way forward, considering all the factors, and hope that its in some way optimal, eg 'right'. It's top down, command and control, 'intelligent' design, and generally has all those wider drivers in play. The first is wasteful in that the winner wins and the losers are totally wasted effort. The second is wasteful in being suboptimal to the problem being addressed.

I'd contend that the 'evolutionary' approach is best when you don't know which way to go and want to find a 'good' solution. However, once you have that solution found the 'intelligent design' approach will allow reduction of wasted effort and gradual improvement in quality of delivery.

So, if you are getting results that you think 'could be better' from government programmes:

• Change the drivers, and in particular be very careful about how the individuals doing the programme 'win'. Metrics have b*ggered up so many programmes.
• Keep them damn politicians finger out of the pie ("no you can't have it in your marginal constituency"), and give those involved all the flexibility to piss people off that industry have.
• Don't be afraid to reward properly a good idea. It's better to give someone who can knock 10% off the spend on healthcare a few million for it, than continue with the status quo.
• Use the right tool at the right time for the right purpose. Evolutionary when needed, and C'n'C when it's better. Have a plan to transition. Free market is NOT always the way to go, and anyone who tries to say it is is not to be trusted.

Finally, remember we don't have a 'free market' when it comes to fighting wars - despite it being one of the most chaotic and complex environments you can face. Consider WHY that's the case.