The US government is not one person or a small set of people with a coherent strategy making decisions based on cost-benefit analysis. It’s an extremely complex emergent system whose properties can only be understood by studying them empirically, not by appealing to arguments about what a human would think is worth it or would make sense.

▲

labster 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Another statement that I would have simply accepted as fact a year ago, but now I believe is false. The US government is now primarily one person, and occasionally a small set of people, making cost-benefit decisions on what will benefit themselves more. The complex system is mostly gone, soon to be washed away, in favor of layers of patronage and favoritism. Much simpler.

	▲	umanwizard 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That is not true. Lots of things Trump wants the government to do have not happened (random example: stopping the grant of birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants and other non-permanent residents), precisely because he does not fully control it. Maybe he will someday, but he doesn’t yet.

▲

loeg 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This isn't responsive to my comment.

	▲	bee_rider 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I believed they interpreted your post as pointing out the straightforward cost-benefit analysis (with an implication that it seems likely that we’d end up behaving according to that analysis). And they are pointing out that our government often doesn’t behave in a way that is compliant with a straightforward analysis. It doesn’t seem like a very out-there interpretation of your post, maybe it is wrong, though. In particular the implication that I’ve got in parenthesis is, for sure, reading between the lines and maybe wrong. But I don’t really get the response of “This isn’t responsive to my comment.” It doesn’t seem to move the conversation forward or clarify anything. Seems like a dead-end. What’s the point?