“Fukuyama’s primary claim is that the American public is to blame for the inability of government to accomplish things, because people are so distrustful of government that they want to impede its capacity.“
A classic case of blaming the victim? The citizenry is literally compelled to buy lackluster goods and services from a monopoly provider. The inherent distrust of that scenario seems completely reasonable to me.
This floors me, how out of touch either they are or I am:
"Fukuyama’s primary claim is that the American public is to blame for the inability of government to accomplish things, because people are so distrustful of government that they want to impede its capacity. Cowen instead believes that the government is doing well at accomplishing things, and that the problem is state governments dominated by leftists."
The *people* are to blame for interfering with *government*? The people should just let government do whatever it wants and get out of the way?
Or alternatively, government is actually competent, apparently in all things, or at least so many things that the few failures are too insignificant to matter?
Those poor blind men, trying to divine what an elephant is from toenails on one side and a flapping ear on the other.
You know how some people get a really severe illness and while they survive it takes a permanent toll and they never bounce back, like hemiplegia after a stroke? Fukuyama is one of the many commentators who got TDS intellectual-hemiplegia and so can no longer think straight about many questions. At the state leve - for projects being undertaken by or which require the approval of state or local government - it's incredibly clear the the places that have the least capacity if defined by how much time and money it takes to get anything done, or if they can be done at all, are the same places where the local trust in government and support for exercise of state power is *highest*. To be fair, Cowen is also wrong about monopoly since states with red-monopoly (e.g., Texas) have high, not low capacity and tend to be able to get big things done quicker and cheaper. But at least that is only partially wrong and not "180 degrees opposite the truth and totally wrong" level nonsense that Fukuyama is spouting. At any rate, as I've pointed out since people started using the term, state capacity is not sufficiently well-defined to enable productive discourse on many topics, since capacity is a combination of potential and will and both are elastic.
The thing that concerns me most about Texas is the substitution of reasonable Republicans for unreasonable Republicans. Abbott, Patrick and Cornyn are all in the reasonable camp. But their possible replacements are completely out of touch. Paxton is quite literally a comic book character with his looney attitude and shifty eye. As another example, here in Tarrant County, the MAGA TX senate candidate just lost in a landslide in a very red district to some labor organizer. People don’t seem to want the MAGA stuff.
Thank you for the correction. Separately, I gave a shout out a few days ago to what I remember of your very early days in a quarry mine. Please consider posting on this. I have very fond memories of the early days in my career outside of the officially credentialed routes. I worked right beside illegal immigrants and learned many things from them back in the 90s in the SF Bay Area.
Thanks. If I haven't posted on Substack about my nickel mine experiences, I will. I left for northern Manitoba in May 1969 as a teenager and came back in August 1969 as a man.
One thing to remember is that America basically doesn't have major "red cities", even in Texas (though as I understand it, some Texas mayors are borderline ceremonial positions with things actually being run by city managers with councils or something). Even in Fort Worth, Parker only won got 53%, and in Dallas, Johnson was a Democrat for decades until he flipped in 2023, I'll leave it to Texans to tell me how genuine or opportunistic they think that was. Houston hasn't had a Republican mayor in nearly 50 years, only 14 years in the last century, but Louie Welch was enough of a character to earn extra points. Austin is of course as deep blue as it gets in the region.
It seems likely that, after Trump exits in 2028/9, many TDS sufferers will admit they went overboard, a little... but Trump was a terrible person.
The Dem Demonization Strategy will still be working, calling all leading Reps "evil", so leading to the Dem Derangement Syndrome that Fukuyama suffers from. He, not Trump, is the Deranged one. There will be Vance or Rubio or DeSantis DS, but it's just another Dem DS target, and it's the Dems who are deranged.
All changes have good points & bad points, most folks oppose most bad points of most changes, and hugely don't trust that the good points will actually happen.
Solid distillation of the Cowen-Fukuyama debate. The link between political competition and state efficency is probably more robust than people think. I've noticed this in local goverment too, where the absence of challengers basically creates a permission structure for inefficiency and corruption. Cowen's framing around leftist monopolies is sharp but maybe overlooks how red-state monoparties can be equally wasteful.
"if the grants were made in the form of vouchers given to families which they could only use to pay for daycare, then it would be structurally fraud-resistant, since then they would use it to pay for actual daycare, and not hand the voucher over to a leering center that cashed it in but wasn't watching their kids"
That's easier to get around than food stamps. Give the voucher to the fraudulent day care, get a kickback, possibly in the form of a pro forma job.
I think Caplan pretty much nailed it when he said (not a direct quote) that government performance is not a question of state capacity but state priorities. Assuming that government actors want to do things that are good for the people always is a mistake, and any analysis that proceeds from that assumption will be mistaken. Rather it is better to assume that there are multiple actors whose main goal is to benefit themselves and their friends first, just like we do for everyone else.
It's a combo. Sometimes state officials really do want to accomplish something and try hard at it, but they just don't have what it takes to get it done. A high-bar project that illustrates the point could be the domestic production of atomic bombs. Many states have the capacity but for various reasons aren't going to build them (at least not unless the US umbrella collapses), for example, Japan and Korea. But many states couldn't get it done even if they wanted to and threw everything they had at it. In the US one can look at the practical constraints imposed by federal rules or possible lawsuits as limitations on local state capacity, such that even if they want to get stuff done efficiently and have priorities consistent with that, they still just legally can't.
I agree on high end very difficult stuff like nukes and the like, but we often also see government fail at very mundane things like “keep roads in repair” or “build a railroad”. Sometimes that is because other parts of the government have different priorities like “prevent anyone from building anything ever”, but then how do you determine the capacity there? Is it low because group A can’t put in a railroad line, or high because group B prevents people from doing things they don’t like?
"I would just point out that if people were spending their own money, including money given to them by the government, they would not spend it on nonexistent day cares."
This took me a few tries to parse. It seemed to be saying that the fraudsters would be more careful in how they spent their stolen taxpayer loot and would not set up fake day care centers. Now I think it means families who get subsidies for day care for their real children would not give that day care subsidy money to non-existent day care centers.
But I'm not sure I agree with that. Why not collect that subsidy, take care of your children yourself or stash them with cheaper day cares, and give the surplus to the non-existent day cares as a way of supporting terrorists or rebels back in the home country?
The right way to parse it is that if the grants were made in the form of vouchers given to families which they could only use to pay for daycare, then it would be structurally fraud-resistant, since then they would use it to pay for actual daycare, and not hand the voucher over to a leering center that cashed it in but wasn't watching their kids. In the alternative you could be comfortable with them either using it or just keeping the cash, whichever they value higher, but the programs aren't like mini-UBI and justified in terms of just giving out benefits but particularly in terms of a "need" for daycare provided by commercial providers. Of course it's not quite true that they wouldn't give the money to fakers, because what happened in the past was precisely that parents would watch their own kids anyway, but still apply for the vouchers if eligible, then give the vouchers to fake leering centers because *participating* in the conspiracy of fraud by collecting kickbacks.
To deal with this, the government came up with the plan to pay providers directly, but prevent fraud by requiring some kind of verification of enrollments and the identities of the kids. Reportedly, this worked ok, indeed, too well for those who wanted more fraud, which is why Biden had HHS amend the CCDF rule in 2024 that not only neutralized the existing anti-fraud and oversight measures but *also told* states to not get in the way on their own initiative and *required* them to pay providers before any verification or confirmation. But there was zero issue with providers not getting paid or facing big delays before that rule change. You couldn't come up with a better recipe for a sudden major expansion of fraud, and no surprise, that's what we got, by design.
Sure you claiming that the vast majority of the Somali MN daycare fraud occurred only after March 2024?!? This is not how I understand the story. But I confess I ain’t followed it all that closely.
“Fukuyama’s primary claim is that the American public is to blame for the inability of government to accomplish things, because people are so distrustful of government that they want to impede its capacity.“
A classic case of blaming the victim? The citizenry is literally compelled to buy lackluster goods and services from a monopoly provider. The inherent distrust of that scenario seems completely reasonable to me.
This floors me, how out of touch either they are or I am:
"Fukuyama’s primary claim is that the American public is to blame for the inability of government to accomplish things, because people are so distrustful of government that they want to impede its capacity. Cowen instead believes that the government is doing well at accomplishing things, and that the problem is state governments dominated by leftists."
The *people* are to blame for interfering with *government*? The people should just let government do whatever it wants and get out of the way?
Or alternatively, government is actually competent, apparently in all things, or at least so many things that the few failures are too insignificant to matter?
Those poor blind men, trying to divine what an elephant is from toenails on one side and a flapping ear on the other.
You know how some people get a really severe illness and while they survive it takes a permanent toll and they never bounce back, like hemiplegia after a stroke? Fukuyama is one of the many commentators who got TDS intellectual-hemiplegia and so can no longer think straight about many questions. At the state leve - for projects being undertaken by or which require the approval of state or local government - it's incredibly clear the the places that have the least capacity if defined by how much time and money it takes to get anything done, or if they can be done at all, are the same places where the local trust in government and support for exercise of state power is *highest*. To be fair, Cowen is also wrong about monopoly since states with red-monopoly (e.g., Texas) have high, not low capacity and tend to be able to get big things done quicker and cheaper. But at least that is only partially wrong and not "180 degrees opposite the truth and totally wrong" level nonsense that Fukuyama is spouting. At any rate, as I've pointed out since people started using the term, state capacity is not sufficiently well-defined to enable productive discourse on many topics, since capacity is a combination of potential and will and both are elastic.
The thing that concerns me most about Texas is the substitution of reasonable Republicans for unreasonable Republicans. Abbott, Patrick and Cornyn are all in the reasonable camp. But their possible replacements are completely out of touch. Paxton is quite literally a comic book character with his looney attitude and shifty eye. As another example, here in Tarrant County, the MAGA TX senate candidate just lost in a landslide in a very red district to some labor organizer. People don’t seem to want the MAGA stuff.
I think you mean "the substitution of unreasonable Republicans for reasonable Republicans."
Thank you for the correction. Separately, I gave a shout out a few days ago to what I remember of your very early days in a quarry mine. Please consider posting on this. I have very fond memories of the early days in my career outside of the officially credentialed routes. I worked right beside illegal immigrants and learned many things from them back in the 90s in the SF Bay Area.
Thanks. If I haven't posted on Substack about my nickel mine experiences, I will. I left for northern Manitoba in May 1969 as a teenager and came back in August 1969 as a man.
I did post on it already. Here: https://davidrhenderson.substack.com/p/an-18-year-old-david-in-a-nickel
One thing to remember is that America basically doesn't have major "red cities", even in Texas (though as I understand it, some Texas mayors are borderline ceremonial positions with things actually being run by city managers with councils or something). Even in Fort Worth, Parker only won got 53%, and in Dallas, Johnson was a Democrat for decades until he flipped in 2023, I'll leave it to Texans to tell me how genuine or opportunistic they think that was. Houston hasn't had a Republican mayor in nearly 50 years, only 14 years in the last century, but Louie Welch was enough of a character to earn extra points. Austin is of course as deep blue as it gets in the region.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but Miami is at least purple if not red, is it not?
It seems likely that, after Trump exits in 2028/9, many TDS sufferers will admit they went overboard, a little... but Trump was a terrible person.
The Dem Demonization Strategy will still be working, calling all leading Reps "evil", so leading to the Dem Derangement Syndrome that Fukuyama suffers from. He, not Trump, is the Deranged one. There will be Vance or Rubio or DeSantis DS, but it's just another Dem DS target, and it's the Dems who are deranged.
All changes have good points & bad points, most folks oppose most bad points of most changes, and hugely don't trust that the good points will actually happen.
“The *people* are to blame for interfering with *government*? The people should just let government do whatever it wants and get out of the way?”
More specifically, the people who elected Trump and other Republicans.
Fukuyama is a left of center statist.
Why would any of this surprise you?
Because I am always astounded when they say the quiet part out loud, especially this baldly.
Agreed. Seems borderline insane.
Solid distillation of the Cowen-Fukuyama debate. The link between political competition and state efficency is probably more robust than people think. I've noticed this in local goverment too, where the absence of challengers basically creates a permission structure for inefficiency and corruption. Cowen's framing around leftist monopolies is sharp but maybe overlooks how red-state monoparties can be equally wasteful.
"if the grants were made in the form of vouchers given to families which they could only use to pay for daycare, then it would be structurally fraud-resistant, since then they would use it to pay for actual daycare, and not hand the voucher over to a leering center that cashed it in but wasn't watching their kids"
That's easier to get around than food stamps. Give the voucher to the fraudulent day care, get a kickback, possibly in the form of a pro forma job.
I think Caplan pretty much nailed it when he said (not a direct quote) that government performance is not a question of state capacity but state priorities. Assuming that government actors want to do things that are good for the people always is a mistake, and any analysis that proceeds from that assumption will be mistaken. Rather it is better to assume that there are multiple actors whose main goal is to benefit themselves and their friends first, just like we do for everyone else.
It's a combo. Sometimes state officials really do want to accomplish something and try hard at it, but they just don't have what it takes to get it done. A high-bar project that illustrates the point could be the domestic production of atomic bombs. Many states have the capacity but for various reasons aren't going to build them (at least not unless the US umbrella collapses), for example, Japan and Korea. But many states couldn't get it done even if they wanted to and threw everything they had at it. In the US one can look at the practical constraints imposed by federal rules or possible lawsuits as limitations on local state capacity, such that even if they want to get stuff done efficiently and have priorities consistent with that, they still just legally can't.
I agree on high end very difficult stuff like nukes and the like, but we often also see government fail at very mundane things like “keep roads in repair” or “build a railroad”. Sometimes that is because other parts of the government have different priorities like “prevent anyone from building anything ever”, but then how do you determine the capacity there? Is it low because group A can’t put in a railroad line, or high because group B prevents people from doing things they don’t like?
Virginia isn't competitive anymore. COVID was a narrow fluke. Its going to be governed in a California like way going forward.
"I would just point out that if people were spending their own money, including money given to them by the government, they would not spend it on nonexistent day cares."
This took me a few tries to parse. It seemed to be saying that the fraudsters would be more careful in how they spent their stolen taxpayer loot and would not set up fake day care centers. Now I think it means families who get subsidies for day care for their real children would not give that day care subsidy money to non-existent day care centers.
But I'm not sure I agree with that. Why not collect that subsidy, take care of your children yourself or stash them with cheaper day cares, and give the surplus to the non-existent day cares as a way of supporting terrorists or rebels back in the home country?
The right way to parse it is that if the grants were made in the form of vouchers given to families which they could only use to pay for daycare, then it would be structurally fraud-resistant, since then they would use it to pay for actual daycare, and not hand the voucher over to a leering center that cashed it in but wasn't watching their kids. In the alternative you could be comfortable with them either using it or just keeping the cash, whichever they value higher, but the programs aren't like mini-UBI and justified in terms of just giving out benefits but particularly in terms of a "need" for daycare provided by commercial providers. Of course it's not quite true that they wouldn't give the money to fakers, because what happened in the past was precisely that parents would watch their own kids anyway, but still apply for the vouchers if eligible, then give the vouchers to fake leering centers because *participating* in the conspiracy of fraud by collecting kickbacks.
To deal with this, the government came up with the plan to pay providers directly, but prevent fraud by requiring some kind of verification of enrollments and the identities of the kids. Reportedly, this worked ok, indeed, too well for those who wanted more fraud, which is why Biden had HHS amend the CCDF rule in 2024 that not only neutralized the existing anti-fraud and oversight measures but *also told* states to not get in the way on their own initiative and *required* them to pay providers before any verification or confirmation. But there was zero issue with providers not getting paid or facing big delays before that rule change. You couldn't come up with a better recipe for a sudden major expansion of fraud, and no surprise, that's what we got, by design.
Sure you claiming that the vast majority of the Somali MN daycare fraud occurred only after March 2024?!? This is not how I understand the story. But I confess I ain’t followed it all that closely.