News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I'd start with a braoder picture first that will have the best chance of naturally funneling you to the information you seek.
I'd start with looking up what merits are used to consider a government ran program successful.
From there use those merits but look for examples of programs and the governments responsible for the programs that have been used as models for what happens when a program FAILS to meet each of those merits.
Then look at what each of the failed programs cost to the taxpayers and what percentage of that goverment's total the failed program accounts for.
Divide those costs by the population of tax payering citizens and you will have what earch failed program cost each person.
Do the same process for successful programs to form a picture of what efficient tax funded programs vs inefficient/failed programs look like.
Ive done similar analysis cant remember what the reson specifically was for but the added bonus of doing the search yourself is eventually you'll start finding similar researchers doing similar analysis and discovering methods, questions, variables you didnt even know you were missing.
What I do remember from my similar search was finding several really good articles on the systematic failures plagueing government ran programs that exist accross many different government models and why they cant be fixed without a complete overhaul of how a governing body is structured.
One of the things they broje down is how any government ran program is the same entity assessing the cost efficiency of a program is almost always the same entity making its budget proposals. Which is the same entity that usually advocated and proposed the program. Which is the same entity whose tenure is dependent on the success of the program.
Its been a really long time since I read the article and did my best from memory but without finding the articles, ill admit I may have butchered explaining that example lol.
Basically for a governing power to have longevity it needs to have redundancies to prevent burning out and those redundancies make gorernment ran programs incapable of having many of the natural variables of business to affect any government ran program.
Again, full disclaimer I'm shooting from the hip and the take away should be the method that works for me to find answers for either really obscure topics or really specific topics.
This seems like a very academic and thought intensive process. That's not a criticism.
I'll have to fight my natural instincts of finding the easy button on this one.
Thanks
Some of what you mentioned reminds me of the use it or loose is spending model of appropriated funds, and the automatic renewal of some funding year and year.