> No, I don't think that stepping back and saying "this allocation of resources stinks" is myopic. Not unless you have so much faith in our resource allocation system that you excuse it from the need to justify itself.
While I would not excuse our resource allocation system from the list of things that should be justified... and notwithstanding that a key resource allocation component, the Government, is subject to a wild variety of inefficiencies...
I think that it ALSO takes a lot of hubris to tell the nation's 300 million people or so+ that you know better than they do, and that they should be sacrificing for the Noble Cause of putting people in space, instead of spending it on the things they feel like make their life better, even if it DOES happen to be the brand that spends more money on advertising instead of a similar-quality generic. (Also, for what it's worth, you should be aware that your interpretation of advertising is a pretty tendentious one.)
So there's that.
(+ I say the Nation to avoid extreme comparisons in living standards which may occur with a more global view, to say nothing of the diversity of economic systems.)
> I think that it ALSO takes a lot of hubris to tell the nation's 300 million people or so+ that you know better than they do,
Of course he knows better than they do, given that, as you said, the choices are based on "more money on advertising", and that there are no real choices available, but only those designed to cater to the most selfish and short-sighed instincts of humans (i.e. that can sell easiest). Groups of people this size are not a collection of thinking individuals, they're a dumb fluid following well-understood rules that are exploited by individuals who understand them. The choice is an illusion here.
> Government is subject to a wild variety of inefficiencies.
Of course. I'm not proposing a command economy. In fact, I wouldn't even propose to legislate away the industry I just maligned.
I do believe (in agreement with Adam Smith) that the market is not a suitable model for all kinds of human activity. Science, for instance. You can't determine the value of an experimental result until long after you have given it away for free, making it nearly impossible for scientific organizations to capture any of the value they create.
Next time the doctor tells you (or a dying relative) that you don't have any good options, reflect on the market's wisdom in spending only 2% of health care revenue on research. Does this figure represent some hidden insight or does it represent a boring fact about the way markets work that has nothing to do with optimality?
While I would not excuse our resource allocation system from the list of things that should be justified... and notwithstanding that a key resource allocation component, the Government, is subject to a wild variety of inefficiencies...
I think that it ALSO takes a lot of hubris to tell the nation's 300 million people or so+ that you know better than they do, and that they should be sacrificing for the Noble Cause of putting people in space, instead of spending it on the things they feel like make their life better, even if it DOES happen to be the brand that spends more money on advertising instead of a similar-quality generic. (Also, for what it's worth, you should be aware that your interpretation of advertising is a pretty tendentious one.)
So there's that.
(+ I say the Nation to avoid extreme comparisons in living standards which may occur with a more global view, to say nothing of the diversity of economic systems.)