I enjoy how often the phrase "value for money" (let's call it VFM for short) comes up in my daily life. It usually is tied to some level of government and the expenditure of some massive amount of money, a fraction of which was once my money. They are usually suggesting that the staggering amount of money they are spending will not only create "value" but will prove to be a more effective and efficient creation of this supposed value than would have resulted if the money had been spent in another way.
Here's the part that makes me smile, sarcastically. The VFM argument is no different than the discussion around many dinner tables that goes something like: "Money is tight right now but we will get immeasurable value out of buying that new car because we do spend a lot of our time in the car." Full disclosure: I've had that conversation. So I know what I am talking about. It is an exercise in rationalization. It is not necessarily entirely flawed either but the rationalization tends to come in greater and more contrived doses, the bigger the associated debt is.
Government VFM delusion does help get certain things done. These days, most governments are so tight for money that if you want a major infrastructure project undertaken, you better be willing to talk yourselves into it with some janky financial analysis. VFM certainly sounds better than, "We're screwed but we have to take on this extra debt anyways." But let's set a couple of things straight. First of all, most government "investments" are nothing of the sort. They are expenditures that are justified via the notion that some public good will come out of them. Secondly, using relativity to help define value is at best minimally effective. Would you buy the currency of some banana republic on the basis that it is more valuable than the currency of Zimbabwe? Didn't think so.
So to counter those ideas, I submit the following:
1.Real investments involve the potential for a direct return on the investment. Any simple definition of the word will agree. At best these expenditures are necessary.
- The idea that the return is bestowed upon the public and perhaps cannot be fully measured really only deserves full value in instances where the government is the only possible vessel to deliver the outcome desired. This might be true in the case of national defense. It would be untrue in the case something like government-funded childcare programs.
- Even those who most forcefully rationalize their unwise expenditures reach a limit. They run out of money, run out of credit or start to realize the greater costs of this rationalization. Government VFM should have the same limits.
I wrote a while back about how it seems nearly impossible to find anyone who is actually reasonably satisfied with their applicable governments. (https://steemit.com/government/@cwparkes/who-wants-another-helping-of-government). I can't help but continue to wonder about this same question. When it comes to VFM, they have the FM part right but who is really seeing the value?
CW