I dont know what you are talking about. The FDA and Medical Establishment are in the hip pocket of the Pharmaceutical Industry. The Agriculture Dept. is in then hip pocket of the Food Industry and the Defense Dept. is in the hip pocket of Defense Contractors. Money talks.
That's a lot of hip pockets.
I can only think of one and that's the Military which despite corruption ( see above) is the best run and most able to do it's task than any other sector. It is Government Run. Go figure
Minor comment: The military doesn't "create" any wealth, nor produce anything at all. It is a tool of the state. It is given a budget by Congress and then required to meet basic requirements according to the budget. Acquisitions on a limited and ever changing budgets is difficult, and like everything with people and politicians involved (politicians aren't people), has a tendency to have special interest fingers in everyone else's fruit loops.
And yet, when you ask the question "Who does the best Job at what they do?", it's the Military. In fact, their job is so important that it is unthinkable to have anyone else by the Government run it.
The military does a terrible job, how long have we been fighting in Afghanistan? It's a third world country! Had we hired a private company to do the job, it could have probably been done for a couple billion dollars, if that, and would have been over years ago. The inefficiency of our military in Afghanistan can easily be seen by comparing it to the unparalleled success of the company Executive Outcomes in Angola and Sierra Leone. It seems that the lumbering bureaucracy of the state isn't even capable of fighting wars anymore...private companies are even better at that. The military is NOT the standard we should aim for.
LOL. Please, break it down for us.
EO won the civil war in Angola and provided the government security for two and a half years at a total cost of around $80 million. Afghanistan is about half the size of Angola, but about twice the population. Requiring more contract soldiers on the ground but somewhat simplifying logistics; however, the lack of a port city in Afghanistan complicates logistics but things like being closer to the former USSR (the source of many of the company's weapons) probably make the logistics cost a wash.
So assuming twice the soldiers (twice as large of a population) for twice as long (5 years), we're at $320 million. I thought I'd throw the figure a couple billion out there so there wasn't really room for debate. But the cost would probably have been well under a billion and even under half a billion.
I know a billion dollars is something the government bureaucracy flushes down the toilet in the morning, but a private company can do quite a bit with it. As I said, EO essentially conquered a nation twice the size of Afghanistan (the government was on the ropes when they hired them) for $80 million.
Military conflicts aren't math problems. That's something the Wiz Kids attempted with Vietnam, e.g. they tried to determine the cost of the war through round (bullet) expenditure. Where X rounds are expended, then Y progress should be realized. No two conflicts are the same, whether it be outside forces, politics, ROEs, religion, will power, etc. working on the situation. Additionally, the cost of our higher technological military, in desire to minimize personal and civilian losses, increases the operating costs of the "marching army".
Perhaps they should have done a similar analysis from the North Vietnamese perspective, then they would have seen that a centralized approach to warfare was inherently less economical and less effective. Can't really blame them, with the notable exception of Napoleon no general of a major military power had ever fully appreciated the benefits of a decentralized operational command structure (and he only decentralized it at the level of the corps). Sure, guerrilla warfare was used when all other options were untenable, but it was never viewed as an ideal doctrine.
The problem wasn't that they attempted to quantify the economic costs of war, it would be foolish to enter into any situation without a cost analysis. The problem was that they were doing this analysis independent of tactical and operational doctrines...making it pointless. Strategy is the least important part of a military doctrine, yet it's all the ever managed to address.
Therefore, this oversimplification and false comparison, is not a viable analogy for mismanagement of military resources.
Cost to win the war in Angola and maintain the peace for 2 years was $80 million, cost thus far in Afghanistan is, by the latest number I found, $377 billion. The $80 million number includes salaries of soldiers, cost of equipment, and ALL involved costs (including a nice profit margin), the $377 billion number does not include soldiers base pay, the cost of most the equipment, or anything else that is covered in the standard military budget.
Are you seriously going to argue that the situation in Afghanistan is over 4700 times more difficult than the situation in Angola was? Because that's how much more we're spending (actually more if you calculated in soldiers base pay, cost of equipment, etc.).
Also, the actual 'war' is the easy part. Post-conflict regional stability directed through MOOTW ROEs make operations tedious for the purpose of maintaining the best possible public image (politics). All of this, with political media attempting to push personal agendas.
The $80 million figure was over a course of 2.5 years, much of which was maintaining the peace and EO did quite well at maintaining the peace. Then the UN and US pressured the Angolan government to cancel their contract and EO was replaced with a UN peacekeeping force, which was about 20 times as large, civil war quickly broke out again and the UN was unable to contain UNITA.
And yes, I understand the problems with ROE's, politics, media, etc. These combined with an inefficient bureaucracy simply make the military ineffective. The problem isn't with the soldiers on the ground, PMC's are mostly made up of former soldiers with experience and training from national armies and though their operational doctrines are often superior to those of national armies, the squad level tactics they use are usually identical to those used by special forces in western militaries. But the bureaucratic concerns and established doctrine are clearly hampering military operations.
A private company is simply more flexible, the ROE's are usually less restrictive, while there may be politics in any corporation, they don't even come close to those found in national miiltaries, and the influence of the media on these companies is nominal in comparison. Another advantage is that they carry no national flag, the us could give foreign aid to Afghanistan to hire PMC's to defend itself against the Taliban and if Afghanistan hires them directly, they will not be seen as a foreign invader, at lest not in the same way our national military often is, simply as mercenaries part of the local military. EO had a track record of getting along very well with the local populations and undermining the rebel's bases of support.
Every situation in war is different, which is why you need a team of specialized soldiers on the ground who have wide latitude to adapt and change tactics, doctrines, and ROE's as they see necessary. This can't happen in a war that's being micromanaged by a central command and we're simply unwilling to give individual squad leaders the latitude they need to fight the conflict properly; PMC's are willing to do that.