JAN 22 — I wrote, though I wished I was able to go through each idea more thoroughly, in my column about giving value to the working class. Government in this country have reduced the ability to govern to about who you give what to, rather than making the spending provide greater value than any one person in the state taking their share of that spending and spending it.
It is about stretching the ringgit. Should the state spend for us, so that we can be happier, or are those decisions better in our hands?
The state can, for example, buy a ball for each citizen, costing x-amount. But in a ball game, x-number of people play, therefore only one of the balls — from any one of those playing — will be used. The rest will not be. Balls have shelf lives, so keeping the balls beside the court without using them, will still result in their loss. Balls purchased but not used, will eventually cease to be balls of any use.
Still, balls and the purchases of them give no utility yet. It is in the playing, the actual use, of the ball by x-number players necessary which achieves a positive outcome — creating a good.
Many things can go wrong. They might be basketballs, for people wanting to play volleyball. All the balls are purchased and held by the state, while the playing public has no access.
The playing of the game is the utility for the people. It is the good derived. So the state can buy the balls, and hold them. But then they would not know where all the people are, and it will be cumbersome to find the state for balls.