Not usually true. Bureaucrats usually dont work for a commission, but salaries that normally are fixed. (Depends on the country. If they work for 'commission' you usually have a corruption problem that goes deeper (everything about running institutions is basically about creating this thing that never does anything not by the book, and if all goes well should be extremely boring, slow, but also reliable.)).
Bureaucracies usually work slow. They shouldnt necessarily have an overlapping competency issue. When a new government is sworn in, there are fights about budgets and competency, but those should be pretty defined after a few months.
Governments dont usually resort to charity (charity = entirely voluntary, subject to big fluctuations (one year you give some, the other year you dont), and dependent on a buch of things that aren related to general developments within a society). With governments your are usually talking about social security (insurance), or benefits (funding peoples minimum living requirements, non negotiable).
Trickle down not working is usually associated with neoliberalism (criticism of neoliberaljsim), Where the idea is, that markets will solve everything, but usually tend to create monopolies, cartels and in the last few decades, very few, very rich folks and a middle class thats receding.
In classic liberal economic theory - you invest into people at the top, they create economic opportunity, and because they do it well, product prices come down, and as a result everyone is more happy than before (more jobs, cheaper goods). Trickle down failing means, that money at the top isnt reinvested into the real economy in a country anymore - but rather in casino economies (trying to attract more money, then cashing out), or different countries - without benefiting your economy. Thats the classic 'trickle down failing'.
Now why dont you invest into individual small people as a state then? Classic economic theory says, they would invest it less well (booze and women..
), creating fewer jobs.
Where do you get the money? If you are trying to do 'regulatory' stuff (f.e. crisis), the FED usually prints it. If it comes to taxes, those usually arent used to 'stimulate an economy' (tax cuts are used for that purpose usually, if done well) but to pay for peoples retirement and make your society more 'equal'. (Because the market does not.) edit: An exception to that would f.e. be state funded infrastructure programs, but even those usually arent tax based if they are intended to stimulate the economy (usually you increase national debt for those).
FED (printing money) usually makes sure, that money doesnt get lost "in government" (thats a large part of what they do.).
If you are referring to the current discussion about does the corona bailout need more oversight or not - the fear here is not that 'money will get lost in government', but that it will take too long, thus the economic crisis will widen, therefore, you basically give it to corperations for free and dont look too closely (getting it there faster).
The idea that 'politicians make too much money' is usually just a red herring. ('populist') In the US election campaigns are way, way, way too expensive though (and all money has to be sourced from the private sector, not from f.e. grants), which means, that politicians can be bought (favors) that way. But thats usually not money they get to hold on to. While in office they are granting favors, and then get book deals or speaking engagements in return..
(Revolving door, not necessarily unwanted (if they are doing a good job, in regards to the economy). The idea is basically, that they get heavily 'informed' by economic interests (finance ministers coming from Goldmann...
), but while in government can decide separately - for a few years, for the benefit of the country (electoral base, that brought them into power), and then maybe get back into the private sector.
Regardless there should be congress and the senate as a counter balance. But in the US they usually dont work so well - which means - corporate state issue. (Private interests have too much influence.) Thats still not your tax dollars being misappropriated though..
('Military industrial complex would be an example where misappropriation is 'rumored'.
) Usually. That rather means, politicians make suboptimal decisions, and get payed off later in life. (When they get back into the private sector as advisors, f.e... ))
Thats the rough cut.
Wellfare state is a PR term. And something like a broader social security very much is viable. The US is the only developed country in the world left, that doesnt have universal health care for their citizens, that has a medical system thats not worth much for the general public (someone sneezes and it becomes overtaxed...
). That has social security systems that run out of funding about a month into a curfew - and large, large populations that live paycheck to paycheck - none of this is normal in the rest of the developed world.
How do you achieve to make those things 'better'? Higher taxes on your middle classes basically. But also reigning in a private healthcare system in the US that has stopped competing really, and has run amok.
Higher minimum wages - which mean, that some unqualified jobs may have to die out or be heavily subsidized. The US is a rich country - with a redistribution issue.
On the other hand you could see that as 'more opportunity' (for some individuals) - but looking at social fluidity, that hasnt been exactly true since the eighties. But the problem here isn't so much greed, but that 'new economic opportunities' become fewer and fewer (societies not necessarily growing anymore, ...). Which means, rich people get richer, much more likely than someone new can make it, by doing something entrepreneurial (Etsy? Uber? Taskrabbit?
).
The curfews arent showing us that 'a welfare state cant work', because - no one is working. (And machines arent doing all the work (wealth creation) yet..
). If no one is working you cant have a welfare state, yes. If most people are working, you can have one though..
(At least one more pronounced than in the US, that much is certain.
)
No, see europe. Its only necessary to give them a right to protest. Then they can strike in the streets, and if they attract masses, they can stop production and economic life - therefore forcing political change.
If you have a gun, state nowadays has a drone. *puff*
Now the issue in the US might be, that its harder to get masses to march in a capital f.e., because of lower population density. Guns still wont help in toppling a government though. Not anymore.
Thats just a romantic (?) plotline some people want to hold onto.
The last time an armed rebellion did anything good, or wasnt immediately interrupted by some Swat unit, was exactly - never..
Police and FBI might let it go on for a while to better identify and infiltrate leadership structures, but thats it. (Same with Occupy Wallstreet..
(So activist movements, that bank on civil unrest, and protest.) )
We were actually pretty close - the last few decades.
Quick explaination.
US = hegemon (have military bases all around the world, controlling shipping and trading routes) their job was to keep everything going (trade active). Issue here is, if a country wants a regime change, and they strike - because economy is interconnected, if thats an important resource rich country, stopping trade and resources from flowing, would hurt the entire world. So if there was a chance of that happening, the US usually intervened militarily. So in those countries you dont want 'young idealistic hotheads' that get into power through revolutions, which is why even the US often preferred dictators (more predictable) in those regions.
There are regional conflicts, that basically result from countries at the edge of a 'economic union' becoming more wealthy, as they have more active trade with other unions (as they have borders.
) thereby becoming more wealthy, thereby wanting to separate from the main union, at which point you usually also intervene militarily. (Thats what russia mostly does, but thats also the conflict between China and Taiwan f.e..)
Then there are some instable regions that could become part of one economic block or another - (Venezuela f.e.), but there arent very many of those these days - an even fewer where you would intervene militarily (usually you just impose sanctions..).
The point I'm trying to make is not 'its human nature - war will always exist', because you can channel that into "trade wars" so people trying to make it there, which is much less costly in terms of lives..
But that wars (of aggression) have been used to keep that system relatively stable throughout the last few decades.
Again - rough cut.
Also democracy, mainly a thing so you can have 'government change' without a country coming to a standstill. And for that you need institutions (steered by political leaders, but not political themselves). (That arent corrupt.
) Which kind of brings us full circle.
Also I'm sure I've left important stuff out..
(Like, what happens, if there should be something like 'limits to growth' globally.)
edit: Bunch of edits made. I think I'm done now.