DiLorenzo’s opinion on government-funded projects does have some bias, but it is important to recognize that the opinion has a tremendous amount of merit, too. He operates from the default position that assigns negative connotations and intentions to those who are operating within the government context. This includes politicians and bureaucrats. While he is not exactly accusing all people in government of being corrupt, his default position does assume a certain amount of nefariousness in the people making decisions.
His opinion is that publically funded projects tend to have a number of different problems, most of them having to do with efficiency. Without subsidies to businesses, it can be argued that the market sorts itself out, and consumer preferences are respected. The problem with publically funded projects is that they take choice out of the hands of consumer, and it becomes much more difficult to determine whether projects have been efficiently allocated.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Economic History".
This opinion is one with a significant amount of merit, but it also displays the author’s innate biases. It is not necessarily true that all people acting within the context of government are corrupt, and the author fails in many respects to recognized both sides of a complex issue. Government projects, especially in the modern era, can sometimes reflect consumer preferences. Many projects are done on the local level, and people tend to have a more immediate impact on local and state politics. It is certainly a different kind of consumer choice, as things must run through the political system. The author’s failure in this article is that he is unwilling or unable to provide balance to a complex and difficult issue. His take is informed, but his biases make it difficult for him to admit the validity and usefulness of government-funded projects.
