|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On July 09 2013 10:20 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 09:41 Souma wrote:
sc2superfan101, you're simplifying things way too much. Of course there's incentive for many parts of the government to remove waste. Do you know how many politicians run on platforms to cut "waste," win and eventually do cut a lot of that "waste"? If the constituents want to cut "waste" then the representative has strong incentive to cut it. The only problem in the world of politics is one man's "waste" may be another man's fortune, so, for instance, maybe Republicans want to cut administrative costs in education but Democrats don't want to, thus compromises are more likely to come forth as opposed to full-on cuts.
There's a lot of waste that is definitely much harder to get rid of, aka military, education, etc., but it would help if the people gave these politicians more incentive to cut such things (aka cut it or we won't vote for you). However, as long as there are vibrant distractions, such as social issues, such a movement will be hard to come by, and thus there is less incentive to cut. Let alone, it is extremely difficult to get a significant majority of the country to agree on what specifically to cut (remember the sequester?). In the end, the onus is mainly on the voters - that's what it means to live in a democracy. I won't say that voters always get their way, obviously, but it sure helps a lot when the country as a whole is involved. Political apathy is more damaging than politics itself. In theory this would be great. But it is usually quite hard to figure out if a politician is cutting waste or not. Very few voters spend the tremendous amount of time and effort that would be required to determine if waste is actually being cut or if a politician is just putting on a show of cutting waste. This is called rational political ignorance.
An argument can be made concerning the actual interest pertaining to such confirmation. If voters were really interested in finding out such information, various media outlets, whether it be the news, websites, blogs, etc., would presumably cover those things. We've recently seen such a trend with the rise of fact checkers, though in this case we're looking for something more particular. Rational or not, the burden is still on the voter. Luckily, we live in an age where political activism is not completely dead, so there's always the chance that some third-party will bring it upon themselves to raise awareness of such issues by gathering and presenting the information in an easy, efficient and effective manner to the masses, but rather than relying on something that may or may not happen, it's always better if voters can bring the issue to the forefront themselves.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
government 'waste' should be further refined into administrative overhead waste and interest capture political rent.
the overhead for govt operations shouldn't be that high, and they do follow corporate practices to lower cost.
the political rent, interest capture etc is the main thing, and that's politics with a touch of bureaucratic momentum.
the cost cutting argument offered by some posters mainly target the bureaucratic momentum part of govt bloat, but the interest capture probably is a larger problem.
|
On July 09 2013 11:43 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 10:59 Roe wrote:On July 09 2013 10:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 09 2013 10:27 Roe wrote:On July 09 2013 10:11 ziggurat wrote:On July 09 2013 08:25 KwarK wrote:
Except that people are inherently wasteful and will do the same thing. It's as if there is a disconnect in people's head when they think about government waste and where they think government is run by a special other type of incompetent species called governments who make exclusively shitty decisions. It's not, it's run by people who do what they can and if you got rid of government those same people would be being just as wasteful in their private market jobs. I have yet to work anywhere where I didn't think most of the people there don't actually do anything productive but in the western world we are so fucking affluent that we're allowed to be ridiculously wasteful and it doesn't really matter. If government waste disappeared you wouldn't suddenly get a bunch of extra money in your paycheck, your boss would decide to hire a hole digger and a hole filler in because your boss is the same breed of idiot that works for the government. Edit after I read the rest of the posts: The difference is that private enterprise is wasting someone else's money. I don't care if a GM wastes money by building cars inefficiently because they're not spending my money. Haha just kidding because GM got taxpayers money too! But generally speaking, people who waste money are wasting either their own money or shareholders' money. The government is actually taking money from taxpayers and then wasting it. Surely you agree that this is a significant difference This is really only true for smaller, more local companies. With corporations and parents/child companies it gets much harder to keep your money away from the organization and soon management becomes just another form of government, all the while incredibly inefficient since it isn't designed to represent you in any way. If you think taxes are too high, you're free to move to another state or country, just like you're free to try a different brand of car. You're right that a large company can wind up with a 'bureaucratic'-ish management. But generally speaking, a large business is more efficient than a small one. I don't see any reason why. The more layers of management you add, the less efficient an organization will be. On July 09 2013 10:30 ziggurat wrote:On July 09 2013 10:27 Roe wrote:On July 09 2013 10:11 ziggurat wrote:On July 09 2013 08:25 KwarK wrote:
Except that people are inherently wasteful and will do the same thing. It's as if there is a disconnect in people's head when they think about government waste and where they think government is run by a special other type of incompetent species called governments who make exclusively shitty decisions. It's not, it's run by people who do what they can and if you got rid of government those same people would be being just as wasteful in their private market jobs. I have yet to work anywhere where I didn't think most of the people there don't actually do anything productive but in the western world we are so fucking affluent that we're allowed to be ridiculously wasteful and it doesn't really matter. If government waste disappeared you wouldn't suddenly get a bunch of extra money in your paycheck, your boss would decide to hire a hole digger and a hole filler in because your boss is the same breed of idiot that works for the government. Edit after I read the rest of the posts: The difference is that private enterprise is wasting someone else's money. I don't care if a GM wastes money by building cars inefficiently because they're not spending my money. Haha just kidding because GM got taxpayers money too! But generally speaking, people who waste money are wasting either their own money or shareholders' money. The government is actually taking money from taxpayers and then wasting it. Surely you agree that this is a significant difference This is really only true for smaller, more local companies. With corporations and parents/child companies it gets much harder to keep your money away from the organization and soon management becomes just another form of government, all the while incredibly inefficient since it isn't designed to represent you in any way. If you think taxes are too high, you're free to move to another state or country, just like you're free to try a different brand of car. 1. I can't think of any company that I can't avoid giving my money too, can you list a few examples of what you're talking about? 2. Do you really think buying a different car is comparable to moving to a different country? Because I can think of one or two differences. 1. Just Disney for example owns a massive amount of different companies. Have you by any chance seen Adam Sandler's movie "Jack and Jill"? A great example of corporate sponsorship chains getting into places you wouldn't expect. The examples run on and on when you look into who owns who, and you'll find it is indeed harder than when there are independent companies in the market to make a fully conscious decision of who to pay for a product. (I wouldn't say completely impossible, but the more incorporation there is, the less choice you have). 2: Cars were just an example of course. Any product you buy from a company is based on a choice, not forced like taxes as you said. So to reiterate, the point stands that It's easy to avoid Disney products, so this is not even a good example. But if I do see a Disney movie that was made inefficiently it's not my money that's being wasted -- it's the shareholders'. As for your second argument, I really don't understand what you're talking about. I think you may have stopped in the middle of a sentence.
Lolno. Disney owns ESPN, all of the various ABC's, Marvel, Lucasfilm and LucasArts, Lifetime, Pixar and even the History Channel. You have absolutely consumed Disney products and by simply turning on your television you can't avoid them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Walt_Disney_Company_subsidiaries
|
What are we actually defining as "waste"? I've seen politicians run on platforms of cutting waste numerous times, but the definition of waste tends to be [policy that I don't like] rather than something that literally just spends money for no benefit.
|
On July 10 2013 02:28 Shiori wrote:
What are we actually defining as "waste"? I've seen politicians run on platforms of cutting waste numerous times, but the definition of waste tends to be [policy that I don't like] rather than something that literally just spends money for no benefit.
Actually cutting waste would require actual work and that's not what politicians like to do 
Part of the problem is that cutting waste doesn't win votes. Too many people accept money spent as a proxy for quality. If you actually increase efficiency and lower the cost of a government service, you might get blasted for your heartless budget cuts.
|
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) said Monday that American aid to Egypt should be suspended in the wake of unrest that led to the ouster of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.
Levin told reporters that aid should be halted until Egypt's interim government schedules new elections and amends the country's constitution.
“We ought to suspend aid until the new government shows that it is willing to — and in fact does — schedule elections and put in place a process to come up with a new constitution,” Levin said, according to Politico.
The White House has gone to great lengths to avoid labeling the overthrow of Morsi a "coup," which Levin found telling.
“The law says if there is a military coup, the aid gets suspended,” Levin said. “By saying that the aid would continue, the administration is therefore — I guess necessarily — saying that they don’t consider this a coup.”
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has also called for a suspension of aid to Egypt.
Source
|
On July 10 2013 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 02:28 Shiori wrote:
What are we actually defining as "waste"? I've seen politicians run on platforms of cutting waste numerous times, but the definition of waste tends to be [policy that I don't like] rather than something that literally just spends money for no benefit. Actually cutting waste would require actual work and that's not what politicians like to do Part of the problem is that cutting waste doesn't win votes. Too many people accept money spent as a proxy for quality. If you actually increase efficiency and lower the cost of a government service, you might get blasted for your heartless budget cuts.
What do you mean by "efficiency" though? Most of the budget cuts I've seen being criticized are criticized because of their perceived ideological basis (e.g. when some Repbulican wants to "reform" social security and make it "more efficient" when in actuality what they mean is just diminishing its usefulness in the process) rather than because it's a cut per se...
It's a very partisan issue ._.
|
On July 10 2013 03:32 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 10 2013 02:28 Shiori wrote:
What are we actually defining as "waste"? I've seen politicians run on platforms of cutting waste numerous times, but the definition of waste tends to be [policy that I don't like] rather than something that literally just spends money for no benefit. Actually cutting waste would require actual work and that's not what politicians like to do Part of the problem is that cutting waste doesn't win votes. Too many people accept money spent as a proxy for quality. If you actually increase efficiency and lower the cost of a government service, you might get blasted for your heartless budget cuts. What do you mean by "efficiency" though? Most of the budget cuts I've seen being criticized are criticized because of their perceived ideological basis (e.g. when some Repbulican wants to "reform" social security and make it "more efficient" when in actuality what they mean is just diminishing its usefulness in the process) rather than because it's a cut per se... It's a very partisan issue ._.
I think when people refer to "waste" they refer to unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. Too many middle managers who serve no function. To many laws that require administrative staff to enforce but provide no actual improvement to the country and it's people. It's an extremely vague term that obviously gets used whenever anyone feels like it but if our government is anything like corporate America, I guarantee you it is rife with middle managers who's only job is to prove that they should have a job.
|
On July 09 2013 14:30 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 10:20 ziggurat wrote:On July 09 2013 09:41 Souma wrote:
sc2superfan101, you're simplifying things way too much. Of course there's incentive for many parts of the government to remove waste. Do you know how many politicians run on platforms to cut "waste," win and eventually do cut a lot of that "waste"? If the constituents want to cut "waste" then the representative has strong incentive to cut it. The only problem in the world of politics is one man's "waste" may be another man's fortune, so, for instance, maybe Republicans want to cut administrative costs in education but Democrats don't want to, thus compromises are more likely to come forth as opposed to full-on cuts.
There's a lot of waste that is definitely much harder to get rid of, aka military, education, etc., but it would help if the people gave these politicians more incentive to cut such things (aka cut it or we won't vote for you). However, as long as there are vibrant distractions, such as social issues, such a movement will be hard to come by, and thus there is less incentive to cut. Let alone, it is extremely difficult to get a significant majority of the country to agree on what specifically to cut (remember the sequester?). In the end, the onus is mainly on the voters - that's what it means to live in a democracy. I won't say that voters always get their way, obviously, but it sure helps a lot when the country as a whole is involved. Political apathy is more damaging than politics itself. In theory this would be great. But it is usually quite hard to figure out if a politician is cutting waste or not. Very few voters spend the tremendous amount of time and effort that would be required to determine if waste is actually being cut or if a politician is just putting on a show of cutting waste. This is called rational political ignorance. An argument can be made concerning the actual interest pertaining to such confirmation. If voters were really interested in finding out such information, various media outlets, whether it be the news, websites, blogs, etc., would presumably cover those things. We've recently seen such a trend with the rise of fact checkers, though in this case we're looking for something more particular. Rational or not, the burden is still on the voter. Luckily, we live in an age where political activism is not completely dead, so there's always the chance that some third-party will bring it upon themselves to raise awareness of such issues by gathering and presenting the information in an easy, efficient and effective manner to the masses, but rather than relying on something that may or may not happen, it's always better if voters can bring the issue to the forefront themselves.
It's a serious problem. Even voters who put a lot of effort into learning about the issues cannot realistically have a thorough understanding of all the complex challenges that the government deals with. Even if we were to take one area, like health care, this is an incredibly complex field. Furthermore, even experts in health care are not true experts across the entire field, but rather have a narrow expertise in a particular sub-category of health care. It's probably accurate to say that no single human being is up to date on all facts relevant to health care policy. And that's only one aspect of government policy.
Of course you're right that it's good for voters to be reasonably well-informed. But the vast scope of modern government makes it virtually impossible.
|
On July 10 2013 03:38 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:32 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2013 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 10 2013 02:28 Shiori wrote:
What are we actually defining as "waste"? I've seen politicians run on platforms of cutting waste numerous times, but the definition of waste tends to be [policy that I don't like] rather than something that literally just spends money for no benefit. Actually cutting waste would require actual work and that's not what politicians like to do Part of the problem is that cutting waste doesn't win votes. Too many people accept money spent as a proxy for quality. If you actually increase efficiency and lower the cost of a government service, you might get blasted for your heartless budget cuts. What do you mean by "efficiency" though? Most of the budget cuts I've seen being criticized are criticized because of their perceived ideological basis (e.g. when some Repbulican wants to "reform" social security and make it "more efficient" when in actuality what they mean is just diminishing its usefulness in the process) rather than because it's a cut per se... It's a very partisan issue ._. I think when people refer to "waste" they refer to unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. Too many middle managers who serve no function. To many laws that require administrative staff to enforce but provide no actual improvement to the country and it's people. It's an extremely vague term that obviously gets used whenever anyone feels like it but if our government is anything like corporate America, I guarantee you it is rife with middle managers who's only job is to prove that they should have a job.
"Waste" means different things to different people. Some people would say that foreign aid sent to Israel is a waste. Some people think that government funding for the arts is a waste. Some people think building more prisons is a waste. Some people think tanks are a waste. So the very existence of any given government program will be viewed as "wasteful" by certain segments of society. The fact that most of those programs aren't efficient in the way they use the money they get just adds insult to injury.
|
On July 10 2013 03:57 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:38 Klondikebar wrote:On July 10 2013 03:32 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2013 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 10 2013 02:28 Shiori wrote:
What are we actually defining as "waste"? I've seen politicians run on platforms of cutting waste numerous times, but the definition of waste tends to be [policy that I don't like] rather than something that literally just spends money for no benefit. Actually cutting waste would require actual work and that's not what politicians like to do Part of the problem is that cutting waste doesn't win votes. Too many people accept money spent as a proxy for quality. If you actually increase efficiency and lower the cost of a government service, you might get blasted for your heartless budget cuts. What do you mean by "efficiency" though? Most of the budget cuts I've seen being criticized are criticized because of their perceived ideological basis (e.g. when some Repbulican wants to "reform" social security and make it "more efficient" when in actuality what they mean is just diminishing its usefulness in the process) rather than because it's a cut per se... It's a very partisan issue ._. I think when people refer to "waste" they refer to unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. Too many middle managers who serve no function. To many laws that require administrative staff to enforce but provide no actual improvement to the country and it's people. It's an extremely vague term that obviously gets used whenever anyone feels like it but if our government is anything like corporate America, I guarantee you it is rife with middle managers who's only job is to prove that they should have a job. "Waste" means different things to different people. Some people would say that foreign aid sent to Israel is a waste. Some people think that government funding for the arts is a waste. Some people think building more prisons is a waste. Some people think tanks are a waste. So the very existence of any given government program will be viewed as "wasteful" by certain segments of society. The fact that most of those programs aren't efficient in the way they use the money they get just adds insult to injury.
Good point. Although it has always made me snicker a bit to see the ways people justify whatever particular program they like indulging while they simultaneously characterize every other program as not only inefficient, but wrong-headed in principle. ><
|
On July 10 2013 03:32 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 10 2013 02:28 Shiori wrote:
What are we actually defining as "waste"? I've seen politicians run on platforms of cutting waste numerous times, but the definition of waste tends to be [policy that I don't like] rather than something that literally just spends money for no benefit. Actually cutting waste would require actual work and that's not what politicians like to do Part of the problem is that cutting waste doesn't win votes. Too many people accept money spent as a proxy for quality. If you actually increase efficiency and lower the cost of a government service, you might get blasted for your heartless budget cuts. What do you mean by "efficiency" though? Most of the budget cuts I've seen being criticized are criticized because of their perceived ideological basis (e.g. when some Repbulican wants to "reform" social security and make it "more efficient" when in actuality what they mean is just diminishing its usefulness in the process) rather than because it's a cut per se... It's a very partisan issue ._.
I mean efficiency in a pretty classical sense - more output for a given level of inputs.
You can also bring arguments over what services are and are not worthwhile into it, but the meat an potatoes of efficiency are eliminating things that are universally considered not worthwhile (ex. people standing around doing nothing while on the clock).
|
On July 10 2013 04:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:32 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2013 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 10 2013 02:28 Shiori wrote:
What are we actually defining as "waste"? I've seen politicians run on platforms of cutting waste numerous times, but the definition of waste tends to be [policy that I don't like] rather than something that literally just spends money for no benefit. Actually cutting waste would require actual work and that's not what politicians like to do Part of the problem is that cutting waste doesn't win votes. Too many people accept money spent as a proxy for quality. If you actually increase efficiency and lower the cost of a government service, you might get blasted for your heartless budget cuts. What do you mean by "efficiency" though? Most of the budget cuts I've seen being criticized are criticized because of their perceived ideological basis (e.g. when some Repbulican wants to "reform" social security and make it "more efficient" when in actuality what they mean is just diminishing its usefulness in the process) rather than because it's a cut per se... It's a very partisan issue ._. I mean efficiency in a pretty classical sense - more output for a given level of inputs. You can also bring arguments over what services are and are not worthwhile into it, but the meat an potatoes of efficiency are eliminating things that are universally considered not worthwhile (ex. people standing around doing nothing while on the clock).
The executives at the FCC who were supposed to have been monitoring Bernie Madoff had their internet histories pulled. They spend many hours a day watching porn. I think we can say they're a pretty good example of "wasteful spending."
|
Two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, the American Civil Liberties Union is bringing that decision to the state level.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that the group is filing a lawsuit against Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban. The move will also aim to keep state officials from mounting further challenges against same-sex couples seeking to marry.
According to the Washington Post, 23 plaintiffs will be part of this lawsuit, including 10 gay couples, two children of another couple and the widow of a same-sex couple that was together for 29 years. Susan Whitewood, one of the plantiffs, told the AP that her primary reason for joining the lawsuit was not "legal validation."
"I wanted our relationship to be respected like everybody else's relationship," Whitewood said. "That was first and foremost the reason for doing this."
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette adds that Pennsylvania's Defense Of Marriage Act defines marriage as between a man and woman, while also prohibiting the state from recognizing same-sex marriages held in other parts of the country.
"What we're looking for is for the court to say: Here we are in the 21st century, and you cannot prohibit somebody from participating in this wonderful institution we call marriage," Witold "Vic" Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania ACLU, told the Post-Gazette.
Source
|
On July 10 2013 04:06 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 10 2013 03:32 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2013 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 10 2013 02:28 Shiori wrote:
What are we actually defining as "waste"? I've seen politicians run on platforms of cutting waste numerous times, but the definition of waste tends to be [policy that I don't like] rather than something that literally just spends money for no benefit. Actually cutting waste would require actual work and that's not what politicians like to do Part of the problem is that cutting waste doesn't win votes. Too many people accept money spent as a proxy for quality. If you actually increase efficiency and lower the cost of a government service, you might get blasted for your heartless budget cuts. What do you mean by "efficiency" though? Most of the budget cuts I've seen being criticized are criticized because of their perceived ideological basis (e.g. when some Repbulican wants to "reform" social security and make it "more efficient" when in actuality what they mean is just diminishing its usefulness in the process) rather than because it's a cut per se... It's a very partisan issue ._. I mean efficiency in a pretty classical sense - more output for a given level of inputs. You can also bring arguments over what services are and are not worthwhile into it, but the meat an potatoes of efficiency are eliminating things that are universally considered not worthwhile (ex. people standing around doing nothing while on the clock). The executives at the FCC who were supposed to have been monitoring Bernie Madoff had their internet histories pulled. They spend many hours a day watching porn. I think we can say they're a pretty good example of "wasteful spending."
Then they'll just be voted out of office
|
On July 10 2013 04:40 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:06 Klondikebar wrote:On July 10 2013 04:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 10 2013 03:32 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2013 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 10 2013 02:28 Shiori wrote:
What are we actually defining as "waste"? I've seen politicians run on platforms of cutting waste numerous times, but the definition of waste tends to be [policy that I don't like] rather than something that literally just spends money for no benefit. Actually cutting waste would require actual work and that's not what politicians like to do Part of the problem is that cutting waste doesn't win votes. Too many people accept money spent as a proxy for quality. If you actually increase efficiency and lower the cost of a government service, you might get blasted for your heartless budget cuts. What do you mean by "efficiency" though? Most of the budget cuts I've seen being criticized are criticized because of their perceived ideological basis (e.g. when some Repbulican wants to "reform" social security and make it "more efficient" when in actuality what they mean is just diminishing its usefulness in the process) rather than because it's a cut per se... It's a very partisan issue ._. I mean efficiency in a pretty classical sense - more output for a given level of inputs. You can also bring arguments over what services are and are not worthwhile into it, but the meat an potatoes of efficiency are eliminating things that are universally considered not worthwhile (ex. people standing around doing nothing while on the clock). The executives at the FCC who were supposed to have been monitoring Bernie Madoff had their internet histories pulled. They spend many hours a day watching porn. I think we can say they're a pretty good example of "wasteful spending." Then they'll just be voted out of office
They aren't voted in...they're appointed/hired.
|
On July 10 2013 04:41 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:40 Roe wrote:On July 10 2013 04:06 Klondikebar wrote:On July 10 2013 04:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 10 2013 03:32 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2013 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 10 2013 02:28 Shiori wrote:
What are we actually defining as "waste"? I've seen politicians run on platforms of cutting waste numerous times, but the definition of waste tends to be [policy that I don't like] rather than something that literally just spends money for no benefit. Actually cutting waste would require actual work and that's not what politicians like to do Part of the problem is that cutting waste doesn't win votes. Too many people accept money spent as a proxy for quality. If you actually increase efficiency and lower the cost of a government service, you might get blasted for your heartless budget cuts. What do you mean by "efficiency" though? Most of the budget cuts I've seen being criticized are criticized because of their perceived ideological basis (e.g. when some Repbulican wants to "reform" social security and make it "more efficient" when in actuality what they mean is just diminishing its usefulness in the process) rather than because it's a cut per se... It's a very partisan issue ._. I mean efficiency in a pretty classical sense - more output for a given level of inputs. You can also bring arguments over what services are and are not worthwhile into it, but the meat an potatoes of efficiency are eliminating things that are universally considered not worthwhile (ex. people standing around doing nothing while on the clock). The executives at the FCC who were supposed to have been monitoring Bernie Madoff had their internet histories pulled. They spend many hours a day watching porn. I think we can say they're a pretty good example of "wasteful spending." Then they'll just be voted out of office They aren't voted in...they're appointed/hired.
Only an argument for more democracy and socialization! 
On July 10 2013 02:22 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 11:43 ziggurat wrote:On July 09 2013 10:59 Roe wrote:On July 09 2013 10:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 09 2013 10:27 Roe wrote:On July 09 2013 10:11 ziggurat wrote:On July 09 2013 08:25 KwarK wrote:
Except that people are inherently wasteful and will do the same thing. It's as if there is a disconnect in people's head when they think about government waste and where they think government is run by a special other type of incompetent species called governments who make exclusively shitty decisions. It's not, it's run by people who do what they can and if you got rid of government those same people would be being just as wasteful in their private market jobs. I have yet to work anywhere where I didn't think most of the people there don't actually do anything productive but in the western world we are so fucking affluent that we're allowed to be ridiculously wasteful and it doesn't really matter. If government waste disappeared you wouldn't suddenly get a bunch of extra money in your paycheck, your boss would decide to hire a hole digger and a hole filler in because your boss is the same breed of idiot that works for the government. Edit after I read the rest of the posts: The difference is that private enterprise is wasting someone else's money. I don't care if a GM wastes money by building cars inefficiently because they're not spending my money. Haha just kidding because GM got taxpayers money too! But generally speaking, people who waste money are wasting either their own money or shareholders' money. The government is actually taking money from taxpayers and then wasting it. Surely you agree that this is a significant difference This is really only true for smaller, more local companies. With corporations and parents/child companies it gets much harder to keep your money away from the organization and soon management becomes just another form of government, all the while incredibly inefficient since it isn't designed to represent you in any way. If you think taxes are too high, you're free to move to another state or country, just like you're free to try a different brand of car. You're right that a large company can wind up with a 'bureaucratic'-ish management. But generally speaking, a large business is more efficient than a small one. I don't see any reason why. The more layers of management you add, the less efficient an organization will be. On July 09 2013 10:30 ziggurat wrote:On July 09 2013 10:27 Roe wrote:On July 09 2013 10:11 ziggurat wrote:On July 09 2013 08:25 KwarK wrote:
Except that people are inherently wasteful and will do the same thing. It's as if there is a disconnect in people's head when they think about government waste and where they think government is run by a special other type of incompetent species called governments who make exclusively shitty decisions. It's not, it's run by people who do what they can and if you got rid of government those same people would be being just as wasteful in their private market jobs. I have yet to work anywhere where I didn't think most of the people there don't actually do anything productive but in the western world we are so fucking affluent that we're allowed to be ridiculously wasteful and it doesn't really matter. If government waste disappeared you wouldn't suddenly get a bunch of extra money in your paycheck, your boss would decide to hire a hole digger and a hole filler in because your boss is the same breed of idiot that works for the government. Edit after I read the rest of the posts: The difference is that private enterprise is wasting someone else's money. I don't care if a GM wastes money by building cars inefficiently because they're not spending my money. Haha just kidding because GM got taxpayers money too! But generally speaking, people who waste money are wasting either their own money or shareholders' money. The government is actually taking money from taxpayers and then wasting it. Surely you agree that this is a significant difference This is really only true for smaller, more local companies. With corporations and parents/child companies it gets much harder to keep your money away from the organization and soon management becomes just another form of government, all the while incredibly inefficient since it isn't designed to represent you in any way. If you think taxes are too high, you're free to move to another state or country, just like you're free to try a different brand of car. 1. I can't think of any company that I can't avoid giving my money too, can you list a few examples of what you're talking about? 2. Do you really think buying a different car is comparable to moving to a different country? Because I can think of one or two differences. 1. Just Disney for example owns a massive amount of different companies. Have you by any chance seen Adam Sandler's movie "Jack and Jill"? A great example of corporate sponsorship chains getting into places you wouldn't expect. The examples run on and on when you look into who owns who, and you'll find it is indeed harder than when there are independent companies in the market to make a fully conscious decision of who to pay for a product. (I wouldn't say completely impossible, but the more incorporation there is, the less choice you have). 2: Cars were just an example of course. Any product you buy from a company is based on a choice, not forced like taxes as you said. So to reiterate, the point stands that It's easy to avoid Disney products, so this is not even a good example. But if I do see a Disney movie that was made inefficiently it's not my money that's being wasted -- it's the shareholders'. As for your second argument, I really don't understand what you're talking about. I think you may have stopped in the middle of a sentence. Lolno. Disney owns ESPN, all of the various ABC's, Marvel, Lucasfilm and LucasArts, Lifetime, Pixar and even the History Channel. You have absolutely consumed Disney products and by simply turning on your television you can't avoid them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Walt_Disney_Company_subsidiaries
I had to avoid eating oreos (one of my favourites) to ensure that hack Adam Sandler didn't get my money (or any of his paid off friends for that matter)
|
Only an argument for more democracy and socialization!
Changing more bureaucracy jobs into elected positions to prevent corruption and waste is like throwing gasoline on a fire.
|
On July 10 2013 04:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Changing more bureaucracy jobs into elected positions to prevent corruption and waste is like throwing gasoline on a fire.
How so? Presumably, there exists a code of conduct and job description regardless of whether a job is elected or bureaucratic. The only difference (should) be that a potential employee needs to impress the employer whereas a candidate for election needs to impress a larger group. If someone does something wasteful, then they'll retain their position in a bureaucratic system if their waste is beneficial to the bottom line of the corporation in question, since the corporation regulates itself. If someone does something wasteful in a democratic system, then the same thing as the bureaucratic situation will occur (if the waste turns out to really help out the corporation, nobody is going to lambaste it) except that, come election time, the employee will need to actually demonstrate to a large group that what they did was worth doing. Yes, elected candidates are vulnerable to lobbying, but the corporate hierarchy is unforgiving in equally problematic ways (insularity, nepotism etc.).
|
On July 10 2013 04:58 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Only an argument for more democracy and socialization! Changing more bureaucracy jobs into elected positions to prevent corruption and waste is like throwing gasoline on a fire. How so? Presumably, there exists a code of conduct and job description regardless of whether a job is elected or bureaucratic. The only difference (should) be that a potential employee needs to impress the employer whereas a candidate for election needs to impress a larger group. If someone does something wasteful, then they'll retain their position in a bureaucratic system if their waste is beneficial to the bottom line of the corporation in question, since the corporation regulates itself. If someone does something wasteful in a democratic system, then the same thing as the bureaucratic situation will occur (if the waste turns out to really help out the corporation, nobody is going to lambaste it) except that, come election time, the employee will need to actually demonstrate to a large group that what they did was worth doing. Yes, elected candidates are vulnerable to lobbying, but the corporate hierarchy is unforgiving in equally problematic ways (insularity, nepotism etc.).
No, people would just elect whoever would promote their political agenda. I can't think of any public elections where voters were highly focused on internal metrics...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
