I think that is the wonderful enlightened state of New Jersey.MachineGhost wrote:
And I believe there is still one state that requires an attendant to pump gas in your car by law.
... Mountaineer
Moderator: Global Moderator
I think that is the wonderful enlightened state of New Jersey.MachineGhost wrote:
And I believe there is still one state that requires an attendant to pump gas in your car by law.
Since the private sector uses bureaucracy as well, if this were true, vs just a convenient (and pretty funny) platitude, then we would expect bureaucracy to have crushed the world economy by now.Simonjester wrote:North’s three rules of bureaucracy…moda0306 wrote:PS,TennPaGa wrote:
It sounds like you're describing a system that is heavily automated and could be further automated, perhaps taking care of transporting the samples itself. I don't think this counts as "bureaucracy." If would be a "bureaucracy" if instead of submitting jobs to a software tool, you sent emails to your manager, who forwarded them to his or her manager, who had to get approval from billing, who had to ask what it was for, which percolated down to you again, and when you got approval, you had to go to the shipping department, and get approval to create a shipping label, and on and on and on...
The system you describe in your example works because you are presumably efficient and make good decisions regarding which samples are worth testing and which offsite locations are appropriate to send the samples to; you don't need someone constantly checking up on you to make sure you followed the rules or made good decisions. If you were a poor employee, then probably your manager would institute a policy that all of these jobs had to be approved before being requested, and the approval would be subject to a review process, and so on and suddenly, you're in a bureaucratic hell.
In the end, bureaucracy only really exists as a verification system. Inputs that are naturally correct require no verification and can be hindered by it, when applied to excess or in a manner that slows things down. So if we are plagued by bureaucracy, that's really a sign that we are not doing our jobs correctly.
I think you're just describing the difference between "good, modest bureaucracy," and "bad, heavy-handed bureaucracy." Having to follow certain processes to produce products or ideas in a way that works within an organization is "bureaucracy." If you see a work-flow chart, that is "bureaucracy." Whether it's done in a balanced way or not is up for debate.
1. Some bureaucrat will inevitably enforce an official rule to the point of imbecility.
2. To fix the mess which this causes, the bureaucracy will write at least two new rules.
3. Law #1 applies to each of the new rules."
The difference between public and private bureaucracy is that a private company overwhelmed by bureaucracy to the point where it becomes unproductive can and usually will go out of business. That usually doesn't happen to public entities, at least until the whole system of which they are a part collapses.moda0306 wrote:Since the private sector uses bureaucracy as well, if this were true, vs just a convenient (and pretty funny) platitude, then we would expect bureaucracy to have crushed the world economy by now.Simonjester wrote:North’s three rules of bureaucracy…moda0306 wrote:
PS,
I think you're just describing the difference between "good, modest bureaucracy," and "bad, heavy-handed bureaucracy." Having to follow certain processes to produce products or ideas in a way that works within an organization is "bureaucracy." If you see a work-flow chart, that is "bureaucracy." Whether it's done in a balanced way or not is up for debate.
1. Some bureaucrat will inevitably enforce an official rule to the point of imbecility.
2. To fix the mess which this causes, the bureaucracy will write at least two new rules.
3. Law #1 applies to each of the new rules."
But I understand the source of these "laws" and do think there's a thread of truth there. Trying to use bureaucracy to cure the ills of bureaucracy is a problem.
Is it really bureaucracy that crushes nations? I figured that bureaucracy was more of a symptom of the underlying cause (eg, Rome trying to control too much of a world, and the bureaucracy involved in trying to maintain that control).Libertarian666 wrote:The difference between public and private bureaucracy is that a private company overwhelmed by bureaucracy to the point where it becomes unproductive can and usually will go out of business. That usually doesn't happen to public entities, at least until the whole system of which they are a part collapses.moda0306 wrote:Since the private sector uses bureaucracy as well, if this were true, vs just a convenient (and pretty funny) platitude, then we would expect bureaucracy to have crushed the world economy by now.Simonjester wrote:
North’s three rules of bureaucracy…
1. Some bureaucrat will inevitably enforce an official rule to the point of imbecility.
2. To fix the mess which this causes, the bureaucracy will write at least two new rules.
3. Law #1 applies to each of the new rules."
But I understand the source of these "laws" and do think there's a thread of truth there. Trying to use bureaucracy to cure the ills of bureaucracy is a problem.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that bureaucracy was the cause of the collapse, only that it generally continues until the collapse.moda0306 wrote:Is it really bureaucracy that crushes nations? I figured that bureaucracy was more of a symptom of the underlying cause (eg, Rome trying to control too much of a world, and the bureaucracy involved in trying to maintain that control).Libertarian666 wrote:The difference between public and private bureaucracy is that a private company overwhelmed by bureaucracy to the point where it becomes unproductive can and usually will go out of business. That usually doesn't happen to public entities, at least until the whole system of which they are a part collapses.moda0306 wrote: Since the private sector uses bureaucracy as well, if this were true, vs just a convenient (and pretty funny) platitude, then we would expect bureaucracy to have crushed the world economy by now.
But I understand the source of these "laws" and do think there's a thread of truth there. Trying to use bureaucracy to cure the ills of bureaucracy is a problem.
To me, bureaucracy is only one piece of the "national decline" pie, and usually more of a matter of correlation than causation.
Overspending, including but not limited to imperial overreach and welfare expenditures.moda0306 wrote: tech,
Gotcha. Obviously I tend to agree.
What do you think are the usual fundamentals of collapse, then?
What do you consider "welfare expenditures?" Specifically, does general infrastructure count as "welfare?"Libertarian666 wrote:Overspending, including but not limited to imperial overreach and welfare expenditures.moda0306 wrote: tech,
Gotcha. Obviously I tend to agree.
What do you think are the usual fundamentals of collapse, then?
(From http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/, but I'd be happy to see another source if you have one)moda0306 wrote:What do you consider "welfare expenditures?" Specifically, does general infrastructure count as "welfare?"Libertarian666 wrote:Overspending, including but not limited to imperial overreach and welfare expenditures.moda0306 wrote: tech,
Gotcha. Obviously I tend to agree.
What do you think are the usual fundamentals of collapse, then?
It seems to me, until some of the left-wing revolutions of the past couple centuries, we didn't really have "welfare expenditures." We just had military and perhaps general state overhead and certain infrastructure. Obviously we could be getting into semantics here... but isn't war a far, far bigger contributor?
And with regards to non-war causes, it seems to me that just general corruption, disorganization, and public dis-trust and unrest are larger causes than "too expansive a welfare state." Sure there are a few exceptions, but to me if we're talking main causes, "too much unemployment insurance" seems like one rarely involved.
The best cure for overpopulation is improving living standards which is why population growth flatlines in 2050. Thank capitalism for that.moda0306 wrote: Though I still think over-population is a problem. Not because we're accelerating population growth, but getting to a zone where we are using too much of the earth's natural productive capacity... but that's a different topic than the welfare state causing overpopulation.
Not until the baby boomers all die, I suspect. And once my generation becomes entrenched in our ways, people will have to wait for us to die someday in the same manner.MachineGhost wrote: Seriously, fear mongering about socialism has been going on since the turn of the 20th Century and none of it has come to pass. It's so tired and old. Can we please all grow up and move onto post-modern economics which is the future?
This is actually Yang's plan which why he made it to my top four (along with Gabbard, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg).Pointedstick wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:49 amI agree. Heck, drop everything and do the dividend. Imagine how glorious that would be. Bye bye unemployment comp, food stamps, social security, medicare, medicaid, SCHIP, obamacare, and others… hello $1,000 tax-free per person per month. So simple. So effective.Xan wrote: I am one of the last to be a fan of government intervention in the marketplace, but I am becoming more and more a fan of the citizen's dividend. Drop the minimum wage and do the dividend. It would seem to me that the dividend is far less disruptive to markets, pricing, and businesses than a minimum wage.
By some measures could not Defense also be counted as (corporate) welfare since a large part of it is to protect our business interests outside of this country?Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2015 12:51 pm(From http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/, but I'd be happy to see another source if you have one)moda0306 wrote:What do you consider "welfare expenditures?" Specifically, does general infrastructure count as "welfare?"Libertarian666 wrote:Overspending, including but not limited to imperial overreach and welfare expenditures.moda0306 wrote: tech,
Gotcha. Obviously I tend to agree.
What do you think are the usual fundamentals of collapse, then?
It seems to me, until some of the left-wing revolutions of the past couple centuries, we didn't really have "welfare expenditures." We just had military and perhaps general state overhead and certain infrastructure. Obviously we could be getting into semantics here... but isn't war a far, far bigger contributor?
And with regards to non-war causes, it seems to me that just general corruption, disorganization, and public dis-trust and unrest are larger causes than "too expansive a welfare state." Sure there are a few exceptions, but to me if we're talking main causes, "too much unemployment insurance" seems like one rarely involved.
Out of total spending of $6.2 trillion (!):
Pensions $1.2 trillion
Health Care $1.4 trillion
Education $0.9 trillion
Defense $0.8 trillion
Welfare $0.5 trillion
Pensions, health care, education, and welfare (duh) all count as welfare. It sure looks like that's the big issue!
I was well aware of the first clause of your last sentence. Whether the way he is going about it turns out to be effective in the long run is something that still needs to be seen. I have my doubts.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:57 amIt's also corporate welfare when the US taxpayer is on the hook for protecting other countries that can easily afford to pay for that service. You might be interested to know that President Trump is the first President to tell those other countries they should pay up, and they have started to do so.vnatale wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:01 amBy some measures could not Defense also be counted as (corporate) welfare since a large part of it is to protect our business interests outside of this country?Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2015 12:51 pm(From http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/, but I'd be happy to see another source if you have one)moda0306 wrote:What do you consider "welfare expenditures?" Specifically, does general infrastructure count as "welfare?"Libertarian666 wrote:Overspending, including but not limited to imperial overreach and welfare expenditures.moda0306 wrote: tech,
Gotcha. Obviously I tend to agree.
What do you think are the usual fundamentals of collapse, then?
It seems to me, until some of the left-wing revolutions of the past couple centuries, we didn't really have "welfare expenditures." We just had military and perhaps general state overhead and certain infrastructure. Obviously we could be getting into semantics here... but isn't war a far, far bigger contributor?
And with regards to non-war causes, it seems to me that just general corruption, disorganization, and public dis-trust and unrest are larger causes than "too expansive a welfare state." Sure there are a few exceptions, but to me if we're talking main causes, "too much unemployment insurance" seems like one rarely involved.
Out of total spending of $6.2 trillion (!):
Pensions $1.2 trillion
Health Care $1.4 trillion
Education $0.9 trillion
Defense $0.8 trillion
Welfare $0.5 trillion
Pensions, health care, education, and welfare (duh) all count as welfare. It sure looks like that's the big issue!
Vinny