Gyroscopic Investing

North’s three rules of bureaucracy…

"To answer this, I begin with North’s three laws 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."

And this is why it is vitally important and prudent to put the gov't in charge of EVERYTHING ;-)

Also, rules are never deleted.

Also, bureaucracy applies to the private sector as well as government.

But this is great.... good find.

moda0306 wrote: Also, bureaucracy applies to the private sector as well as government.

+1

KevinW wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Also, bureaucracy applies to the private sector as well as government.

+1

Word.

KevinW wrote: Also, rules are never deleted.

This is true and even when old rules/laws are rarely enforced they can be selectively enforced for political, personal or financial gain.

Private enterprise will make some of the same mistakes that gov't will e.g. the US culture is pathologically short sighted e.g. I remember working for a company that cut next years R&D budget so this years bottom line came out right.  And private entrprise might make decisions based on financial concerns (that the gov't might not), but there are plenty of things that gov't bureaucracy does that would never be done by private enterprise (unless they were run by a marxist/anti-colonialist/environnmentalist).

More importantly, private bureaucracies very rarely have the power to inflict violence on you. Government bureaucracies do. Additionally, you can almost always opt out of dealing with any particular private bureaucracy. That's usually difficult or impossible with a government bureaucracy.

Pointedstick wrote: you can almost always opt out of dealing with any particular private bureaucracy. That's usually difficult or impossible with a government bureaucracy.

+1

Everything the government can be explained by C Northcote Parkinson's Laws

1) Work expands to fill the time available for its completion; the thing to be done swells in perceived importance and complexity in a direct ratio with the time to be spent in its completion.

2) Expenditures rise to meet income.

3) Expansion means complexity; and complexity decay.

4) The number of people in any working group tends to increase regardless of the amount of work to be done.

5) If there is a way to delay an important decision the good bureaucracy, public or private, will find it.

6) The progress of science is inversely proportional to the number of journals published.

Benko wrote: you can almost always opt out of dealing with any particular private bureaucracy.

Yes, but I will lose my salary if I do.

notsheigetz wrote:

Benko wrote: you can almost always opt out of dealing with any particular private bureaucracy.

Yes, but I will lose my salary if I do.

I comply with my employer's bureaucracy because it serves my interests, including my desire for the accumulation of wealth.

I comply with government bureaucracy because if I do not, they will send armed men to rob, kidnap, or murder me.

Pointedstick wrote:
I comply with my employer's bureaucracy because it serves my interests, including my desire for the accumulation of wealth.

I comply with government bureaucracy because if I do not, they will send armed men to rob, kidnap, or murder me.

Probably getting off topic here but this is a very interesting point - who has more control over you, your employer, or the government?

I can call most anyone in government an asshole without much detriment to my personal well-being (I wouldn't push it with a lot of policemen) but try it with your boss or anyone in the bureaucracy and see what happens.

I often wonder how people in the future will view the relationships we have with our employers. It could very well be that they view it as a form of slavery.

It is an interesting point, and it's the basis for most leftist thought. I don't mean that pejoratively; they have a solid case to make.

MT is fond of saying that we're blessed with a government that we can go through life never seeing so long as we pay our taxes and drive the speed limit, and I think that's largely true. For the "average" person who spends 95-105% of their income, lives in a suburb, does not run a business or profitable hobby, owns no firearms or livestock, and participates in no especially heavily regulated activities, their employer probably does exercise more control over them inasmuch as they are totally dependent on a wage for bare survival. Withdrawal of the wage constitutes ruination because this average person does not have enough savings to meet his or her expenses for more than a month, if even that.

If you pick apart the philosophical basis for welfare systems, many presuppose dependence on a wage for survival. Unemployment insurance and social security are the big ones in the USA, and notice that both are designated as "income replacement" programs. You lose your wage? The government will replace some fraction of it you until you get a new one or die.

Now think about the person who owns a location-independent business, has a profitable hobby, and several years of living expenses in a permanent portfolio. This person works for a wage when he or she chooses, but is in no way dependent on that income for survival. This person is totally immune to all consequences of misbehaving in an employer bureaucracy, but still at the mercy of the government bureaucracy if he or she wants to own weapons, build a house, raise farm animals, hire employees, or do any of the other things that the heavy hand of government regulates, invisibly to most.

Pointedstick wrote: I comply with government bureaucracy because if I do not, they will send armed men to rob, kidnap, or murder me.

Only 1% of the time.  The other 99% is words.

KevinW wrote: Also, rules are never deleted.

Sometimes they take their sweet time getting around to it.  Mississippi, for example, just banned slavery--last week:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/19/mis ... ars-later/