You (all) lie!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't think it was illegal. Just against the professional standards. But it was just a hypothetical conversation, anyways, much as we've all had one time or another... No big deal...

I don't think forming a new law firm is an innovation, unless you were doing something different, like having the patents written in Uruguay in Spanish and machine translated. You took business risk. That can be very good for all sorts of things, but I don't want a Major rolling the dice on the battlefield and I don't want the social security administration rolling the dice with the safety net.

Just fleshing out what everyone but Sebby is saying. We need different jobs done, some of them are government, some of them don't need much gumption.

I agree. But we've got too much of the private sector focused on servicing Uncle Sam and too many people working for Uncle Sam and state and local govt. We could do with a good bit less of both.

I'll never agree with the notion govt, or any biglaw outfit, or any other corp, necessarily will have substantial inefficiencies. That's a cop-out, a failure to chainsaw the fat out of the machine and set up a killing floor environment where talent will rise and what's overpaid will be wrung out of the system, Just Like Every Other Business.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

one thing we have going for us is that ALL inventions have to be approved by the US Patent Office before it can be send outside the country. I was just starting to get calls telling me I could save a ton of money by firing all my associates and trusting Indian help THEN the PTO ossued an opinion that IDEAS to write applications cannot be sent outside the country (it's a security thing) without pre=clearance. the pre-clearance adds enough hassle and cost to eliminate the benefit.

I was proposing BUSH-STYLE INNOVATION (TM)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I normally don't respond to a post twice, unless logged in under my penskeTM sock, but my anecdote was about starting a company and the fears involved. my point was that very very few people have the balls to roll the dice- I really didn't if I'm honest.

Still takes some cohones. But if you're going to take a risk, better to do so after doing your homework. Lesson #1 for all would-be entrepreneurs.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree. But we've got too much of the private sector focused on servicing Uncle Sam and too many people working for Uncle Sam and state and local govt. We could do with a good bit less of both.

I'll never agree with the notion govt, or any biglaw outfit, or any other corp, necessarily will have substantial inefficiencies. That's a cop-out, a failure to chainsaw the fat out of the machine and set up a killing floor environment where talent will rise and what's overpaid will be wrung out of the system, Just Like Every Other Business.

You see, I think size usually has both efficiencies and inefficiencies. Big is rarely nimble, but Big has weight, and can throw it around. We have to use Big, where we can use it.

The government could throw a lot of weight around medical purchasing decisions. That can be a good thing, and keep cost down. But every effort at standardization inevitably squelches innovation.

Yin and Yang, my boy, yin and yang. The sweet tastes better with the sour.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree. But we've got too much of the private sector focused on servicing Uncle Sam and too many people working for Uncle Sam and state and local govt. We could do with a good bit less of both.

I'll never agree with the notion govt, or any biglaw outfit, or any other corp, necessarily will have substantial inefficiencies. That's a cop-out, a failure to chainsaw the fat out of the machine and set up a killing floor environment where talent will rise and what's overpaid will be wrung out of the system, Just Like Every Other Business.

You realize that Every Other Business doesn't have "a killing floor environment where talent will rise" right? And moreover that not everyone agrees that "a killing floor environment" even results in the best performing business, right? The idea that someone (or something) might have long run value beyond its short term "performance" really shouldn't be that hard to grasp.

In other words, fuck GE and six sigma.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's a cop-out, a failure to chainsaw the fat out of the machine and set up a killing floor environment where talent will rise and what's overpaid will be wrung out of the system, Just Like Every Other Business.

Coffee is for closers.

You know what it takes to hand out social security checks. IT TAKES BRASS BALLS.

See these. These are the new enrollees from Sheboygan. They're gold to you. But I'm not giving them to you. Because they're for closers.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You realize that Every Other Business doesn't have "a killing floor environment where talent will rise" right? And moreover that not everyone agrees that "a killing floor environment" even results in the best performing business, right? The idea that someone (or something) might have long run value beyond its short term "performance" really shouldn't be that hard to grasp.

In other words, fuck GE and six sigma.

Where did I write that the time frame under which people would be evaluated would be short? People should of course be given reasonable time within which to show value or lack of it.

The biggest drag in any organization are the guys who cruise by because they're nice, kiss ass etc... Nobody cans them for a long time because its bad for morale, but when someone eventually does, the department suddenly works a lot better. And you're six figures in salary lighter.

We've all had to do excess work for the guy who didn't do his, or the guy who simply did as he was told, but never thought beyond the task assigned. It's a pain, and nobody needs to have it around. I've contracted with the govt and seen the 80/20 rule in action. Why not fire a nice chunk of the 80 riding free and give the money to the 20 doing all the work anyway? For example, consider regulators. We want the best, right? Why not pay them something that would attract talent approaching that of the fraud perps they're supposed to catch? I'm pretty confident five guys at $750k a year and a monster potential bonus pool would be twice as effective at 2/3 the cost of a stable of $100k 9-5ers.

There's simply no argument for not running govt like a business, except for the question of what we'd do with all the dead weight introduced to the unemployment line. Corps are finding new ways to reach profitability with fewer workers every day. Why not apply those forces to the govt?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

when I worked for the gov. we were in a large building in Arlington. across the road they were building another building. the place was crawling with construction workers busting their asses. one morning as four of us stood looking out the window or our gov. office at the hundreds o workers, I had an epiphany-

the construction workers were probably working until about 11:30 each day to cover their taxes AND they were doing that while looking up at our building and probably seeing a thousand gov. workers drinking coffee and watching them. I knew then I had to quit.

you're arguing with the people who would not have been bothered.

Yeah, God forbid you should start busting your ass for the 51% of the people who elected that government or the 35% of others who didn't but who are smart enough to realize that it's worth having a government even if this particular one sucks. Better you should be a bitch about it, and quit and go into business for yourself using the skills and connections you built at taxpayer expense.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I normally don't respond to a post twice, unless logged in under my penskeTM sock, but my anecdote was about starting a company and the fears involved. my point was that very very few people have the balls to roll the dice- I really didn't if I'm honest.

But you did, and now you've created a pile of jobs for people where you would have otherwise been what? Ratcheting up COL increases every year in some enormous firm or govt office? We talk a lot about the multiplier effect accruing from govt stimulus spending, and that was necessary. But there has to be a hand-off at some point to the private sector, and in particular smaller and mid sized businesses which are lagging right now, and I don't see that coming. And, above credit and demand issues, I see that inability coming from two places:

1. Dealing with the fucking paperwork is a nightmare, and the govt does nothing to make it easier; and
2. People are afraid because our society is saturated with so many who work in either monstrous organizations where otherwise talented workers become limited and never develop the non-specialist mentality one needs to acquire to do what you did, the biggest of the bunch being, you guessed it - Uncle Sam.

And then, of course, you have the govt becoming more and more the largest purchaser of services in the country, which only poisons the workplace more. I have a contract with the state right now. I don't even perform the service because the cost of administration killed the margin. They ask, and I've been honest: "Thanks. But we've decided we don't want the money or your work." Fucked up, really, as we could be helping to plug holes in the budget. But I'll be fucking damned if we're going to go bankrupt just because some idiot clerk wants it all done "According to procedures 326342728.54 - 563524222.88 of The Book."

Nobody wants to discuss the reality of the situation: We could and should get rid of a lot of the agencies and people in non-essential govt services. But we can't because if we made it anything approaching efficient, we'd have 20% unemployment. Instead, we pretend its about finding tax dollars to fund govt.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

Lots of people on boths sides of the aisle thought he had them or that there a serious risk that he was imminently going to get them. If cheney had been more lawyerly he would have spoken in lawyerly cya pussy talk like a lot of us do and prefaced that with "It seems as if....." He rolled the dice a little harder, but even if he had cya'd, we would still be having the same conversation. i don't think the problem was launching the war, it was more launching the war with no plan on how to properly prosecute and win it, or even what a "win" was.

This really is a bullshit analysis. They wanted to sell the war. You're giving the guy credit for actively selling a war based on at best incomplete and inaccurate knowledge. This whole "cya/lawyerly" bullshit you bring up is completely besides the point, but I suspect you're only doing it because you like to stir up garbage. If you continually say you "know" Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and you don't, you are being completely fucking irresponsible--especially when you really, really want to go to war.

As for the second part of your analysis, yeah, the whole "We have no plan on how to prosecute the war or what to do after it" is a problem also. The two things are not mutually exclusive. And the decision to start the war in the first place should have been based on a determination of whether a legitimate threat existed and what our ability to control the country and extract ourselves afterwards would be.

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

I don't normally respond to the same post twice but in this case I will make an exception, what does your use of "basically" caveat? was that his quote or wasn't it? what did he actually say? Did he cya himself?

Jesus, penske. Talk about pussy lawyer moves. Your attempt to try to use my use of the word, "basically" as the basis for your argument is truly pathetic. I didn't feel like looking up the actual quote.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nobody wants to discuss the reality of the situation: We could and should get rid of a lot of the agencies and people in non-essential govt services.

Every time you re-tread this rant I ask you to identify which of agencies fall into the "a lot" and I do not recall you ever answering. So I will ask again, which federal agencies do you want to get rid of?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Every time you re-tread this rant I ask you to identify which of agencies fall into the "a lot" and I do not recall you ever answering. So I will ask again, which federal agencies do you want to get rid of?

I'm not sure Sebby was talking about the federal government.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure Sebby was talking about the federal government.

That's what I was getting at. He said "all government everywhere" (paraphrase), but if he means "PA government," well, there isn't much for the rest of us who don't live there to discuss.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There's simply no argument for not running govt like a business, except for the question of what we'd do with all the dead weight introduced to the unemployment line. Corps are finding new ways to reach profitability with fewer workers every day. Why not apply those forces to the govt?

There are plenty of argument for not running govt like a business. Governments are not intended to be profit-driven entities. Would any business try to count every single person in America? Probably not -- most would recognize a point of diminishing return. Government does, has to, and should because that's core to our democracy. Would any business try to educate chronically violent and mentally disabled children? Most, I think, would cut the children loose and let them be someone else's problem (or "customer").

Beyond that, like which business? Lehman Bros? GM? AIG? (During the iteration of this discussion a few years ago, I'd have said "Webvan? Enron?") (Or maybe like the airline business. "Hi, ma'am, it's the police. You called about a prowler? That'll be $25. We can come in to look for him, but that'll be another $50. $100 if you want us to bring guns. Would you like to purchase a pillow or headset or body armor?")

Beyond that, I'm aware of very few businesses that have remained in existence for over 200 years. This alone should indicate that government has different motivations and different conditions of success than a business does.

This is not -- and please don't pretend that it is -- an argument that government is perfectly efficent. There are plenty of inefficiencies. The best thing Al Gore ever did was his "reinventing government" program, which saved huge amounts of money that were being spent on bullshit. In many ways government is managed poorly, with ridiculous costs for the benefits. In other cases, it is managed quite well. But, while I agree that government can learn a lot from business, and while I hate the ways in which public employee unions and private contractors and lobbyists pervert government, I think we need to recognize that government does something very different than any business.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

In other words, it's the bad services that get me more than the price tag. I happilly pay six or seven times as much for schools that do what they should.

Más vale ser engañado en el precio que en la mercadería.
Better to be cheated by the price than by the merchandise.
-- Baltasar Gracián y Morales, S.J. (1601–1658)