Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 421879)

Did I comment on her writing? I'd say she's better than good. The subject matters holds zero interest for me, but judging from the prose I've read and her obvious gift for storytelling, she's clearly an excellent author.

It's true that not everyone with $1bil is as noble as she. But you'd admit, that's a point about a very finite slice of the population, perhaps the slimmest category we could imagine. It hardly undoes my point about the $20mil net worth guy being in a whole different world. He can't even afford a jet. Rowling could have a fleet if she liked.

And though her position is admirable, its also foolish, and a waste of the pedestal. A thoughtful, useful posture would be demanding the govt provide less costly, wasteful service - perhaps taking out a page in London paper and asking the question that sits at the heart of the debate: "Can't we pare down the admin costs? Can't we fire more govt workers, shutter superfluous agencies and offices that exist only out of lack of political will to end them... Can't we get rid of luxurious pensions and health plans for govt workers private workers would never enjoy and use some of the the savings to create an even better welfare system for people down on their luck? How many JK Rowlings will never reach success because instead of helping them, the money went to some talentless, unambitious govt worker?"

That's the position we all ought to take, everywhere. It's not the poor versus the rich. The redistribution needed here is from profligate govt programs, and lavish spending supporting people who don't want to compete in the private sector, and crony capitalists feeding on govt contracts, to everybody else. The enemy isn't the poor freeloader. The enemies are all those living off the govt. In a perfect world, the nastiest benefits cuts start not with the recipients, but those administering them. A bureaucrat doesn't want to compete, and what won't compete deserves nothing.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 421883)

I deal with innovators every day. Very, very few people are cut out to be innovators, and you and I, however bright we may be, probably aren't among them.

What most government employees do is no less or more mind-numbing or innovative than what 95% of what the people who work for innovators (like you and me) do. And a few government types at the top do stuff just as interesting and creative as the innovators, like trying to solve peace processes in the Middle East or figuring out how you engage in military operations in Afghanistan while winning support from the civilian population.

You think you'll cut loose a whole bunch of innovators if you let a bunch of people go who are currently processing checks for the social security administration? Good luck. I don't think a real innovator would be caught dead there.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 421883)

I deal with innovators every day. Very, very few people are cut out to be innovators, and you and I, however bright we may be, probably aren't among them.

What most government employees do is no less or more mind-numbing or innovative than what 95% of what the people who work for innovators (like you and me) do. And a few government types at the top do stuff just as interesting and creative as the innovators, like trying to solve peace processes in the Middle East or figuring out how you engage in military operations in Afghanistan while winning support from the civilian population.

You think you'll cut loose a whole bunch of innovators if you let a bunch of people go who are currently processing checks for the social security administration? Good luck. I don't think a real innovator would be caught dead there.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 421884)

Cf. NASA, with a very strong history of innovation.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 421885)

I'm not suggesting bureaucrats would otherwise cure diseases. I'm suggesting that, if pressed to compete in the private sector, people who work in govt and profit largely on selling things to the govt would create new businesses and aid the private sector, which is something we presently need.

We make it too enticing for people who can't or don't want to handle risk and stress to hide in govt, and too lucrative for people who sell to the govt to do something else. I'll never understand why govt workers are hired with so many quotas, unfireable, and rewarded with pensions and such great benefits packages. Why? Do you get that treatment from your employer? No. Seems like the worst of incentive perversions to grant the man least exposed to the risks of the economy anything above the bare minimum.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 421886)

generation I? yes.

since?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 421885)

I'm not suggesting bureaucrats would otherwise cure diseases. I'm suggesting that, if pressed to compete in the private sector, people who work in govt and profit largely on selling things to the govt would create new businesses and aid the private sector, which is something we presently need.

We make it too enticing for people who can't or don't want to handle risk and stress to hide in govt, and too lucrative for people who sell to the govt to do something else. I'll never understand why govt workers are hired with so many quotas, unfireable, and rewarded with pensions and such great benefits packages. Why? Do you get that treatment from your employer? No. Seems like the worst of incentive perversions to grant the man least exposed to the risks of the economy anything above the bare minimum.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 421886)

generation I? yes.

since?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 421890)

I think there was more than one generation, but yeah, not so much lately. But Sebby's assertion was that government never innovates.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 421886)

generation I? yes.

since?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 421889)

I've worked for the Feds and for biglaw. other than the law degree requiremement, I'm not sure there is that big a diff. the gov unions do raise roadblocks (and they are a perversion of fairness, but that is off topic) but big commercial companies have as much union involvement into the unhindered operation of the company.

I'd say this- I can be smug and say i was brave as hell and did what i did, but reality is i asked (illegally) a huge client if it would come with- once he said yes I wasn't really risking anything. turns out my other 10 major accounts came with and we were swamped, but that one promise made it a no brainer.

but all that aside, all economies need a big pool of people with money from their jobs who need to buy shit, and no economies can handle every one of them running their own companies.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 421891)

ty said bush innovated evidence for war....

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 421893)

having the patents written in Uruguay in Spanish and machine translated.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 421893)

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.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 421896)

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.