I had to chew on this for a long time.<br><br>I don't see much talent in
management in most places. The focus is on the bottom line at the
expense of the future. This seems to hold true whether the management is
private-corporate or public entity (i.e. government).<br>
<br>There's nothing wrong with the Social Security which wasn't caused
by bad management. Politicians compromise to get bills passed. That
seems to result in ideas being crippled that could have worked.<br><br>I
can't make a good car making analogy but imagine a car built by
committee of politicians and not by competent engineers. Now scale that
up to the social-structure checks and balances programs that are the
usual recipients of the slings and arrows of dissent (welfare, public
schools, medicare/medicaid, NASA, all of them). <br>
<br>That same level of mediocrity is also endemic in across all phases
of business.<br><br>Can a government program do better than a private
sector one? Depends on the leadership of both. I have a hard time
understanding the twisted rational of how "privatizing" government
services benefits anyone but those who favor privatizing government
services. The services have never become better. The cost has never
decreased. The problem has never been solved.<br>
<br> The motto at GTRI is "Problem Solved". That motto is excellent. The
idea is to do the brain work and devise a solution, implement it, guide
it through fruition and be done. If that motto were adopted universally
by governments and corporations we might begin to see real changes that
benefit society instead of the providers, both public and private
organizations.<br>
<br>Every program ever put in place by the politicos was done so because
it was believed at the time to be both needed and a good idea. No one
can intelligently argue against the need for having a healthy,
intelligent, capable population. Yet plenty of people argue vehemently
against the existence of the institutions established to promote those
societal goals.<br>
<br>The argument is, in short, "it hasn't worked therefore it never will
so why should I have to pay for it".<br><br>Because you can.<br><br>Across
any grouping of people there is a spectrum of ability. Some people are
very intelligent while others are far less so. Some people are very
physically attractive while others are far less so. Some people can sing
while others are tone deaf.<br>
<br>So do we expect the person with low intelligence to master quantum
physics? No. How about expecting the genius to be content with
repetitive tasks? Or the do we ask the the tone deaf to lead the choir?
Or expect the person maimed in a car wreck to do the things that other,
non-maimed people do?<br>
<br>Of course not.<br><br>So why do we expect the resources that create
out society's safety net to come from those people with resources?
Because that's where the resources are. those people that have the most
resources have clearly derived the most benefit from the current
structure and thus it is only reasonable that they should be the ones
expected to provide the most resources into the system to keep it going
since they have it and they benefit.<br>
<br>But the process is broken. The problem can't even be discussed
without the "it's MY money" being screamed as if that's all that
matters. <br><br>So people whine about "bloated government" without
looking at the cause - us. The citizens rightly demand accountability
for the actions of government. This requires a layer of people who track
and monitor the directives of the policies for both content compliance
and budgetary compliance. This layer of bureaucracy is costly,
non-productive, and seen mostly as an impediment to efficiency. But it
must be there.<br>
<br>Philosophically there are major differences in economic policies.
But economics is far more psychology than science. So far, we are
testing economic theories with no conclusive results. Some policies have
the impact we want while other don't. Our economic policy people are
strutted around like the Emperor With No clothes. And the people who put
that policy into practice can't think on thier own - just look at who
Wall Street climbs and dives on a whim. And since the major tool that
Government has to effect change societally is financial incentives
through spending programs and tax rates, the outcomes of government
efforts are becoming largely irrelevant when the citizens can have their
opinions handed to them by a very loud minority of well-funded pundits.
The societal influence of their incorrect information,
misunderstandings, and outright lies spreads rapidly through our linked
media and has almost as much culpability for the simmering mess we have
as the bungling of policy by the elected management we empower to lead.<br>
<br>In the 70's and 80's during the cold war I can remember being told
that "the other side" would brainwash it's citizens. If a message is
repeated "the desk is white" enough times, eventually people will say
the desk is white even when the desk is brown. We have nearly 10%
unemployment. That sounds scary. We have better than 90% employment.
That's great!<br>
<br>And that 90% has the resources to float the 10% until they get back
on their feet. Especially when that employed 90% includes the top 10% of
wealth owners. <br><br>And no, that trickle down crap from Reagan
didn't work in the 80's. Leaving money at the top does not allow them
"freedom" to invest in job making business. They just went to Mexico and
built factories to cut labor costs. Then closed those and went to
China. Ever wonder why so many Mexicans are unemployed?<br>
<br>As a former business owner I am keenly aware that in the way things
are now, profit on the last project/sale means a small business can hang
on until the next project pays. That kind of profit is like the storing
of food to get through the winter. It should happen. It's wise and
prudent. But for some reason, it's not wise or prudent to expect
Government to do the same. Save a bit now for when things go to hell.
Have a bit of fat, a layer of padding that can be burned for fast fuel
later when things get lean. <br>
<br>But the "it's MY money" crowd now owns the airwaves. <br><br>So
instead of using the Clinton era economic good times (or the Reagan era
for that matter - as short as they were) to get ahead in Government and
do some of the things you can only do when the harvest is good, the
elected geniuses burned fields (figuratively) and slashed taxes and cut
the programs to the bone. We got a balanced budget (sort of - creative
accounting is always in play) and set the stage for the decline we now
have.<br>
<br>So we continue to fight the war on poverty, hunger, drugs, and Iraq,
Afghanistan and a stalemate in Korea, a cold war shift to China, Middle
East, etc. <br><br>And those first three will continue forever unless
we recognize that there will always be a certain percentage of citizens
that can't do it all on their own. And that 90% has the resources to
help. <br>
<br>And if we don't, we are merely cheapening our humanity to line out
personal pockets.<br><br>So when the tax time comes around, smile as you
put the stamp on the envelope no matter whether its a payment or a
refund address. Smile because, unlike private corporations - you can't
vote against your boss, you can vote in the next election and have a
say-so in how YOU'RE MONEY is spent. <br>
<br>Thatcher was right. No one accumulates a crap-ton of cash by
spending it. But no one accumulates friends by hoarding resources in a
famine either. I'd rather be dead broke and half-starved and going down
with a bunch of friends than holed up in my cave terrified that "bad
people" will take my stuff. Even the most adversarial economic theories
are very clear that cash _flow_ is the most important aspect of resource
allocation. <br>
<br>So my closing idea is this: we are in this mess now not because of
"credit default swaps" and other stupid ideas in finance. we are in this
mess now because of Reagan era politics and economics. This complicated
so stay focused here - Prior to Reagan era trickle-down voodoo, rich
people _lived_ like rich people. They bought really expensive stuff.
That expensive stuff supported a grand lifestyle for those people who
sold them the stuff. They in turn bought their stuff as high up the
chain as they could, etc, etc all the way down to the K-Mart Blue Light
Special crowd living in their trailer parks. But Reagan ushered in a new
era of money - the "self-made bastard". Most of this crowd got filthy
rich on real estate. And they were from a particular bend of philosophy
that revered a semi-spartan living style coupled with the idea that
risk-free investment returns were mandatory. So the cheap bastards
bought hamburger helper meals and shopped the blue light specials and
invested in real estate 'till it popped. since they were not buying
stuff with their money they were not supporting the cash flow economic
system. The credit default swaps are a natural out growth of these cheap
bastards. Their drive for a guaranteed income with no risk is still the
mentality that kept Reagan in office (the second time - first time was
dirty and ugly and makes Bush v Gore look like a temper tantrum). <br>
<br>So with the cheap bastards only spending their trickle-down cash to
fund factories in Mexico then China, South Asia, and Eastern Europe,
they have changed the face of employment from high-school graduate can
feed their family and buy stuff to only college graduates can feed their
family and still buy stuff. And now even that is poised to fade as
well. The Wal-Martization of America is nearly complete. Just as soon as
the cheap bastards finish buying up all the forclosed property at
pennies on the dollar that they sold at inflated prices and fingered the
mortgages and sold the mortgage backed securities to make sure they
could only make money and take no risk. So they get to use bail-out
money to buy back the houses they sold.<br>
<br>Greed is great fun.<br><br>Oh. The current "cure" for poverty is
military service. Used to be a stint in uniform meant some discipline
and training that could turn into a job prospect post service. But now,
thanks to Reagan era "privatization of government" policies, expertly
advanced by the brilliant economic policies under Bush Sr, the "moral
outrage" congress of Clinton, and W's outstanding CEO-president
leadership, now a military cook costs $125k/year and can't fire a gun. A
truck driver costs $180k and can't fire a gun. <br>
<br>This has totally wasted my morning....<br><br>I had to resend this as it was over the size limit for the ALE list. and totally off topic...<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Greg Clifton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gccfof5@gmail.com">gccfof5@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br clear="all">
<br></div><br>-- <br>-- <br>James P. Kinney III<br>Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness <br>Doing pretty well on all 3 pursuits <br><br> Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.<br>
Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith", 1992 <br><br>