based on citizens' distrust of our institutions, apparently well deserved, regarding both large business and government . . .
Whachoo think?
Nets under bridges . . .
Whachoo think?
Nets under bridges . . .
Larry Summers pessimism . . .
- Thread starter Sope Creek
- Start date
Larry has been incredibly negative since he was passed over for Fed Chair
However, this was a good piece. I think the media is as much to blame with the problems in this country as the problems themselves in many cases. Unfortunately, Summers hit on that point, but failed to properly lay out the means in which people can change media to provide better, more unbiased, more informed, less conspiracy theory supporting.
The obvious problem being, the media only cares about money and money comes from consumer interest and interest is derived from sensationalism, not realism.
However, this was a good piece. I think the media is as much to blame with the problems in this country as the problems themselves in many cases. Unfortunately, Summers hit on that point, but failed to properly lay out the means in which people can change media to provide better, more unbiased, more informed, less conspiracy theory supporting.
The obvious problem being, the media only cares about money and money comes from consumer interest and interest is derived from sensationalism, not realism.
Everything is too big and too complicated
We get bogged down with too many ideas, provided by too much input, from too many people, and at too many times. The list can start with deciding how to deal with inoperative automobiles in a zoning code, to controlling mosquitos and west nile virus, to dealing with a border crossing of one pipeline, to designing a new health care law.
Most telling. I had lunch with a very conservative Republican local official who was wrestling with a controversial local issue. He was frustrated and trying to figure out how he could reach a consensus decision that most of the opposing factions would accept. He was talking about meetings, hearings, interest groups, stake-holders, input and all the other bureaucratic buzz words. He was just venting and wasn't seeking any advice. Nevertheless, I told him simply to make a decision and let the chips fall, and that just cuz some community input was good, doesn't mean that more input is better. He was shocked and of course that didn't stick; because that is not the way organizations work these days.
I don't know why the escalator isn't fixed, but I would guess that it is because consultants have been called into study the big picture of whether to fix, improve, or replace it, and the consultants sought and received input from stakeholders about what the capacity of the escalator needs to be, whether it should be relocated to a better location, how the costs would be allocated etc. etc, etc. etc. Of course they probably drafted and circulated an RFP for the consultant which RFP took months of input from interest groups determine the criteria for the RFP and how the affirmative action plan fit with the RFP etc. etc. etc.
We get bogged down with too many ideas, provided by too much input, from too many people, and at too many times. The list can start with deciding how to deal with inoperative automobiles in a zoning code, to controlling mosquitos and west nile virus, to dealing with a border crossing of one pipeline, to designing a new health care law.
Most telling. I had lunch with a very conservative Republican local official who was wrestling with a controversial local issue. He was frustrated and trying to figure out how he could reach a consensus decision that most of the opposing factions would accept. He was talking about meetings, hearings, interest groups, stake-holders, input and all the other bureaucratic buzz words. He was just venting and wasn't seeking any advice. Nevertheless, I told him simply to make a decision and let the chips fall, and that just cuz some community input was good, doesn't mean that more input is better. He was shocked and of course that didn't stick; because that is not the way organizations work these days.
I don't know why the escalator isn't fixed, but I would guess that it is because consultants have been called into study the big picture of whether to fix, improve, or replace it, and the consultants sought and received input from stakeholders about what the capacity of the escalator needs to be, whether it should be relocated to a better location, how the costs would be allocated etc. etc, etc. etc. Of course they probably drafted and circulated an RFP for the consultant which RFP took months of input from interest groups determine the criteria for the RFP and how the affirmative action plan fit with the RFP etc. etc. etc.
Interesting
I have had a complaint lately that all of our street repairs are taking far longer than advertised. A road I use was scheduled to reopen November 21 is still closed. A road closed for the new interstate was scheduled to reopen six months ago, still closed. The interstate itself is now one-year behind schedule. The company says it is because of the harsh winter last year. I cannot see the logic of 90 days of bad weather putting work behind 365 days.
Part of the problem I think is the combination of technology and cost. Companies bid on multiple projects, they have the equipment for 1/3 of them. But they know that the beginning phase that uses machine X is only 1/3 of the project, so it can then be moved to project 2. In theory it sounds great. In practice, there is a cascading effect when projects fall behind. I joke, but I fear it is true, that street projects are done by companies that have one digging tool between them and hope to move it between sites during breaks.
In one of his books Jeremy Clarkson discusses how Britain changed hundreds of miles of rail gauge in a single weekend in the 1800s. They hired every man jack they could find, and over 48 hours changed the rails. He called the British rail authority and asked them if they could do that today. The answer was a flat no. They have one piece of equipment that could do that and it could only do something like 50 miles in that time.
So we use very expensive equipment to cut labor costs, but we are very limited by this equipment. That isn't a problem Patton had in putting up a bridge across the Rhine. Now, he had other advantages. No one had to figure out the 100 year flood problem, safety features were non-existent for both the workers and the people crossing Patton's bridge.
I think that CO has another part of the problem, there is a fear of being seen as making a mistake so people search for buy-in. If we have 1000 committee meetings and come to a consensus, it cannot be blamed on me. I see that at work now way too much myself. I suspect it is true in most places, At a convention a couple years ago I gamed with a retired General who was now working in the private sector for a defense company. He complained bitterly about dealing with the Pentagon. He said absolutely no one there will make a decision without first having endless meetings. He said pretty much exactly what I said above, if one never makes a decision one can never be wrong. In some office politics that is more important than being right.
So I suspect we have these dual problems at play. One is costing to the bone so things take far longer than needed. Two is a worldview that penalizes decision making by penalizing ever making a mistake.
I have had a complaint lately that all of our street repairs are taking far longer than advertised. A road I use was scheduled to reopen November 21 is still closed. A road closed for the new interstate was scheduled to reopen six months ago, still closed. The interstate itself is now one-year behind schedule. The company says it is because of the harsh winter last year. I cannot see the logic of 90 days of bad weather putting work behind 365 days.
Part of the problem I think is the combination of technology and cost. Companies bid on multiple projects, they have the equipment for 1/3 of them. But they know that the beginning phase that uses machine X is only 1/3 of the project, so it can then be moved to project 2. In theory it sounds great. In practice, there is a cascading effect when projects fall behind. I joke, but I fear it is true, that street projects are done by companies that have one digging tool between them and hope to move it between sites during breaks.
In one of his books Jeremy Clarkson discusses how Britain changed hundreds of miles of rail gauge in a single weekend in the 1800s. They hired every man jack they could find, and over 48 hours changed the rails. He called the British rail authority and asked them if they could do that today. The answer was a flat no. They have one piece of equipment that could do that and it could only do something like 50 miles in that time.
So we use very expensive equipment to cut labor costs, but we are very limited by this equipment. That isn't a problem Patton had in putting up a bridge across the Rhine. Now, he had other advantages. No one had to figure out the 100 year flood problem, safety features were non-existent for both the workers and the people crossing Patton's bridge.
I think that CO has another part of the problem, there is a fear of being seen as making a mistake so people search for buy-in. If we have 1000 committee meetings and come to a consensus, it cannot be blamed on me. I see that at work now way too much myself. I suspect it is true in most places, At a convention a couple years ago I gamed with a retired General who was now working in the private sector for a defense company. He complained bitterly about dealing with the Pentagon. He said absolutely no one there will make a decision without first having endless meetings. He said pretty much exactly what I said above, if one never makes a decision one can never be wrong. In some office politics that is more important than being right.
So I suspect we have these dual problems at play. One is costing to the bone so things take far longer than needed. Two is a worldview that penalizes decision making by penalizing ever making a mistake.
Just a small example
If you ever want to understand the complexity of the problem, read the tax code concerning the depreciation of an automobile. There is around 1600 pages.
This is something any first year accounting.student could write in one page. It is depreciation. You are going to get the cost anyway, what the hell matters.
But the answer is in a thread below. Lawyers are writing these laws, and at $325/$400 an hour, they want to make sure people have to come to them because they can't understand the law.
If you ever want to understand the complexity of the problem, read the tax code concerning the depreciation of an automobile. There is around 1600 pages.
This is something any first year accounting.student could write in one page. It is depreciation. You are going to get the cost anyway, what the hell matters.
But the answer is in a thread below. Lawyers are writing these laws, and at $325/$400 an hour, they want to make sure people have to come to them because they can't understand the law.
Let's clear this up right now!
Lawyers don't write this crap. Legislative staff, bureaucrats, and lobbyists do. The lawyers in congress don't even read the stuff they vote on let alone wordsmith it. And just because those people happen to have a law degree doesn't make them a lawyer.
Lawyers don't write this crap. Legislative staff, bureaucrats, and lobbyists do. The lawyers in congress don't even read the stuff they vote on let alone wordsmith it. And just because those people happen to have a law degree doesn't make them a lawyer.
Why wouldn't we lose faith in government institutions...
...when many, if not most, of those we elect into political office run against government as a problem solver? In this essay entitled The New Challenge to Market Democracies the author in part has this to say,
Demagogues often begin by working within the political system. But all too often, they and their followers come to regard democratic institutions as part of the problem, not the means for solving it. When times are hard, the varied social and economic groups in modern polities struggle with one another, each striving to minimize its losses at the expense of others. Elected governments mirror these divisions, which makes it hard for them to act effectively. Temporizing and dithering are the order of the day, further stoking public discontent.
When government institutions fail us, will the marketplace institutions then rise to the occasion and bail us out? The essay states we are now having our doubts about marketplace institutions as well,
The policies and institutions that far-sighted statesmen put in place after World War II enabled Europe and Japan to rise from the ashes of war, embrace democracy, and preside over the greatest period of liberty, broad-based prosperity, and peace in human history. But the continuing effectiveness of these institutions is in doubt. The Great Recession shattered complacent assumptions on both sides of the Atlantic. Two decades of economic stagnation, now exacerbated by demographic decline, have left Japan wondering about its future. (Prime Minister Abe's economic renewal program represents a last throw of the dice for the Land of the Rising Sun.) At the same time, the startling rise of China and equally startling success of Singapore offer alternative models of state capitalism decoupled from democratic governance. As a result, the West has become uncertain of its future.
I think the author of this linked essay William A. Galston, Brookings Institute, does a terrific job in outlining our loss of faith in our institutions (both public and private). We can argue about his solutions. But one thing is clear, we need more ideas and dialogue about solutions and a great deal less demagoguery aimed at our private and political institutions.
This post was edited on 12/8 3:18 PM by hoot1
...when many, if not most, of those we elect into political office run against government as a problem solver? In this essay entitled The New Challenge to Market Democracies the author in part has this to say,
Demagogues often begin by working within the political system. But all too often, they and their followers come to regard democratic institutions as part of the problem, not the means for solving it. When times are hard, the varied social and economic groups in modern polities struggle with one another, each striving to minimize its losses at the expense of others. Elected governments mirror these divisions, which makes it hard for them to act effectively. Temporizing and dithering are the order of the day, further stoking public discontent.
When government institutions fail us, will the marketplace institutions then rise to the occasion and bail us out? The essay states we are now having our doubts about marketplace institutions as well,
The policies and institutions that far-sighted statesmen put in place after World War II enabled Europe and Japan to rise from the ashes of war, embrace democracy, and preside over the greatest period of liberty, broad-based prosperity, and peace in human history. But the continuing effectiveness of these institutions is in doubt. The Great Recession shattered complacent assumptions on both sides of the Atlantic. Two decades of economic stagnation, now exacerbated by demographic decline, have left Japan wondering about its future. (Prime Minister Abe's economic renewal program represents a last throw of the dice for the Land of the Rising Sun.) At the same time, the startling rise of China and equally startling success of Singapore offer alternative models of state capitalism decoupled from democratic governance. As a result, the West has become uncertain of its future.
I think the author of this linked essay William A. Galston, Brookings Institute, does a terrific job in outlining our loss of faith in our institutions (both public and private). We can argue about his solutions. But one thing is clear, we need more ideas and dialogue about solutions and a great deal less demagoguery aimed at our private and political institutions.
This post was edited on 12/8 3:18 PM by hoot1
Now just wait a damn minute.........!
You're telling us that happening to have a law degree doesn't make someone a lawyer?
There's a major disconnect somewhere around here.....
You're telling us that happening to have a law degree doesn't make someone a lawyer?
There's a major disconnect somewhere around here.....
Let me connect the dots for you . . .
Law degree alone - not a lawyer.
Law degree plus passing the bar = lawyer.
Law degree alone - not a lawyer.
Law degree plus passing the bar = lawyer.
Nope . . .
one can't and the other can.
A law graduate practicing law without being admitted would be in deep $#!^.
one can't and the other can.
A law graduate practicing law without being admitted would be in deep $#!^.
Look at armzp's post
he alleged a conspiracy between people who write the laws and those who practice law. My point is made in that context. Those who write this crap are not the ones who have to deal with it every day in their practices.
he alleged a conspiracy between people who write the laws and those who practice law. My point is made in that context. Those who write this crap are not the ones who have to deal with it every day in their practices.
It's new but I will try.
China dosn't have a two party system or a parliamentary system of governance to hinder big projects, be they societal change or economic development and direction. If they want to build a pipeline they can do it without interference.
This post was edited on 12/8 3:26 PM by Rockport Zebra
China dosn't have a two party system or a parliamentary system of governance to hinder big projects, be they societal change or economic development and direction. If they want to build a pipeline they can do it without interference.
This post was edited on 12/8 3:26 PM by Rockport Zebra
That goes a long way to explain . . .
Ben Carson's fascination with the US supposedly being like the Wiemar Republic, doesn't it . . .
This post was edited on 12/9 6:43 AM by Sope Creek
Ben Carson
Ben Carson's fascination with the US supposedly being like the Wiemar Republic, doesn't it . . .
This post was edited on 12/9 6:43 AM by Sope Creek
Ben Carson
Discussion on state capitalism
Here's a pretty good discussion on state capitalism which in part states,
For example, in state capitalists, governments influence bank lending, or outright own large and important segments of the economy. Their policymakers are more willing to guide the economy through bureaucratic fiat. All of these elements of state capitalism might sound just plain dangerous to many in the West. But the fact is that the failings of the advanced economies and the continued strength in emerging markets has made it much more difficult to claim free markets trump state capitalism.
Here's how Ian Bremmer, president of consulting firm Eurasia Group explained matters last year:
" It's now a G20 world, in which China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other state-centric players wield growing influence. When leaders of free-market democracies diagnose the global meltdown, they now face the skeptical smiles of those who believe that the free market has failed and that the state should play the leading role in guiding national economies The financial crisis and market meltdowns in America and Europe have given state capitalism a big boost. In part, that's because Western economies are still struggling to their feet while China is again off to the races. It's now much harder for Westerners to champion a free-market system and easier for China and Russia to argue that only governments can save economies on the brink."
Here's a pretty good discussion on state capitalism which in part states,
For example, in state capitalists, governments influence bank lending, or outright own large and important segments of the economy. Their policymakers are more willing to guide the economy through bureaucratic fiat. All of these elements of state capitalism might sound just plain dangerous to many in the West. But the fact is that the failings of the advanced economies and the continued strength in emerging markets has made it much more difficult to claim free markets trump state capitalism.
Here's how Ian Bremmer, president of consulting firm Eurasia Group explained matters last year:
" It's now a G20 world, in which China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other state-centric players wield growing influence. When leaders of free-market democracies diagnose the global meltdown, they now face the skeptical smiles of those who believe that the free market has failed and that the state should play the leading role in guiding national economies The financial crisis and market meltdowns in America and Europe have given state capitalism a big boost. In part, that's because Western economies are still struggling to their feet while China is again off to the races. It's now much harder for Westerners to champion a free-market system and easier for China and Russia to argue that only governments can save economies on the brink."
Exactly . . . what's the difference between this . . .
and the fascist states' economies during the 1930s, when all is boiled down to its essence?
I haven't studied it, but it sure sounds a lot like what happened in those states too.
and the fascist states' economies during the 1930s, when all is boiled down to its essence?
I haven't studied it, but it sure sounds a lot like what happened in those states too.
how does everyone, including Summers, totally miss the obvious question of why is an escalator in a public airport, privately owned?
no doubt the more interesting story is rooted in that question.
i'll assume this is some "privatization" scam.
no doubt there's an interesting "follow the money trail" story associated with the escalator, that involves large donors to local politicians.
as for the bridge, i'm guessing this is far more "politics" related, than funds or "regulation" related, or anything to do with the public sector's ability to fix the bridge in a timely and cost effective manor.. .
"time for some traffic problems on the Charles River bridge" perhaps.
as for the net under the bridge thing.
a net would be quite easy to hang, and shouldn't cost squat relatively speaking.
so the whole "net" thing is both a diversionary tactic by the author from the real issues at hand in the matter, as well as a cheap shot at what seems a reasonable precautionary measure, that relatively speaking, probably wouldn't add squat in time or money, to fixing the bridge.
no doubt the more interesting story is rooted in that question.
i'll assume this is some "privatization" scam.
no doubt there's an interesting "follow the money trail" story associated with the escalator, that involves large donors to local politicians.
as for the bridge, i'm guessing this is far more "politics" related, than funds or "regulation" related, or anything to do with the public sector's ability to fix the bridge in a timely and cost effective manor.. .
"time for some traffic problems on the Charles River bridge" perhaps.
as for the net under the bridge thing.
a net would be quite easy to hang, and shouldn't cost squat relatively speaking.
so the whole "net" thing is both a diversionary tactic by the author from the real issues at hand in the matter, as well as a cheap shot at what seems a reasonable precautionary measure, that relatively speaking, probably wouldn't add squat in time or money, to fixing the bridge.
The differnce may be more along the lines...
...of our perceptions of fascism as it relates to Nazi Germany which included a strong and ambitious military, gestapo tactics, and racism. On the economic front there does appear to a good many similarities between state capitalism and fascism. Also China's government is run by more of central bureaucracy while Germany had a virtual dictator. China's more interested in being a global economic power than a military power.
...of our perceptions of fascism as it relates to Nazi Germany which included a strong and ambitious military, gestapo tactics, and racism. On the economic front there does appear to a good many similarities between state capitalism and fascism. Also China's government is run by more of central bureaucracy while Germany had a virtual dictator. China's more interested in being a global economic power than a military power.
Maybe . . . but I suspect that like Nazi Germany, . . .
and to a certain extent the US, China likely sees economic and military power being complementary.
China builds islands . . .
and to a certain extent the US, China likely sees economic and military power being complementary.
China builds islands . . .
Enh. . .
my guess is that the escalator was part of a leasehold that was leased by the airport authority to one of the airlines. Not uncommon . . .
my guess is that the escalator was part of a leasehold that was leased by the airport authority to one of the airlines. Not uncommon . . .
Re: Discussion on state capitalism
The economic decline of the US was easily preventable. All that was needed was more protectionist laws and tariffs, and we would still be the number one economy by far. Free trade and foreign takeovers gutted the economy, and is still gutting what remains. Americans are a bunch of saps.
Who the hell is Ben Small?
A google search gives me the British voice for "Thomas the Train" Don't worry it is the psycotic syndrom of thinking that eveyone understands you and has the same life experience.
A google search gives me the British voice for "Thomas the Train" Don't worry it is the psycotic syndrom of thinking that eveyone understands you and has the same life experience.
I disagree
Protectionism is a policy for the English past. The sooner the world creates a balanced middle class the better.
This post was edited on 12/8 10:16 PM by Rockport Zebra
Protectionism is a policy for the English past. The sooner the world creates a balanced middle class the better.
This post was edited on 12/8 10:16 PM by Rockport Zebra
LOL!!
Good catch. I've corrected my mistake . . . .
BTW, Ben Small is our own trover . . . I was thinking about him last week when all the old-timers showed up to the OTF. Must've still had him on my mind . . . .
This post was edited on 12/9 6:44 AM by Sope Creek
Good catch. I've corrected my mistake . . . .
BTW, Ben Small is our own trover . . . I was thinking about him last week when all the old-timers showed up to the OTF. Must've still had him on my mind . . . .
This post was edited on 12/9 6:44 AM by Sope Creek
Ben Small was Dean
of IU Law School and wrote the original definitive treatise on Indiana's Workmen's (now Worker's) Compensation Act.
My copy is on my credenza in my office. I only know of one other copy.
Our age may be showing, Sope, though you are Much younger than I.
of IU Law School and wrote the original definitive treatise on Indiana's Workmen's (now Worker's) Compensation Act.
My copy is on my credenza in my office. I only know of one other copy.
Our age may be showing, Sope, though you are Much younger than I.
Yea, Japan is sure showing us!
Just because China and others are benefiting from a demographic change doesn't mean it will last. The entire Chinese economy is fueled by debt, mostly at the local level and via the shadow banking system. There will be a crisis at some point in China.
Also, there is minimal consumerism compared to the West. Therefore, continuing declines in Chinese exports is going to spell disaster.
Just because China and others are benefiting from a demographic change doesn't mean it will last. The entire Chinese economy is fueled by debt, mostly at the local level and via the shadow banking system. There will be a crisis at some point in China.
Also, there is minimal consumerism compared to the West. Therefore, continuing declines in Chinese exports is going to spell disaster.
I dunno, Ladoga . . .
I'm feeling quite a bit of what age I do have these days . . . .
I hadn't been aware of his having been dean of IU Law School . . . I just knew he was writing novels these days. Haven't seen him on any of the boards in a while.
I'm feeling quite a bit of what age I do have these days . . . .
I hadn't been aware of his having been dean of IU Law School . . . I just knew he was writing novels these days. Haven't seen him on any of the boards in a while.
Not the same folks
though I didn't see the pre-edit post.
Actually, my age is showing less - to me, anyway. Lowest handicap of my life - though at this advanced age, I've 'moved up' to the senior tees. Play a lot and otherwise very active but work full time and more during the winter.
My inspiration is my former boss who, at 89, plays every week and last time I played with him he shot 83. He's shot his age over 250 times.
That would be a nice goal to achieve.
Hope your aches and pains ease. Play more. We've done plenty of work.
though I didn't see the pre-edit post.
Actually, my age is showing less - to me, anyway. Lowest handicap of my life - though at this advanced age, I've 'moved up' to the senior tees. Play a lot and otherwise very active but work full time and more during the winter.
My inspiration is my former boss who, at 89, plays every week and last time I played with him he shot 83. He's shot his age over 250 times.
That would be a nice goal to achieve.
Hope your aches and pains ease. Play more. We've done plenty of work.
I didn't say China is without military power...
...but unlike say the Cold War USSR it is engaging in world commerce along the lines of a global capitalist nation. The USSR from my point of view was competitive only as a military power with minimal success as an economic power.
For the sake of comparison, China spends about 4.4% of its GDP on the military with the U.S. coming in at 2.5%. However in terms of dollars spent the U.S. spends two and a half times as much. China's military presence is regional while the U.S. has a global military presence.
Getting back to fascist Germany, neither the old USSR or today's China comes anywhere near Nazi Germany when it comes to actually using its military power. Big difference from having a military presence and actually using military power.
While the world was working its way out of the Great Depression, Germany and Japan launched their military forces. [It is interesting to note in my link that Japan spends 8.9% of its GDP on the military which leads all nations].
...but unlike say the Cold War USSR it is engaging in world commerce along the lines of a global capitalist nation. The USSR from my point of view was competitive only as a military power with minimal success as an economic power.
For the sake of comparison, China spends about 4.4% of its GDP on the military with the U.S. coming in at 2.5%. However in terms of dollars spent the U.S. spends two and a half times as much. China's military presence is regional while the U.S. has a global military presence.
Getting back to fascist Germany, neither the old USSR or today's China comes anywhere near Nazi Germany when it comes to actually using its military power. Big difference from having a military presence and actually using military power.
While the world was working its way out of the Great Depression, Germany and Japan launched their military forces. [It is interesting to note in my link that Japan spends 8.9% of its GDP on the military which leads all nations].
Similar threads
