[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe, but whether we should reduce particular government programs all depends on a host of factors. My point is that I'm not comfortable with just saying that everything should be shrunk just because.

One of those factors is RoI. It would obviously be idiotic and nonsensical to cut programs that save the government money or are badly needed. For instance, if we just cut off all food safety regulation programs and everybody started to get food poisoning as a result, this would put a strain on Medicare.

I think it's obvious that people calling for cuts would concentrate on the most costly programs. Those lean, efficient, well-run, no-brainer programs that save the government money are not the most costly ones.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is a tendency, but no direct relationship that would satisfy the scientific minded such as yourself.

I disagree, there is a direct, causal relationship: necessity. The more restricted in size, the more efficient you must be to survive.

How about the funding of NASA and our moon landing?

What did that make more accessible? Space?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think it's obvious that people calling for cuts would concentrate on the most costly programs. Those lean, efficient, well-run, no-brainer programs that save the government money are not the most costly ones.

I'd hope so, but I sense that the cuts that some are calling for are purely on ideological grounds, and not practical ones.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I disagree, there is a direct, causal relationship: necessity. The more restricted in size, the more efficient you must be to survive.

So that means that Apple with 10 employees would be the most efficient?

What did that make more accessible? Space?

No, it was an example of a program that succeeded by setting up the right possible environment, but not artificially so with the equivalent of carbon credits or something.

I may have misread something though since we are obviously talking about different things.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So that means that Apple with 10 employees would be the most efficient?

All other things being equal? Yes, definitely. I think you and I agree more than it sounds, in that there are other factors as well. But what you said is basically that size is not a factor. But it is.

No, it was an example of a program that succeeded by setting up the right possible environment, but not artificially so with the equivalent of carbon credits or something.

I may have misread something though since we are obviously talking about different things.

What part of this scenario is the "environment" and what part is the "becoming accessible on its own?" I didn't know that the apollo project was a non-government operation...?

I would have said the DARPA robo-car challenge, or something like that (or the space plane challenge). Of course, that hasn't succeeded yet. The biggest difference in my mind between that and healthcare is that they're trying to make the technology reasonable, not universal. There is a big difference in cost there.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So that means that Apple with 10 employees would be the most efficient?

Since you were reading the Steve Jobs biography: don't you agree that what Apple created in the early days with just a handful employees is WAY more than they could create today with the same amount of employees ?

I think hats true. They became less efficient with size. That doesn't mean Apple failed. But efficiency doesn't scale well.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Since you were reading the Steve Jobs biography: don't you agree that what Apple created in the early days with just a handful employees is WAY more than they could create today with the same amount of employees ?

I think hats true. They became less efficient with size. That doesn't mean Apple failed. But efficiency doesn't scale well.

-t

It seems like a pretty academic argument, because it would be impossible for Apple to do all what it does today with 10 employees, that's the point.

[turtle777]

It's NOT academic. Millions of startups are proof that in the small, early days, things are achieved at a pace and rate never to be repeated once they get big.

Stop trying to justify your pet theory. it's flawed.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's NOT academic. Millions of startups are proof that in the small, early days, things are achieved at a pace and rate never to be repeated once they get big.

Stop trying to justify your pet theory. it's flawed.

-t

Stop picking a fight for once.

I'm not saying that smaller companies don't work very efficiently, at least the good ones. I'm saying that it is a moot point because a company like Apple is no longer small, nor can they return to being small. Apple downsizing to 10 employees while continuing to do what they do is not possible. Similarly, an organization like the FBI I'm presuming can't do the same. Maybe they *should*, but then they'd have to change their whole function and restructure themselves substantially. In other words, they can't continue to offer the same services they do with 10 employees, just as Apple can't continue to build and sell iPhones and iPads internationally with 10 employees.

Get my point?

[turtle777]

Yes, I get your point now.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm saying that it is a moot point because a company like Apple is no longer small, nor can they return to being small. Apple downsizing to 10 employees while continuing to do what they do is not possible.

Who said they have to go all the way down to 10? If Apple dropped 10% of their staff they could still offer the same services. If they dropped 25% they could offer 90% of the same services. They would have to get creative about which services are really needed and which aren't. This is something they don't currently have to do, because the market has determined that they are filthy rich and there is no need to reduce costs.

The difference with the government is that there is no mechanism at all in place to determine when they should reduce costs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, I get your point now.

-t

Great! The follow up, then, is that it is madness to call for making something small without first looking at the complexity of the services offer, whether they can and should be provided after these cutbacks, if not what the tradeoffs would be, etc.

We definitely should be examining each public service constantly, but to just call for cuts without doing this homework first is putting carts before horses, which politicians are wonderfully adept at doing! We shouldn't give them a free pass to just do this as they see fit without doing this homework.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Who said they have to go all the way down to 10? If Apple dropped 10% of their staff they could still offer the same services. If they dropped 25% they could offer 90% of the same services. They would have to get creative about which services are really needed and which aren't. This is something they don't currently have to do, because the market has determined that they are filthy rich and there is no need to reduce costs.

The difference with the government is that there is no mechanism at all in place to determine when they should reduce costs.

You aren't getting my point.

I'm not saying that they can or shouldn't go down 10 or any percent. I'm not saying that government organizations shouldn't be reduced in size. I'm just saying that these cuts won't work when and if the complexity of what is being offered makes this impossible, and/or you are not willing to endure the tradeoffs of the reduction in services/capability/agility/whatever that would occur as a result of these cuts.

Not everything can and should be cut just because you want to, some stuff is complex enough that you need to keep these expenses in the book no matter what, at least for a time. In other cases it makes no sense to make cuts when, for instance, a significant part of your costs involves non-refundable equipment costs that cannot be resold.

I'm a little sensitive to this because of my background of when I used to work for other companies in IT. Administrators and politicians are great at calling for cuts without really understanding what they are cutting and what the consequences would be. Not just in staffing, but in equipment or whatever else.

You are probably thinking that this is a brain dead obvious point and I'm wasting your time in making it, but I don't take it for granted that every voter understands this.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not everything can and should be cut just because you want to, some stuff is complex enough that you need to keep these expenses in the book no matter what, at least for a time. In other cases it makes no sense to make cuts when, for instance, a significant part of your costs involves non-refundable equipment costs that cannot be resold.

You're saying that this (grossly expensive) machine is too complicated for you or I to understand, so we'd better just keep handing our money over without questioning it and let the "big boys" do what they do best (spend it). I reject this. Those "big boys" had darn well better use their enormous brains to think up a way to explain to us simpletons in a convincing way, or I'm not going to buy it. Explaining the complicated is not easy, but it's part of their job, and if they're so smart like you say they are, they'll be able to do it. If they can't even think of a way to explain it, then I'm not going to pay them to do it, because doing it is harder than explaining it so therefore they are not qualified to do it (at least not to get paid to do it). I'm certainly not going to buy something that's so complex that the salesman or engineer selling it doesn't understand it either.

If my mechanic ever tried telling me "just pay me because I could never explain to you what I'm going to do, you wouldn't understand," I would be out the door before he finished talking.

In short, you're saying "if you don't understand it, let it ride." I say "if you don't understand it, cut it. It is the burden of the program itself to make itself understandable." It should not be able to hide behind a shroud of complexity.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not everything can and should be cut just because you want to, some stuff is complex enough that you need to keep these expenses in the book no matter what, at least for a time.

That's the very worse excuse for enormous government I've heard yet. We should bankrupt the country with enormous, unnecessary government because besson is mystified by "complex stuff that you need to keep in the book no matter what." Yet another terrific argument.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's the very worse excuse for enormous government I've heard yet. We should bankrupt the country with enormous, unnecessary government because besson is mystified by "complex stuff that you need to keep in the book no matter what." Yet another terrific argument.

He's basically stating the law of unintended consequences. That's not like, way out there or something.

[Waragainstsleep]

I think you guys should vote this fella in as your next president:

Vote Minge!

[subego]

Does "minge" mean there what it means here?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're saying that this (grossly expensive) machine is too complicated for you or I to understand, so we'd better just keep handing our money over without questioning it and let the "big boys" do what they do best (spend it). I reject this. Those "big boys" had darn well better use their enormous brains to think up a way to explain to us simpletons in a convincing way, or I'm not going to buy it. Explaining the complicated is not easy, but it's part of their job, and if they're so smart like you say they are, they'll be able to do it. If they can't even think of a way to explain it, then I'm not going to pay them to do it, because doing it is harder than explaining it so therefore they are not qualified to do it (at least not to get paid to do it). I'm certainly not going to buy something that's so complex that the salesman or engineer selling it doesn't understand it either.

If my mechanic ever tried telling me "just pay me because I could never explain to you what I'm going to do, you wouldn't understand," I would be out the door before he finished talking.

In short, you're saying "if you don't understand it, let it ride." I say "if you don't understand it, cut it. It is the burden of the program itself to make itself understandable." It should not be able to hide behind a shroud of complexity.

Do you go out of your way to misunderstand me for the sake of advancing your arguments, or are my points that unclear? I'm starting to wonder....

I did not say that we should just blindly accept that some stuff exists in a cloud of mystery and accept that. I'm saying that some stuff requires a certain amount it to keep running because it just does, and you can research this until you are blue in the face, look for creative ways to make cuts, etc. and it won't make a difference - it will still require this amount. I did not say that this amount should not be questioned or examined or that this should be some sort of mystery, but at times this will be the ultimate and inevitable conclusion.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's the very worse excuse for enormous government I've heard yet. We should bankrupt the country with enormous, unnecessary government because besson is mystified by "complex stuff that you need to keep in the book no matter what." Yet another terrific argument.

Yes Big Mac *pat* *pat*

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

He's basically stating the law of unintended consequences. That's not like, way out there or something.

Yes, this, and that sometimes the reality is that no matter what something is going to cost you a particular amount.

For instance, you may want a new car for under $100, you may question why cars cost more than $100 and research to death places where you can buy a car for under $100, but ultimately your final conclusion is still going to be that cars cost more than $100.

Similarly, you may discover that, for instance, in order for the FBI to do x and y and z, you are going to need x amount of staffing, and that's just the bottom line.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes Big Mac *pat* *pat*

Stop picking a fight for once.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you go out of your way to misunderstand me for the sake of advancing your arguments, or are my points that unclear? I'm starting to wonder....

Don't wonder. You are unclear.

I did not say that we should just blindly accept that some stuff exists in a cloud of mystery and accept that. I'm saying that some stuff requires a certain amount it to keep running because it just does, and you can research this until you are blue in the face, look for creative ways to make cuts, etc. and it won't make a difference - it will still require this amount. I did not say that this amount should not be questioned or examined or that this should be some sort of mystery, but at times this will be the ultimate and inevitable conclusion.

For each x there is a minimum cost y under which x cannot survive.
For how many instances of x is the currently implemented cost z equal to y? I say 0. If you disagree, please give an example.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Stop picking a fight for once.

-t

In the world of reality, responding to somebody who says sarcastically that my argument was terrific is not picking a fight, it's rising to join the fight already instigated.

[turtle777]

You don't always have to fight back

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

He's basically stating the law of unintended consequences.

Applied preferentially against decontructionists and not at all towards constructionists. What were the unintended consequences of forcing the accessibility of housing and higher education? Price inflation, grade inflation, mcmansion inflation and debt inflation. What will be the unintended consequences of forcing the accessibility to medicine? Same thing. But where is besson3c3c's ardent caution when it comes to these types of risks?

I feel bad for skimping on the "3c's" earlier, so I threw in an extra one here

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

For each x there is a minimum cost y under which x cannot survive.
For how many instances of x is the currently implemented cost z equal to y? I say 0. If you disagree, please give an example.

I don't disagree, the trick is just learning what that y value is, but not the bypassing of this learning and discovery process by just making y equal to zero or significantly less than what y would have otherwise been and being done with it.

This actually helps make the point I've been trying to make, thank you for this. Do you understand my point now?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You don't always have to fight back

-t

I don't, but as one friend to another, honestly just FWIW, I think you often allow your emotions to get the best out of you in the PWL in general and consequently make threads needlessly hostile for people who have haven't.

I'm not saying I'm perfect or anything, this is just a general observation of mine....

[Uncle Skeleton]

[quote was here]
Edit: oops! I misread the post.

the trick is just learning what that y value is, but not the bypassing of this learning and discovery process by just making y equal to zero or significantly less than what y would have otherwise been and being done with it.

This actually helps make the point I've been trying to make, thank you for this. Do you understand my point now?

No, I don't. How do you propose we do "the trick," how do we find out whether there is fat to cut? I accused you earlier of ignoring this task, and you claimed you were not. So prove it, by explaining how you would do it.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't, but as one friend to another, honestly just FWIW, I think you often allow your emotions to get the best out of you in the PWL in general and consequently make threads needlessly hostile for people who have haven't.

I know. Anyhthing else you always wanted to say ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Applied preferentially against decontructionists and not at all towards constructionists. What were the unintended consequences of forcing the accessibility of housing and higher education? Price inflation, grade inflation, mcmansion inflation and debt inflation. What will be the unintended consequences of forcing the accessibility to medicine? Same thing. But where is besson3c3c's ardent caution when it comes to these types of risks?

I feel bad for skimping on the "3c's" earlier, so I threw in an extra one here

But why do you always want to project arguments into other areas like this? It's often extremely hard to see where this projection is coming from to put your posts into context. It's also frustrating because it would be nice to feel that while the subject matter is x, you understand the point that is being made before we get into y (where y has a relationship to x, but is not specifically what is being discussed).

I'm not saying that there is not unintended consequences in forcing accessibility of things. I never did, and I don't understand why I have to defend something I never said.

I know that your response to this will be about something I've been doing wrong, but stop and consider your part in this, because this has happened several times (possibly with others too).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I know. Anyhthing else you always wanted to say ?

-t

You have nice hair.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You have nice hair.

And you cat has a nice shell

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

[quote was here]
Edit: oops! I misread the post.


No, I don't. How do you propose we do "the trick," how do we find out whether there is fat to cut? I accused you earlier of ignoring this task, and you claimed you were not. So prove it, by explaining how you would do it.

No.

I could, but I don't want to, because I object to these accusations when these have nothing to do with my original point being understood. I'll respond when I feel like I've been understood, otherwise this is no fun for me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And you cat has a nice shell

-t

That's a care bear in my signature, not a cat...

Can turtles be mellow?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But why do you always want to project arguments into other areas like this? It's often extremely hard to see where this projection is coming from to put your posts into context. It's also frustrating because it would be nice to feel that while the subject matter is x, you understand the point that is being made before we get into y (where y has a relationship to x, but is not specifically what is being discussed).

I'm not saying that there is not unintended consequences in forcing accessibility of things. I never did, and I don't understand why I have to defend something I never said.

I know that your response to this will be about something I've been doing wrong, but stop and consider your part in this, because this has happened several times (possibly with others too).

I was trying to say that "unintended consequences" is the same for both sides, so it's not valid to use it only against one side.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I was trying to say that "unintended consequences" is the same for both sides, so it's not valid to use it only against one side.

Please paraphrase the point I've been attempting to make and have restated in multiple ways so that I know it was understood before we launch into something else. If you can't, please restrain yourself from launching into something else.

It's frustrating expending as much effort as I do to feel understood. It's my achilles heel, but it seems like conversations are so much more enjoyable when people aren't talking past each other.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No.

I could, but I don't want to, because I object to these accusations when these have nothing to do with my original point being understood. I'll respond when I feel like I've been understood, otherwise this is no fun for me.

Huh? Your "Okay, I can't restrain myself any longer" post wasn't an accusation? You think it's "fun" for people on the receiving end of that post, or that you're really "understanding" them?

You gotta at least have as skin as thick as your claws...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Huh? Your "Okay, I can't restrain myself any longer" post wasn't an accusation? You think it's "fun" for people on the receiving end of that post, or that you're really "understanding" them?

You gotta at least have as skin as thick as your claws...

So this whole fruitless exercise was your version of retaliation?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So this whole fruitless exercise was your version of retaliation?

No, balance. I imagine my intention was exactly the same as yours. You felt that the "other side" was missing a vital piece of the puzzle and you hoped to help them understand it. No? That's how I felt.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, balance. I imagine my intention was exactly the same as yours. You felt that the "other side" was missing a vital piece of the puzzle and you hoped to help them understand it. No? That's how I felt.

Why don't you stick with balancing arguments with actual direct counterpoints to the argument being made then, rather than adding additional semi-related factors and making us guess as to why they are entering the conversation?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

Does "minge" mean there what it means here?

I think so.

Urban Dictionary: minge

Gotta love their new definition of Santorum:

Urban Dictionary: santorum

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why don't you stick with balancing arguments with actual direct counterpoints to the argument being made then, rather than adding additional semi-related factors and making us guess as to why they are entering the conversation?

I didn't do anything differently than you did. I don't understand why you're telling me what to do and not do. I didn't tell you to stop posting rants out of the blue.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Gotta love their new definition of Santorum:

Urban Dictionary: santorum

That started in 2003.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I didn't do anything differently than you did. I don't understand why you're telling me what to do and not do. I didn't tell you to stop posting rants out of the blue.

Stop being an ass.

I posted my opinions, you derailed my post with stuff that was not directly related to what I posted about while making it out to be a direct counterpoint. You can post whenever and however you want, just don't make your posts out to be a direct counterpoint when they aren't, cause that's just uncool.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Stop being an ass.

I posted my opinions, you derailed my post with stuff that was not directly related to what I posted about while making it out to be a direct counterpoint. You can post whenever and however you want, just don't make your posts out to be a direct counterpoint when they aren't, cause that's just uncool.

Get real. This whole thread is "being an ass," right from the title. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just don't be so hypocritical and hyposensitive about it.

The country is pretty evenly split between "constructive" and "deconstructive," one of them is not some "evil empire" fantasy that merits a "reality check" just for existing. The fact that you don't like to eat your own dogfood is confirmation of this. Your posts are an invitation for my posts, and I won't be coerced to feel regret for doing what I was invited here to do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Get real. This whole thread is "being an ass," right from the title. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just don't be so hypocritical and hyposensitive about it.

This would be fine if this sort of thing has only happened in this thread. It has happened in a number of my threads. Stop digging in and deciding that you are going to stick to your position while claiming to also be Mr. Scientific rather than being open to the notion that what I'm expressing as being frustrating might have something to do with the way you participate in my threads.

First of all, you were claiming that you didn't understand my arguments, now I'm wondering if that was some sort of rouse because you have backed away from this...

Either you didn't understand my point and instead of trying to understand it you went off on your own thing presenting your "balance" as a direct counterpoint to my argument, which it wasn't, or you did understand my point and wanted to balance it with additional fodder, not as a direct counterpoint to my argument, but an additional contribution to the conversation.

Either way, you need to acknowledge that you understand my point. You don't have to agree with it, but acknowledge that it has been made clear so that I don't have to restate it 2039423084 times. I feel like you've just wasted my time.

The country is pretty evenly split between "constructive" and "deconstructive," one of them is not some "evil empire" fantasy that merits a "reality check" just for existing. The fact that you don't like to eat your own dogfood is confirmation of this. Your posts are an invitation for my posts, and I won't be coerced to feel regret for doing what I was invited here to do.

We'll get back to this, but first we need to sort out the above, because this has happened multiple times. We can't have these conversations if this is going to happen on a semi-regular basis.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This would be fine if this sort of thing has only happened in this thread. It has happened in a number of my threads. Stop digging in and deciding that you are going to stick to your position while claiming to also be Mr. Scientific rather than being open to the notion that what I'm expressing as being frustrating might have something to do with the way you participate in my threads.

I react only to what I find. I am poster-agnostic. If you post more threads, you'll get more reactions. I suspect that you would be just as irritated by having to interact with a duplicate of yourself, as you are by having to interact with me.

First of all, you were claiming that you didn't understand my arguments, now I'm wondering if that was some sort of rouse because you have backed away from this...

Either you didn't understand my point and instead of trying to understand it you went off on your own thing presenting your "balance" as a direct counterpoint to my argument, which it wasn't, or you did understand my point and wanted to balance it with additional fodder, not as a direct counterpoint to my argument, but an additional contribution to the conversation.

Either way, you need to acknowledge that you understand my point. You don't have to agree with it, but acknowledge that it has been made clear so that I don't have to restate it 2039423084 times. I feel like you've just wasted my time.

Or maybe you need to acknowledge that you understand my point. Are you comfortable doing that?

Your point is that conservatives don't understand how cost cuts are sometimes "unendurable," but you refuse to share what sometimes those are, nor how much of the whole they make up. Does that leave anything out? There was definitely something about Jeremiah Wright, and about how even Obama was not constructive enough for what we really need. And this doesn't even touch on jabs at the intelligence of Iowans. You've had multiple points, and I don't think it's fair to lump them all together.

We'll get back to this, but first we need to sort out the above, because this has happened multiple times. We can't have these conversations if this is going to happen on a semi-regular basis.

See... here you're complaining about the exact same thing you're doing. Back on page one you dragged up Jeremiah Wright again to fling in the face of... no one and everyone. How come you get to play that game but I don't?

[besson3c]

Whatever Skeleton, I'm done here. You don't really want to confront this, you'd rather just try to turn the tables on me with bullshit cop outs. I get it. Maybe it's an insecurity thing...

In the future I'll know not to waste my time restating myself 902093284 times with you while you pretend to not understand what it is that I'm saying. Either that, or I won't waste my time talking with you at all so long as I feel like the conversation will be subject to these sorts of fun and games.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Smashing. I will continue to post astute observations and insightful reactions to things I read. To each his own.