RE: Raising the debt ceiling

RE: Raising the debt ceiling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 5:26:42 AM)
"What stands in the way is a Jewish argument, interestingly enough. It concerns wisdom. There are things we must refrain from doing even though the matter seems plain because we are not wise." God was the only real mistake the Jews ever made. Why are we not wise ? Why is even the serpent wiser than we ? Why aren't Jews, as well as their stepchildren [the Christians] bestowed with wisdom like the enemies that He supposedly created. If you keep a pet, do you not care for it and teach it, keep it away from predators ? Even a guard dog, trained to do your bidding, would you pull it's teeth and declaw it ? People are enslaved very day. You sign a car note or a mortgage you are indentured to make the payments, therefore unless you ar extremely lucky you will HAVE TO WORK. Slaves HAVE TO WORK or else. Take a whippin or lose your home, and don't answer that from a kink perspective. And you shouldn't need dentists. I clean my teeth with my tongue promptly, like a dog. So if dentistry were abolished I could start a school. Is it your assertion that it was all good because we have a few less beggars on the streets, or that you are unaware of them ? That flies like a bowling ball. Supposedly we are the richest country in the world, there should be no beggars in the streets. What happened ? Let me give the forum an idea of the American dream. You hook up, have a few kids. You never marry your olady. She goes on welfare which pays all medical costs, or gets a shit job (in pay) which covers the kids. Everything goes in her name, you go work and in one instance in my past, I pay you $18 an hour under the table. You pay no taxes, you are invisible to the government. No matter how much you make, your kids get grants and scholarships and pretty much a free ride through the educational system. In the meantime, you do whatever you want. She works, at those times you take care of the kids. They grow up and you rent out the house you gave her (you inherited it) and she buys a nicer bigger house. She files long form separately and the interest on the new house offsets the income from the old house. (and she gets EIC which means she gets more back on the refund than she paid in) She can (and does) have a new car. You have plasma TVs, tools and all the modern conveniences. She gets to the point where she only has to work part time, and you work when ever the hell you please. All she has to do is one thing. Not file for child support. You give her money when she needs it, and you also give her a few other things. You are a team, but there is no paper trail. There is no way in hell to take all what should be taken, so stop giving all that can be given. Got any other ideas ? Oh, and Grandma ? She lives with the current family, usually the eldest son, and picks on the Wife to some extent, resulting in a plethora of Mother in law jokes. In the US, that's how it was done. Or is. We don't fucking care, we want the most for the least. At least some of us know it and can admit it. Up until six months ago I never took anything from the government. Now I want mine. Too many people abusing the system. Too many dollars for the bankers, proving what Thomas Jefferson said. Too much. Now I want every last fucking dime I can get. The only thing that bothers me is that I firmly believe that one should ALWAYS look a gift horse in the mouth. T

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 6:11:50 AM)
I feel we can connect on some points. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or People are enslaved very day. ... We want the most for the least. There is no disputing that. The later is a huge part of the problem. The people who run wall street seem to think they have found the answers to everything. They are very dangerous. The solution has nothing to do with the size of government. Government is a tool. The sort of tool you need depends on the problem you are working on. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Up until six months ago I never took anything from the government. Now I want mine. Too many people abusing the system. I can't blame you for being bitter. The system is insane, but a large part of the problem has been your own ideological views. Instead of having something clean and simple we have something that is cockeyed. By shying away from universal health care, for example, we made it into something to be manipulated by politicians and businessmen. The problem is we are not wise enough to manage such a system. The only solution is to get rid of the managers, no qualifications needed. With such an approach, you would get your due. There wouldn't be anyone saying you do not qualify because you are a white American for example. The one thing you can do if you really want to make a person feel like garbage is to deny them medical care.

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 6:23:13 AM)
quote: you shouldn't need dentists. I clean my teeth with my tongue promptly, like a dog. Dogs also die around age 13, and with crappy teeth. Sometimes infected teeth.

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 6:44:02 AM)
quote: The problem is we are not wise enough to manage such a system. Benev, That's really not it. A large part of my research 20 years ago, which then formed the basis of my practice, was how systems work. Individual decisions and common sense don't work in aggregate. Yes, that sounds silly, but it's demonstrable over and over, from business to government. There are many reasons why, but just for example, small, insignificant matters, when multiplied, become major factors, especially when system lags are introduced. Imagine you were in a foreign country and jumped into the shower, but didn't realize the hot water responded slowly. You would jump from freezing to scalding, back and forth, in continual frustration. Systems are like that. It's not that people aren't smart or reasonable. Rather, decisions and judgment that is perfectly sound and realistic based on what each individual independently sees are often very poor decisions systematically. What happens then is the individuals within the system blame each other as incompetent. I did a study on commission for my department a few years ago. Over 95% of faculty strongly support increased faculty development programs, and precisely for this explicitly stated reason, not prompted by the study (i.e., they independently added this reason)--to bring the other faculty up to speed. So our own studies show we aren't getting the results we want, and virtually all of the faculty feel it's because the other guy isn't pulling his weight. Clearly, putting those two facts side by side, that isn't the case. It can't be, logically. But, individual to individual, doing logical work in the classroom and seeing what happens in those individual classrooms, it all makes sense. Just not institutionally, because the individual can't see the effect systemically. This was the heart of my business practice too, before I was recruited to teach. Frustrated business owners didn't understand why they weren't getting better results, when they were doing all reasonable things. And they were--just not systemically. So I'd come in, coax them away from their old practices (usually with some resistance), and set up new structures that would guide people to the desired outcomes. Deming (the guy who turned around Japan) said "85% of the problem is in the system." And he's right. Design a good systemic structure, and it doesn't matter whom you put into the structure--and the same is true of a poor structure. Here's the problem for government. People react emotionally, not logically, and generally not by looking at data. Consequently, often the best, cheapest ways to do things are going to be vigorously opposed as wasteful and unfair. Programs meant to support one segment often benefit another. And people thus consistently vote against and scream about policies in their own best interest. Really, logically, it's not reasonable to believe the entire government is incompetent. In fact, government is staffed with highly competent people (who have no trouble at all entering the private sector, just to illustrate). But systems work differently than individual decisions with individual perspectives. And after all that, governance is making choices. We can't have everything. An accessible and interesting book on this subject, if you're interested, is Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline. But bottom line, no, everyone isn't wiser than everyone else, despite what they think.

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 7:32:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: The problem is we are not wise enough to manage such a system. Benev, That's really not it. A large part of my research 20 years ago, which then formed the basis of my practice, was how systems work. Individual decisions and common sense don't work in aggregate. Yes, that sounds silly, but it's demonstrable over and over, from business to government. There are many reasons why, but just for example, small, insignificant matters, when multiplied, become major factors, especially when system lags are introduced. Imagine you were in a foreign country and jumped into the shower, but didn't realize the hot water responded slowly. You would jump from freezing to scalding, back and forth, in continual frustration. Systems are like that. It's not that people aren't smart or reasonable. Rather, decisions and judgment that is perfectly sound and realistic based on what each individual independently sees are often very poor decisions systematically. What happens then is the individuals within the system blame each other as incompetent. I did a study on commission for my department a few years ago. Over 95% of faculty strongly support increased faculty development programs, and precisely for this explicitly stated reason, not prompted by the study (i.e., they independently added this reason)--to bring the other faculty up to speed. So our own studies show we aren't getting the results we want, and virtually all of the faculty feel it's because the other guy isn't pulling his weight. Clearly, putting those two facts side by side, that isn't the case. It can't be, logically. But, individual to individual, doing logical work in the classroom and seeing what happens in those individual classrooms, it all makes sense. Just not institutionally, because the individual can't see the effect systemically. This was the heart of my business practice too, before I was recruited to teach. Frustrated business owners didn't understand why they weren't getting better results, when they were doing all reasonable things. And they were--just not systemically. So I'd come in, coax them away from their old practices (usually with some resistance), and set up new structures that would guide people to the desired outcomes. Deming (the guy who turned around Japan) said "85% of the problem is in the system." And he's right. Design a good systemic structure, and it doesn't matter whom you put into the structure--and the same is true of a poor structure. Here's the problem for government. People react emotionally, not logically, and generally not by looking at data. Consequently, often the best, cheapest ways to do things are going to be vigorously opposed as wasteful and unfair. Programs meant to support one segment often benefit another. And people thus consistently vote against and scream about policies in their own best interest. Really, logically, it's not reasonable to believe the entire government is incompetent. In fact, government is staffed with highly competent people (who have no trouble at all entering the private sector, just to illustrate). But systems work differently than individual decisions with individual perspectives. And after all that, governance is making choices. We can't have everything. An accessible and interesting book on this subject, if you're interested, is Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline. But bottom line, no, everyone isn't wiser than everyone else, despite what they think. Nicely put. What you are saying is not altogether untrue. The problem is it is 85% true. This makes the statement "Design a good systemic structure, and it doesn't matter whom you put into the structure." seem almost true. So it doesn't matter who is President, for example. The problem is people tend to think that if they got it 85% or better yet 95% right, that they can ignore the remaining 5%. This is a problem with automation. If you can automate 95% of your business, it is a powerful incentive to ignore the remaining 5%, but this leads to problems. That 5% is corrosive. Ignoring it causes the system to move, usually slowly, in the direction of insanity. Because it is slow, the process is unrelenting and insidious, yet something that can simultaneously be rationalized away. Modern economists have fallen into this trap. They have taken "Design a good systemic structure, and it doesn't matter whom you put into the structure." as an axiom. They forgot that it is only 85% true and it does matter who the President is. Efficiency is addictive. We have too much efficiency. The usual way to explain it is to say, Too much work and no play makes John a dull boy. It is the reason why the French are superior. It is the reason why we are having such a difficult time getting off of fossil fuels apart from the technical challenges. We are addicted to efficiency and are unable to think in other terms whereas the French are. Due to the very sort of ideas you advanced, we lost Vietnam; it was why the war was bananas. I fear that we have come to rely too heavily on our inherence as a nation on the foresight of our forefathers and have forgotten that though much was gotten right, our forefathers can only get the first 85% of it right for us. We have to pick up the other 15%, but if anyone hasn't noticed already. That last 15% that we haven't gotten right yet, isn't easy to get right.

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 7:39:51 AM)
quote: So it doesn't matter who is President I didn't say this, and I didn't say anything about automation. At the managerial level and in the professions, we hire people for their judgment and influence, not their time and labor. What I said was that individual perspectives on what's reasonable don't hold at the aggregate systemic level. Aggregate Demand and Aggregate Supply, for example, don't work the same as Supply and Demand, just as one example. That doesn't mean our markets are "automated," even with regulations. As for the rest, what you are describing is exactly the problem with a poor structure. It has nothing to do with automation. Take the Coast Guard. Their culture is what allowed Coast Guard helicopters to say "We're going after this hurricane," and that's why they were first on the scene after Katrina. That allowed independence is part of their structure.

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 8:26:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: So it doesn't matter who is President I didn't say this, and I didn't say anything about automation. At the managerial level and in the professions, we hire people for their judgment and influence, not their time and labor. What I said was that individual perspectives on what's reasonable don't hold at the aggregate systemic level. Aggregate Demand and Aggregate Supply, for example, don't work the same as Supply and Demand, just as one example. That doesn't mean our markets are "automated," even with regulations. As for the rest, what you are describing is exactly the problem with a poor structure. It has nothing to do with automation. Take the Coast Guard. Their culture is what allowed Coast Guard helicopters to say "We're going after this hurricane," and that's why they were first on the scene after Katrina. That allowed independence is part of their structure. By saying "Aggregate Demand and Aggregate Supply, for example, don't work the same as Supply and Demand" you are saying is that your models are non-linear. Supply and demand is a linear model. You have to continually put work into a non-linear model because predicting how it is going to behave is like trying to predict the weather. This means that active components, e.g. human beings, as opposed to passive components such as a gear are needed. We are, however, talking about automation because we are talking about interchangeability and things working much like a machine albeit a machine involving active as opposed to passive components. It is a different twist on the same theme. I'm not putting words in your mouth in that what I wrote surround the things you speak of. You are a proponent of rational design and I laid out for you the problem with rational design in all its forms. The problem with rational design is that it almost gets it right. In this it is a deceiver. This entitles you to be a wise owl where you are able to bring to bare powerful tools whose explanatory powers are extraordinary. The Biblical story of the Tower of Babel needs to be recalled, however. Almost is just that, almost. They almost had what it took. It is what inspired them, but it was also their down fall.

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 8:51:58 AM)
Conservatism encourages the view that government is a ruler instead of a service provider. What is often overlooked is that small government doesn't mean weak government. What makes government a ruler centers on the police power of government. Conservatism emphasizes police power. The ratio of police officers to citizens need not be even remotely close to 1 to 1 in order for the presence of the police to be felt. Small government can be very powerful and fully capable of fulfilling the role of a bully if that is the area of emphasis. If the government is preoccupied with providing services, it doesn't have time to be a bully. So as paradoxical as it may seem small government can and perhaps often does promotes belligerent behavior since the contraction of government causes the government to focus on its most essential service which is to club you over the head. For example, if the government is preoccupied with managerial activities such as performing studies, it is preoccupied with exercising its police power. If you want small government, your primary concern likewise needs to be to with getting government off this addiction rather than with its size. The preoccupation with size is a fetish. Revision History I thought to add the second paragraph.

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 9:06:36 AM)
You are absolutely 85% right!

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 11:41:06 AM)
What makes this Luciferian? If you are part of an efficient machine, you can stop to smell the roses. You don't really need to do your job. As long as you fulfill your role as an actor on a stage, the system works! You are entitled to complete freedom and the freedom to be as corrupt as you please.

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 4:15:52 PM)
quote: We are, however, talking about automation No. You are. quote: I'm not putting words in your mouth in that what I wrote surround the things you speak of. You are a proponent of rational design Bottom line, you don't understand, and that's fine. Systems need flexibility, not micromanagement.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 4:33:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM We have too much efficiency. Based on my experience in industry and government, this is hardly true. quote: Conservatism encourages the view that government is a ruler instead of a service provider. Could you explain what you view as "conservatism"? quote: You are absolutely 85% right! You appear to be carrying on a conversation with yourself.

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 8:28:49 PM)
InvisibleBlack when I wrote "You are absolutely 85% right!" it was intended to be taken humorously and makes sense in context if you had a better understanding of what rational design involves. Statistics are used to quantify truth. I will expand on previous comments. There is nothing illegitimate about it. It is sophisticated. I build on previous statements. I think you feel I committed a faux pas by making three consecutive posts. It is happens when one thought is followed by another. I thought to share a bit of humor. I do not understand why my usage puzzles you. What I wrote, that sentence, is as obvious as the nose on one's face. It could be used as an axiom, i.e. self-evident truth, in political science. I'm uncertain what you are trying to get me to say. Conservatives focus on what they deem to be the essential nature of government whereas liberals think in terms of what government can do for you. When a person places their attention on what are the essential services provided by government, the result is disturbing and is the reason why conservatives regard government to be a necessary evil that needs to be minimized because though necessary it isn't all that wholesome. This, however, is a trap. The very act of minimization brings government further in line with its essential role or roles that in turn makes the government appear even more evil. The result is a vicious circle. Earlier I presented an analogy involving teeth. A point is reach were people who are trapped in this vicious circle begin to freak out and do things they shouldn't. I already partially explained how inefficiency can be a result of efficiency and how things need not be according to what they appear to be. This is a central problem with rational design. It creates these dichotomies. I did mention the Vietnam war. Techniques were borrowed from industry to boost efficiency, but the result was anything but efficient. The situation is a trap. You like many others have made the same observation. Government is inefficient. So what do people do? They do the obvious. They attempt to make it efficient, but the very act of making it efficient makes it inefficient. You do the obvious thing, for example. You manage it and government tries to manage everything else. Why is that? Government tends to have a preoccupation with exercising its police power; hence, the theory that small government results in less intrusive government, but this is inaccurate. It is as I pointed out. It isn't size that matters. It is its preoccupations. What is it preoccupied with? It is one thing to manage processes involving inanimate objects and another to manage processes that involve people. It may have worked for Japanese industry due to special circumstances. The processes involved inanimate objects. I hope that I've been of service to you InvisibleBlack. Let's put this into a BDSM context. A friend of mine who is a switch described a torture a Dom friend of hers put her through which helped her apparently. It concerned a swing and electric shock where if she fought it, it made it worse. The rational thing for her to do was to realize it and rise above her instinct, that is to understand the problem. All she had to do was relax. Revision History I thought to follow my thought with another thought.

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 8:52:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Systems need flexibility, not micromanagement. You are absolutely 85% right! Don't take what I said the wrong way. I'll have to look into that book you suggested and see if it is worth reading.

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 8:56:01 PM)
You are stuck on a very narrow definition of systems.

Edwynn -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 9:01:00 PM)
FR quote: Really, logically, it's not reasonable to believe the entire government is incompetent. In fact, government is staffed with highly competent people (who have no trouble at all entering the private sector, just to illustrate). Truer words never spoken, nor more accurately descriptive of the reality of the situation. it is highly unlikely that Monsanto or Goldman Sachs would

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 9:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You are stuck on a very narrow definition of systems. Tell me more. What is it that you feel that I'm getting wrong? As I see it you are likely mistaken in that rational design, i.e. system design, has a deceptive quality. You used the word flexibility, but there is a subtly you need to be aware of. Flexibility and interchangeability are related concepts and once you are talking about interchangeability you are talking about automation and processes that are inherently dumb that can easily take you off the deep end. The promise of rational design is utopian, a liberating force. It has the potential, so it seems, to create a paradise on Earth. What you are objecting to is my insistence that this rosy picture is not all as it seems. I'm raining on your parade so to speak. It is not my intention to be disrespectful, however. I realize that you were being kind to me earlier. Your kindness is appreciated.

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/15/2011 5:21:58 AM)
You just explained what you're "getting wrong" precisely, illustrating the sentence you quoted. This is because you are enamored of a pet point and are determined to make it apply. It happens. Forget about it. You're focusing on the illustration rather than on the point anyway, which was that rational individual decisions can be irrational in aggregate.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/15/2011 9:38:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You just explained what you're "getting wrong" precisely, illustrating the sentence you quoted. This is because you are enamored of a pet point and are determined to make it apply. It happens. Forget about it. You're focusing on the illustration rather than on the point anyway, which was that rational individual decisions can be irrational in aggregate. Rationality is found in the process, not the results. Individually raitional decisions are just that, rational. They cannot be aggregated into something irrational....bad decisions, yes...but not irrational ones.

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/15/2011 3:43:19 PM)
Admittedly, I've presented the sort of information a critic advances. Rational design is appealing to central planners because it holds the promise to solve problems that were thought intractable. Musicmystery, if he wishes, may round out the story in greater detail or he may leave it to me to tear it apart. The choice is his.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875