|
Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/19/2013 6:03:43 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It was a business decision. The effect in the lockerroom impacted the on-field game, though. It had nothing to do with whether or not he was a model citizen outside the organization, but what he did to the organization.
Maybe they should have given him his own private locker room. Don't film producers have to appease Hollywood prima donnas in the same way?
Have to? Not sure. But, they certainly do. I do't think film producers care all that much as long as they can turn a buck or two. And, is Hollywood that bad that producers can't run their production companies the way they want?
Of course they can run their companies the way they want, and as we both seem to agree, turning a buck or two is the singular goal of any and all businesses. Your point here was that Terrell Owens was kicked off several teams not due to his skills (since he was obviously skilled to do the job), but that he was a cancer in the locker room which was somehow affecting the team's bottom line. I was just questioning whether it was truly a business decision based solely on dollars and cents, or whether it was the result of pride, image, and/or the high-strung egos of professional sports (applying to both players and owners).
quote:
Charity won't be able to pick up the slack right off the bat. But, I have faith the US citizenry would pick up the slack once it's realized.
It would depend on how solvent the citizenry happens to be. Part of the reason these social welfare programs started up in the first place was because it was clear that private charity was not picking up the slack.
Besides, private charities can be just as bureaucratic and corrupt as government can be, so I don't see charity as a panacea here.
quote:
A big part of the problem, imo, regarding pushing people towards higher education, is that it's not for everyone. Get into a trade (and I've mentioned previously about thinking high schools should expand the trade choices in their curriculum. I know at one point in time, the District my Dad worked in had a house construction course. A guy I worked with actually had the school build him a house (while he was still in HS, no less) on a plot of land he bought. The school didn't charge any labor fees, just materials.
Imagine a school offering those kinds of things, and kids graduating high school well on their way to being able to do something. I know guys who went through the auto mechanics curriculum at my high school, and they own their own garages in the area.
Disclaimer: This stuff may be normal at a vocational school. Not having any experience with a vocational school, I easily could be in the dark about the existence of these programs.
I would agree that schools like this are a step in the right direction. I think we both agree that our educational system needs to be updated and made more relevant for the 21st century. I also think that both parties need to stop using our schools as political football fields.
quote:
quote:
Government's antics that are worse isn't a good rationale for doing things that aren't quite as worse. Setting price controls in one industry means you'll likely have to do the same in every other industry (have to be fair, right?). Now, you have price controls across the board. That's chilling, imo.
Well, we've done it before. During World War II, it was a necessity to build up our war industries without a lot of inflation and price-gouging. If we left business to its own devices during that crucial time, it might very well have crippled the Allied war effort (and might have even lost us the war).
Among other things, this experience demonstrated that capitalism only really works well during fair weather. By the same token, it also demonstrated that price controls and other limited governmental interventions in the private sector can and do produce economic growth and stability, even during periods of crisis and war. The program was hugely successful, our war production increased (not only for ourselves but for the entire Allied side in the war), and we enjoyed the greatest period of economic growth in the post-war boom than we had ever seen before.
And you think that's "chilling"? Why?
Federalist #45:quote:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.
Interesting you mention that, no?
Yes, but I still don't know why you find it so chilling. After all, we're talking about times of war and danger here. We're still at war and facing an ever-present threat of war, and there is also the danger of default, bankruptcy, and/or economic collapse. During good times, during times of peace and security, that may be another matter, if and when we can ever get back to those times.
Another key consideration is that the Founding Fathers stressed that America should remain neutral in foreign affairs and refrain from permanent alliances and foreign entanglements. The conservatives used to be more isolationist in that respect, but after WW2, they turned into more ardent interventionists than the liberals (and often used it as a scathing point of criticism against liberals). So that's another area where they blew it big time, which is why I can't accept their current push towards so-called "limited government." I don't consider it to be sincere or genuine.
Please understand that I'm not directing that criticism at you, since I realize that you're more of an isolationist, as I am. But I'll only say that as long as both conservatives and liberals continue to actively pursue an interventionist and hegemonic foreign policy around the world, we will never have any kind of "limited government" of the kind envisioned by our Founding Fathers. We can't have it both ways, even as much as we might want it.
quote:
A "wall of separation?" Not there at all. But, it should be, IMO.
Perhaps it should, but it should be for both sides. It's one thing to try to prevent government interference in the private sector, but what about the other way around? What about lobbyists, PACs, and other privately funded entities which pay for all those wonderfully entertaining TV commercials we all enjoy so much around election time? The private sector seems to work overtime in political activism and influencing public opinion, so they seem to have quite a great deal of influence over the Federal government and what they do...more so than the average Joe or the people on welfare or those with minimal skills earning minimal pay.
That's what is ultimately so absurd about discussions about "limited government" vs. the private sector, since it's the private sector which has been the driving force behind turning government into what it has become. They're the ones who hold most of the cards, so if they don't like the way things are turning out, then it's mostly their fault, isn't it? If they created a monster, then maybe they should look at their own mistakes and misconceptions which led to the creation of that monster in the first place.
quote:
The thing about business, though, is that it isn't telling you what to do, really. If an Eastern coast retailer doesn't offer the goods you want in Arizona, that store isn't going to be very successful.
And that can and does happen. Those at the individual store level might realize what's going on right away, but in any kind of centralized hierarchy, there are so many barriers of communication between the front-line staff and the higher-ups who are in a position to actually make a decision.
Here's a humorous little piece I remember from decades ago, which kind of illustrates what I'm talking about:
quote:
In the beginning was the plan.
And then came the assumptions.
And the assumptions were without form.
And the plan was without substance.
And darkness was upon the face of the workers.
And they spoke among themselves saying,
"It is a crock of shit and it stinketh."
And the workers went unto their supervisors and said,
"It is a pale of dung and none may abide the odor thereof."
And the supervisor went unto their managers and said,
"It is a container of excrement and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."
And the managers went unto their directors, saying,
"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."
And the directors spoke among themselves, saying to one another,
"It contains that which aids plant growth and it is very strong."
And the directors went unto the vice presidents, saying unto them,
"It promotes growth and is very powerful."
And the vice presidents went unto the president, saying unto him,
"The new plan will promote the growth and vigor of the company, with powerful effects."
And the president looked upon the plan and saw that it was good.
And the plan became policy.
This is how shit happens.
quote:
With the advent of the internet, it's even more important to tailor a store's offerings to the local Market. It's not as if a Maine-based retailer is sending snow shovels, ice-melt and snowthrowers to Southern Cal just because it's Winter and that's what it's like in Maine.
There are some mountainous areas of Southern California which get some snow, so there will be some demand.
There is one thing that I find to be a minor source of frustration, when dealing with companies from out of state. Here in Arizona, it's common practice to use Spanish-language street designations, such as "Camino," "Calle," "Paseo," etc., in lieu of "Road," "Street," "Blvd." So, if I'm giving someone an address, I might tell them 123 Calle Serna. Then they ask "Is that Calle Serna Road, Avenue, Street?" "No, it's just Calle Serna." "Huh?" People who live around here know about this and are accustomed to it, but people from other areas don't know.
If I want to call up the Walgreens two blocks away from here, I get someone in a call center in Florida. This is how businesses are run these days. I just find it mildly ironic that when some businesses do fail or fall upon hard times, they invariably blame "the economy" for their woes.
quote:
Took the representation of the States out of the Federal Government. Up until then, Senators were appointed by the States, not elected directly. Presumably, the States would have their representation in the Federal Government, too. The US Constitution was not just a compact among the People, but also among the States.
I don't see how it makes all that much difference, though, since the State governments are elected by the People as well. The States would still be represented by their Senators, whether elected by the People or appointed by the State governments. If we're a government of the People, by the People, and for the People, then that should also apply to State and local governments, shouldn't it?
quote:
State Governments certainly can get tyrannical towards it's citizens. But, it's a shitload closer to home when they do.
That's a knife that cuts both ways. State and local tyrannies can and do get pretty nasty. We have a history of it here in AZ, as well as in other areas of the country too. A lot of feuds, violence, and blood. People squabble too much, and when they do, there's a tendency to keep wanting to appeal to higher authority to settle things. As a result, that higher authority gains most of the power by default.
quote:
IMO, each level of government should act more on the level of government beneath it than on the People, except for the lowest level of government. So, County government should have more to do with the Municipals, Township, Village, etc. levels than they do with the People. States governments should have more focus on the County governments. State governments are like the back side of a coin with the Federal Government. State governments focus more on the internal workings of the Country, and the Federal Government focuses more on the external things (and mediates in disputes between/among the States).
But should county and municipal governments enjoy the same level of semi-autonomy in relation to their State governments as State governments should theoretically have in relation to the Federal government?
Using Arizona as an example, we're in a situation where 60% of the State's population is in and around the Phoenix metro area, so they have most of the legislative seats and a majority of the State's voters. Do the smaller counties and cities have any recourse if the legislature and State government decides to do something to benefit Phoenix to the detriment of the rest of the State? Should we be able to secede from the State and form our own State government?
|
|
|
|
