241–248 of 248 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure. Too me it reads like why too much democracy..
How do you figure that?
Political control (ie democratic control) is not value neutral.
Though the actual important bit is actually a quote from https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-new-su...
Speed is affected by process, and process evolves in reaction to abuse. In the beginning, it's quick to do everything, but as people take advantage - routing contracts to friends, taking safety shortcuts - rules get put into place and those rules affect the time to complete. For New York specifically there's another factor that it's strange the article omitted: Robert Moses. Prior to the mid-1960s, it was fairly simp…
This reminds me of what Dan Carlin called "rolling the monarchy dice" in his Hardcore History podcast. If you get a good dictator, things get done with little friction, because the power rests on a single person's shoulders. But if you get a bad one, you're stuck with it. Democracy might be slower and less inefficient, but it's reliably slower and less efficient.
That’s why the US founders loathed democracy. A Republic was the answer they came up with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reading that book takes even longer than getting a renovation permit in NYC.
Audiobook version is great. Read by Caro.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second ave subway was supposed to be a replacement for the elevated train they tore out. At this point, they should consider just building a modern elevate train down second ave if digging is such a boondoggle. I think the only reason it was torn down is that business owners thought it to be unsightly.
0% chance that will happen. It greatly lowers property values which will cause every single owner on the path to come out swinging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't that reinforce the parents' point that even a country with 1/10th the GDP and 10x more corruption, still manages to complete their subway projects 10x quicker at 1/10th the cost? I don't think the explanation is that Russians are 10000x smarter than Americans, so it must be some environmental/organizational difference.
> Doesn't that reinforce the parents' point that (…) I don't see how it would. The reasons why a country with 1/10th the GDP and 10x more corruption still manages to complete their subway projects 10x quicker at 1/10th the cost is totally orthogonal to whether it's a vanity project or not, or with which group will use it most. > it must be some environmental/organizational difference. indeed, it very much is. And for…
Because it removes the explanation of the motivation that it will primarily benefit their personal usage. Since the decision-makers for the project obviously have to share the subway with millions of ordinary commuters.
Even if it was a vanity project, the vanity only accrues to the top leadership, not to the thousands of middle-managers. So it's extra significant that even with a 10x more corrupt structure, where the vast majority of said structure don't benefit from the vanity, it's still completed quicker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France has unions out the wazoo, yet you don’t see nearly the level of cost increases.
This always comes up when unions in America are blamed for these problems. Unions are strong in both France and Germany and they don't have most of these problems. The answer is corruption. America is horribly corrupt, much like Latin American nations, and unlike western European nations. So unions in Europe actually work the way they're supposed to, whereas in America they're just another corrupt institution, probab…
Easy. Allow the employee to pick the union - you can have more than one union per employer. Or no union at all if that's what the employee wants.
That's the only change needed.
If like, add a second change: It's not longer necessary to make an employer be a "union shop" any employer can have employees represented by unions, if that's what the employee wants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Doesn't that reinforce the parents' point that (…) I don't see how it would. The reasons why a country with 1/10th the GDP and 10x more corruption still manages to complete their subway projects 10x quicker at 1/10th the cost is totally orthogonal to whether it's a vanity project or not, or with which group will use it most. > it must be some environmental/organizational difference. indeed, it very much is. And for…
> I don't see how it would. The reasons why a country with 1/10th the GDP and 10x more corruption still manages to complete their subway projects 10x quicker at 1/10th the cost is totally orthogonal to whether it's a vanity project or not, or with which group will use it most. Because it removes the explanation of the motivation that it will primarily benefit their personal usage. Since the decision-makers for the pr…
Does it? I'd say that they have far more benefit of the project than the common commuter… it's just a different use. Their use is not merely commuting (they live in a palace and have a limousine and chauffeur and personal jet) but a tool for asserting and furthering their power and image… So yes, they very much have a personal interest in it. Also, vanity projects in corrupt and autocratic countries are often a way for the dictators and their nephews and goons to fill their pockets from state money. That too is way more benefit than the common commuter.
> the vanity only accrues to the top leadership, not to the thousands of middle-managers
The fact that such a vanity project isn't born from the vanity of middle managers doesn't change the fact that they too have a big personal interest in such projects. Playing your part well in a vanity project is what gets you promoted in autocratic and other totalitarian regimes.
> So it's extra significant that even with a 10x more corrupt structure, where the vast majority of said structure don't benefit from the vanity, it's still completed quicker.
The higher speed of authoritarian regimes when it comes to the decision making processes is nothing surprising but inherent to its nature: no checks and balances, no lawsuits or high standards to slow things down, just a simple top-down order structure. It's not good for the rights and freedoms of people, but it is inherently faster than a democratic system which requires to reach a wide consensus and to comply with a whole lot of complicated requirements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Britain feels even more corrupt than the US.
In Britain you can be based in any other country and still get a fair hearing in the courts, even if you are claiming against a British business. I'm not aware of anywhere else in the World where this is the case.