Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

govexec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–198 of 198 posts

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#191

Post by db48x »

lmm wrote: post #188
db48x wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no evidence that it was embezzlement, or any other type of fraud. Just bad accounting.

"Embezzlement is [...] where someone takes money or assets that were entrusted to them and uses them for a different purpose than for what they were intended." That would seem to apply just as much to spending funds on useful military equipment that's different from what they were allocated for as it does to spending them on blackjack and hookers. If the funds were being spent correctly then why would they be account…

> If the funds were being spent correctly then why would they be accounted for falsely?

How should I know? There’s never been any hint that the funds were spent on the wrong items. After all, the military has a rather large budget for spare parts and repair equipment, and Congress doesn’t micromanage how many hammers they are allowed to buy.

Most likely it was just an honest mistake. Someone used form P instead of form Q (or told the contractor to), and accounting didn’t notice. Indeed, if this were evidence of a crime I think the politician in question would have lead with that, rather than pointing it out as an example of government waste (which is bad but not generally criminal).

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#192

Post by lmm »

db48x wrote: post #191
lmm wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Embezzlement is [...] where someone takes money or assets that were entrusted to them and uses them for a different purpose than for what they were intended." That would seem to apply just as much to spending funds on useful military equipment that's different from what they were allocated for as it does to spending them on blackjack and hookers. If the funds were being spent correctly then why would they be account…

> If the funds were being spent correctly then why would they be accounted for falsely? How should I know? There’s never been any hint that the funds were spent on the wrong items. After all, the military has a rather large budget for spare parts and repair equipment, and Congress doesn’t micromanage how many hammers they are allowed to buy. Most likely it was just an honest mistake. Someone used form P instead of fo…

> There’s never been any hint that the funds were spent on the wrong items.

How would we ever know, if they can be incorrectly accounted for and no-one cares?

> Indeed, if this were evidence of a crime I think the politician in question would have lead with that, rather than pointing it out as an example of government waste (which is bad but not generally criminal).

Proving intent is a lot harder. If the government is overpaying its contractors... there's probably crime going on there too, but it'll be the nudge-wink kind that's very hard to prove. You funnel an overlarge contract to them, then a few years later after you've gone around the revolving door they funnel an overlarge contract to you. That's a crime, but it doesn't leave any evidence except, well, overly large expenditures in the accounts.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#193

Post by throw0101c »

tjoff wrote: post #155
throw0101c wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The coffee was industry standard temperature, they still serve coffee that hot today (Wikipedia says as much.) Which is probably too hot. See "A Review of Hot Beverage Temperatures—Satisfying Consumer Preference and Safety": * https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1750-38...

Why? All this debate on how hot you like to drink your coffee etc. is completely irrelevant. You don't chug your coffee on your way from the counter. You probably have some other items that you consume before you even start sipping on the coffee. If someone serves me coffee at the perfect consumption temperature I'm going to be annoyed that it is way too cold and it is for sure going to be disgustingly cold at the ti…

> You don't chug your coffee on your way from the counter. You probably have some other items that you consume before you even start sipping on the coffee.

See Table 5, which includes "After dilution or cooling".

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#194

Post by pxmpxm »

systems_glitch wrote: post #122
pxmpxm wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But harbor freight has all those deals though!

And now you've got a hardened screw extractor broken off inside your stripped out fastener :D

Ha, someone else has shopped there before!

"More-hardened hardened screw extractor-extractor $3.99 this weekend only!"

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#195

Post by db48x »

lmm wrote: post #192
db48x wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the funds were being spent correctly then why would they be accounted for falsely? How should I know? There’s never been any hint that the funds were spent on the wrong items. After all, the military has a rather large budget for spare parts and repair equipment, and Congress doesn’t micromanage how many hammers they are allowed to buy. Most likely it was just an honest mistake. Someone used form P instead of fo…

> There’s never been any hint that the funds were spent on the wrong items. How would we ever know, if they can be incorrectly accounted for and no-one cares? > Indeed, if this were evidence of a crime I think the politician in question would have lead with that, rather than pointing it out as an example of government waste (which is bad but not generally criminal). Proving intent is a lot harder. If the government i…

> How would we ever know, if they can be incorrectly accounted for and no-one cares?

I am saying that they purchased the correct items. We _can_ know that because there is an itemized list of items that they purchased.

> Proving intent is a lot harder. If the government is overpaying its contractors... there's probably crime going on there too, but it'll be the nudge-wink kind that's very hard to prove.

Don’t misunderstand, I never said that this wasn’t plausible. I just said that there’s no evidence of it. And if there had been evidence, ~30 years ago when this was a current event, the aforementioned politician would have mentioned it. Remember, this guy was looking for soundbites that would make himself look good. Finding government waste made him look good, but finding corruption would have been even better for him.

Worse, even the allegation that this was a wasteful purchase doesn’t really hold up either. A $435 hammer (or a $600) hammer makes for a great soundbite, and plenty of easy outrage from the average voter. But it hinges on nobody looking too closely, because the reality is that they just paid a contractor to purchase COTS parts and assemble them into repair kits. There’s nothing outrageous about that, once you get past the odd bookkeeping.

The most outrageous thing about it is that the politician relied on the “$600 hammer” story for years without much push–back from the media. The media in general should be much more skeptical of things that politicians say. They should check the facts independently, and they should report on the truth or falseness of the statements.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#196

Post by systems_glitch »

pxmpxm wrote: post #194
systems_glitch wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now you've got a hardened screw extractor broken off inside your stripped out fastener :D

Ha, someone else has shopped there before! "More-hardened hardened screw extractor-extractor $3.99 this weekend only!"

"Why are we EDMing out a $4 tool?" "Because it's stuck in a $60K casting."

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#197

Post by lmm »

db48x wrote: post #195
lmm wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s never been any hint that the funds were spent on the wrong items. How would we ever know, if they can be incorrectly accounted for and no-one cares? > Indeed, if this were evidence of a crime I think the politician in question would have lead with that, rather than pointing it out as an example of government waste (which is bad but not generally criminal). Proving intent is a lot harder. If the government i…

> How would we ever know, if they can be incorrectly accounted for and no-one cares? I am saying that they purchased the correct items. We _can_ know that because there is an itemized list of items that they purchased. > Proving intent is a lot harder. If the government is overpaying its contractors... there's probably crime going on there too, but it'll be the nudge-wink kind that's very hard to prove. Don’t misunde…

> I am saying that they purchased the correct items. We _can_ know that because there is an itemized list of items that they purchased.

The purchased items were purchased, but apparently a significant chunk of money allocated for purchasing them was instead diverted to this dubious "R&D charge". That's exactly what embezzlement would look like.

> Don’t misunderstand, I never said that this wasn’t plausible. I just said that there’s no evidence of it. And if there had been evidence, ~30 years ago when this was a current event, the aforementioned politician would have mentioned it. Remember, this guy was looking for soundbites that would make himself look good. Finding government waste made him look good, but finding corruption would have been even better for him.

As far as I'm concerned the bad accounting - and the fact that it wasn't corrected for years - is adequate evidence in itself. Yes, it's possible that it was merely monumental incompetence rather than wilfully inflating payments. But the most likely explanation is that it was corruption, of the normalized you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours kind that the participants probably don't even consciously think of as fraud any more.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#198

Post by harry8 »

SkipperCat wrote: post #168
harry8 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah if you want to argue the cups were rubbish and negligently so, fine. Go right ahead, there /may/ be a sensible discussion to be had there somewhere. It is at least possible "Caution contents hot" Does not seem to be any way an engineering fix for this though, does it? Like seriously, why do you think that is written there? People expect cold? That fixes it? The mind boggles. So many legal fees on garbage like th…

I think a lot of the case focused on the temperature of the coffee. McDonalds brewed it above 135F and that put it in the category of "burn risk". They could have brewed it slightly cooler, but McDonalds thought it would detract from the taste. Having "caution hot" was probably not enough of a warning. They should have put "caution burn risk" or something like that on the cups.

A purchaser has zero right to assume that a freshly brewed cup of coffee can't burn them. I mean seriously wtf? Children should know better and do.

A purchaser has no right to blame anyone else for putting a freshly brewed cup of coffee between their legs while driving a car. That is dangerous and reckless driving and they should be charged for not taking the proper regard for others safety.

You can hate mcdonalds and I /really/ do and see this BS for what it is. Exploiting your sympathy for a burn victim to accrue a mass of lawyers fees. This case and all the other legal actions on the same principle.

You don't have to be a "rugged individualist championing personal responsibility above all things" (aka libtard) to see it. You can even be a a massive socialist and still see the incredible damage to ordinary people engendered by this frankly insane interpretation and enforcement of the law. Nobody is safer, but the existing lawyers get richer and their highly productive segment of the economy grows. The effect on insurance premiums across the entire economy has been profound and immense.

Add up all the legal fees and flow on then compare to "caution: contents hot" written in tiny print on a cup that cannot be seen without holding said cup. Include all the additional legal fees from just this kind of nonsense for any small business trying to grow that come out of this. That is the outcome.

It's such an idiotic "AKHTUALLY it's not what it seems."

AKHTUHALLY it's not crazy like it sounds because it's really good for lawyers who have a huge interest in avoiding the necessary legal reforms and have done a truly stellar job pursuing those interests.

Post reply on HN