231–240 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your definition of waste is likely different to other peoples.
Seems like a good one to me. I suppose there are more blatant forms of waste and raw corruption, but the entropy kind seems like one of the most important for a society to tackle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you figure? The profit motive isn't a factor when nationalized. Where would the waste come from?
From the fact that you can get profit by removing waste. Without profit there is no reason to remove waste. Waste isn't a thing you add intentionally if you have a reason. Waste is entropy it happens unless you continually clean it out. If you don't HAVE to clean out the waste it doesn't get cleaned out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the fact that you can get profit by removing waste. Without profit there is no reason to remove waste. Waste isn't a thing you add intentionally if you have a reason. Waste is entropy it happens unless you continually clean it out. If you don't HAVE to clean out the waste it doesn't get cleaned out.
You also apparently need to wipe out the profit occasionally or else the company gets sucked dry of functional capability out of greed. Perhaps we need a cycle of allowing capitalists to remove waste, nationalization to remove profit, and then capitalists to be allowed to begin again removing waste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The IRS is one of the most effective government agencies out there, despite continued lack of funding and political mismanagement. NASA still leads space exploration, despite Congress intervening in its agendas. The mismanagement and waste come from a Congress more obsessed with its re-election and petty politics than it is actually running a gargantuan empire in a sustainable manner, not the agencies themselves, wit…
Have you tried calling the irs ? If you gave google the authority to jail customers who didn’t buy their services with 25% of income, even google might provide some customer service, but would surely provide better api’s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The IRS is one of the most effective government agencies out there It is one of the most cost effective agencies because their entire reason d'être is finding missing money and collecting it. It doesn't really say anything about them being one of the most effective in the sense of good management and having minimal waste. I had to deal with them as an immigrant and it was a nightmare of wait times.
To be fair, and having been through that hell myself, anything involving both American Bureaucracy AND immigration is just a gigantic suck salad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great idea. Let’s let the same people who built and managed healthcare.gov build bombs and airplanes.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The option is not a binary between "let it fail" and "no strings attached bailout." If things get bad enough for Intel, the precedent that makes the most sense is to follow the model that was used with GM: the company enters bankruptcy, existing investors and creditors are wiped out, and a new corporate entity backed by the fed.gov steps in and assumes the assets and operations of the company. Once things have suffic…
It's not just the investors and creditors that need to be wiped out. Above all else the managers need to be fired, with no bonuses or golden parachutes.
I'm actually fascinated the rise-and-fall of some mega corporations over time as times/habits change. IBM, Sears, Etc. At one point Sears was THE place to shop for everything from back-to-school clothes, appliances and Christmas. In the early 2000's I would have thought you were either a giant fool, or a time-traveler, had you tried to tell me by 2024 Intel would be de-listed from the Dow and talk of taxpayer bailout…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So let me get this straight; Intel fails and the American government drops the ball, therefore Western Capitalism itself is indicted and China should be free to start a war and send Taiwanese people to reeducation camps? It sounds like that's what you're saying. Here's a tip; part of that "Western Capitalism" thing is governments sensibly not binding themselves to extreme libertarianism and being willing to protect s…
I was going to take this response seriously and write a thought-out retort, but… > Here’s a tip; You’re not looking for discourse so much as to have someone agree with your anxiety about a perceived potential conflict and its stakes, and I am not going to be that person to you, sorry. I made my statements and I stand by them. If you’re extrapolating to the extremes to justify your point of view, then I hate to break…
My point is that "western capitalism" isn't an ideological suicide pact. Letting important things fail because you want the system bound to some rigid of rules isn't an acceptable option. Rules exist to serve people, not the other way around.
And that's assuming that the government protecting a strategic industry from their own blunders is even breaking the rules. It isn't. It's one of the characteristic behaviors of "western capitalism". We're not talking about "Ayn Rand's capitalism", nor "Capitalism as Stego thinks it should work".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I don’t think our government has the competence.
Intel clearly doesn't have the competence.
This is little different than the time Boeing got caught doing illegal corporate espionage against Lockheed, but possessed a launch capability that the American government needed. Boeing wasn't allowed to fail as some here probably think they should have; instead their launch business was merged into Lockheed's, forming ULA, to ensure that both could continue.