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

Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 273 posts

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#241

Post by barking »

jnty wrote: post #225
barking wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Let me give you an example. Some years ago,the irish police had a grievance, they were paid less pay for holidays than normal working days. This was because when on holiday they were just receiving their normal salary and weren't getting certain other expenses. In other words, these expenses weren't real expenses but a form of tax-free pay. They had been introduced as an under the table pay increase durin…

What's special about individuals who happen to be employed in the public sector or in receipt of welfare payments that makes it OK to intrude on their privacy in this way?

Like jumpcrisscross said. Ideally, where every euro of taxpayers' money goes should be a matter of public record.

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#242

Post by OliverJones »

I love how this article portrays Mr. Ballmer as a wide eyed innocent.

“I mean it’s funny, but I didn’t realize all these not-for-profits were in a sense almost like government contractors.”

Well, yeah. Antipoverty nonprofit agencies run programs like Head Start and handle all sorts of charity operations. Adoption agencies, training programs, and on and on. A key skill for nonprofit comptrollers is knowing how to get governments to cough up the money they're contracted to pay these agencies.

“You know it’s not legal to know how many firearms that are in this country? The government is not allowed to collect the number.”

Mr. Ballmer, are you the LAST person to know that? People interested in stemming urban violence have known that for decades.

Maybe somebody with his clout can make a difference. It's good to have this information gathered up in a useful form. But, enough with the "innocents abroad" narrative!

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#243

Post by jnty »

barking wrote: post #241
jnty wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's special about individuals who happen to be employed in the public sector or in receipt of welfare payments that makes it OK to intrude on their privacy in this way?

Like jumpcrisscross said. Ideally, where every euro of taxpayers' money goes should be a matter of public record.

I doubt that that's what you actually think. For example, I doubt you want me to be able to ask the government how much money was spent on impotence medication for you. There's a trade-off to be made regarding personal privacy. Why do you think that trade-off should be made against certain groups of people?

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#244

Post by CyberDildonics »

movedx wrote: post #161
barking wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The optics are good but it's effectively useless in determining whether money is being spent wisely or not. It only gives a very high level picture. It would need to allow one to go a whole lot deeper for people to be able to work out what is value and what isn't. How does the office of taoiseach spend €182 million per annum, for example? It should be possible to see exactly where the money was spent all the way down…

> It should be possible to see exactly where the money was spent all the way down to an invoice With that level of visibility ("down to an invoice"), it's easy for people to take up pitch forks and begin lambasting teachers, for example, for their spending on computer software, materials for class, and so on. Perhaps a doctor's medical decisions would start being questioned left, right, and centre, yet the people doi…

This is a ridiculous extrapolation. The idea that public spending should not be public on the off chance that someone might be publicly critical of minor expenses seems like a pretty shallow reason to not give public spending more transparency.

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#245

Post by bufbupa »

OliverJones wrote: post #242

I love how this article portrays Mr. Ballmer as a wide eyed innocent. “I mean it’s funny, but I didn’t realize all these not-for-profits were in a sense almost like government contractors.” Well, yeah. Antipoverty nonprofit agencies run programs like Head Start and handle all sorts of charity operations. Adoption agencies, training programs, and on and on. A key skill for nonprofit comptrollers is knowing how to get…

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I think its much more constructive to encourage potentially ignorant individuals to be inquisitive, rather than to reprimand them for not knowing something sooner.

To belittle those individuals who did not have access or exposure to this information seems cynical or high-horsed. Exposing verifiable data is the first step, encouraging people to challenge their belief systems through curiosity and with the assurance that changing their mind (based on that data) is not stupid or reprehensible is the second.

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#246

Post by ksk »

gonvaled wrote: post #150
praneshp wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

O$ is not in dire straits. No point in hating on them if that's the reason.

Without the forces that were pushed against OS for the good part of the 90s, it would have arguably taken over the software world. In that situation, Apple would not have succeeded as a walled garden, as it has. So, although OS-the-product is still going strong, OS-the-movement was effectively stopped on its tracks. Which is a very bad thing, in my opinion.

I'd argue the opposite. That OS-the-product hasn't actually succeeded because it doesn't have a business model that works. I'd guess about 0.000001% of open source projects actually make money (sure, maybe making money is not their goal, but it sure helps spread the word). Where as 100% of proprietary products make money - whether they make enough money is a separate issue ofcource ;)

I don't believe that the FUD from MS actually accomplished anything besides a very minor short term benefit where people didn't touch the GPL for legal reasons. Businesses are smart and they are very capable of figuring out what does and doesn't make money. Heck even Google figured out that being open is bad for business.

OS-the-movement OTOH is going strong. Its cool to have contributed to an open source project. Its cool to have all your work up on github. Its pretty much a gold star on your resume if you have a popular OSS project...

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#247

Post by ridgeguy »

DougWebb wrote: post #228
ridgeguy wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see that it's either. If it were privatized, it would suffer from economic pressure to suppress data that conflicts with its economic incentives. And we don't pay government (i.e., tax ourselves to provide funds) to do this. No money, no results. That's not a failure of government, it's taxpayers deciding not to have the government provide this service.

I don't remember voting for that, or having the opportunity to do so. This isn't a democracy, it's a representative republic. We vote for our representatives, and trust them to make decisions we'd agree with (or at least agree to go along with.) In turn, they appoint and hire people to make the more detailed decisions needed for day-to-day operations. A failure to keep track of the government's books is absolutely a…

I think our main difference turns on private vs. public sector. I don't see a real difference on this issue.

Private sector: Shareholders elect Board of Directors, who hire management. Shareholders don't micromanage management decisions. If management doesn't direct staff to implement a company-wide spending database, the corrective chain traces back to management, then the Board, then the shareholders.

Government: Voters elect Congress and some of the Executive and (some state) Judiciary posts. These elected positions hire staff and tell them to do stuff. Voters don't micromanage government operations. If government doesn't implement a government-wide spending database, the corrective chain traces back to elected positions, then to the voters who elected them.

In both spheres, what gets assigned and measured, gets done. Tasks not assigned and measured don't get done. This is human behavior, pretty much the same in private or public sectors.

Not assigning a specific task may or may not be a failure. If it is a failure, it traces back to the empowered owners (shareholders and voters) in either sector. Ultimately, shareholders have to fix the corporation they own. Ultimately, voters have to fix their country's government. Who else can, in either case?

Regardless, I'm glad Balmer sees this database as a needed resource and is willing to fund its creation.

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#249

Post by JustSomeNobody »

OliverJones wrote: post #242

I love how this article portrays Mr. Ballmer as a wide eyed innocent. “I mean it’s funny, but I didn’t realize all these not-for-profits were in a sense almost like government contractors.” Well, yeah. Antipoverty nonprofit agencies run programs like Head Start and handle all sorts of charity operations. Adoption agencies, training programs, and on and on. A key skill for nonprofit comptrollers is knowing how to get…

I don't know anything about the man, but, maybe he really is that innocent. Maybe he threw himself into his career and that's ALL he focused on.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope his wide-eyed innocence helps others by making this data easily digestible.

Re: Steve Ballmer serves up a data trove about government spending in the US

#250

Post by aaronjgreenberg »

It's funny how well this dovetails with the stereotype of the tech industry.

WIFE: You should help with these philanthropic efforts.

BALLMER: I pay lots of taxes, the government takes care of helping people.

WIFE: That's not true.

BALLMER: Yes it is, and rather than contribute philanthropically, I'll start a start-up to settle this.

Post reply on HN