Sure some big companies are mismanaged, have their own red tape and whatnot, but they actively work at better processes because it's better for their bottom line. The Government doesn't because they don't care, if the process is bad, they have no incentive to fix it.
I don't agree. Of course the corporation as a whole works towards a better bottom line, but the government as a whole works towards 'better' services (I put better in quotes because the definition of better is less well defined). Individual/department/divisional fiefdoms, lazy employees, poor communication, poor decisionmaking, etc. affect both types of organizations. And many, many companies are mismanaged straight into bankruptcy, despite 'actively working at better processes'. barfo
agree, but it does depend on the company. Sure, they can be mis managed or unaccountable and maybe hang around a bit but sooner or later they will with go out of business or sell. Expectations for products and services along with competition should improve performance especially if they are measured objectively. Ive seen companies that centralize operations to save cost but their level of service dropped off to where they lost business.
To me its about having good relationships with customers and earning the right to do business with them.
Hasnt the government mis managed itself way past “bankruptcy”, are theyserving people better now than... they were at some other time!
I don't know that that's true (that the government is the equivalent of bankrupt). Yes, it has lots of debt, but then lots of corporations that are not bankrupt also have lots of debt. Are government services better now than in some past time? Yes, definitely. Maybe not as compared with a couple of years ago, but as compared to 50 or 100 years ago? In terms of customers served and services provided, I'd say definitely. barfo
Which ones? The Police has turned into a gang in many places. The Military over spends all over the place. The government is supposed to be a place that "Serves" it's people and it is certainly not that... I guess you could argue it was never that, but I'm not sure that, that proves the government's working at providing better services for people. I absolutely understand that big business has it's problems as well, but I don't see rapidly evolving processes in the Government as I do in big businesses.
I was talking about the federal government, so mostly the police is out of the scope of what I thought we were talking about. But I agree with your statement. Arguably, that's because that's its mission. I don't agree with that mission, but we don't spend 10 times what anyone else does by accident. Not sure precisely what you mean here, but there are certainly lots of services that the government does provide to people. If you are a farmer and you want to know about crop rotation or hog feed or whatever it is that farmers care about, the government has some information for you. If you are poor and need medical treatment, the government can do something for you. If you are scared of Islamic terrorists, the government is there to protect you (if you are scared of white nationalist terrorists you are shit out of luck). Innovation in government is a issue, certainly. We can definitely do better there. barfo
Fair enough, I'm not a big fan of big business and not a fan of big government, but what I'm really a fan of is both of them working together to screw over everyone.
Oregon has already got the third highest income tax in the country. Adding a sales tax does exactly the opposite of helping needy, it makes them poorer, as they can hardly make it on minimum wage jobs as is, and many of those jobs already have health coverage, now were going to say well were also going to tax people to eat?
I would dis-agree with that. And its not true th There are well tuned large companies that are heads and tails more efficient than The federal government. The Fed has no incentive to be more efficient or well managed. You could ask 100 politicians if the Federal government is better managed than private companies as a whole and many would laugh their rear ends off.
Ok, give me an example or two. And tell me what your measure of efficiency is. And then show me the data that proves your point. Not really accurate. There are many forces for, and many forces against, efficiency. That seems like a weird thing to say. First, since when do you believe politicians? Second, politicians are mostly found in the legislative branch, they aren't in charge of managing. Third, since when are politicians experts on private sector business? barfo
Denny isn't here to provide dissertations anymore, man. I wish I had some of his graphs though right now. The Fed is one of a few things I agreed with him about.
Toyota has been a big proponent into lean manufacturing. Manufacturers, and big businesses have always had to continue to improvise, adapt and improve. I dont have specific numbers and of course the businesses that fail die, but when the government fails to improvise, adapt and improve there really isnt the negative feedback of tomorrow they wont have jobs, or the government will fall apart.
True, but there is different negative feedback when government fucks up. There are often lawsuits. Sometimes the court orders the government to clean up its act. Sometimes people go to jail. There are budget cuts or changes in mission. The press publicizes mistakes and mistake-makers. Agency heads roll. Sometimes politicians get voted out of office (not as often as they should, of course). barfo
