Re: The opposing scale of regulation and efficienc
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandie
Goodness, quite the broad brush there.
I'm old enough to have lived in the America without the government being so big and intrusive, I happend to like it....Sarah Palin or no Sarah Palin.
2 flush toilets
mercury light bulbs
detergent that doesn't clean.
Re: The opposing scale of regulation and efficienc
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
It seems to me the government is put down when it doesn't have enough regulation to prevent some wrong (for example regulations on spending government money at a friends company instead of at walmart even if walmart is just a little cheaper) from taking place. However, right after it adds such regulation then it is complained that the government is inefficient.
I think that the more we try to place regulations on the government or government programs to prevent wrong then the less efficient those programs will be.
However, I think there is a "sweet spot" such that if we regulate to a certain degree and not past that degree that the government and government programs will be fairly unlikely to do something wrong and still fairly efficient.
Just something to think about.
The sweet spot is this...
The realization that further centralization of government demands, without fail, further inefficiency.
The control should be on local and state levels with much less oversight by the federal government. MUCH... MUCH... MUCH of the federal government needs to be abolished.
We need to see the incredible shrinking government.
Re: The opposing scale of regulation and efficienc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialite
I'm convinced the majority of people who call themselves conservatives, are just knee-jerk, sound-byte reactors to anything that sounds disagreeable to their bumper stickers. In that way, there's not much a difference in terms of how they understand, articulate and talk through political issues as the green-haired, hippie liberal.
You say something about government, and regardless of WHAT you've said, they already have their response cued up: "WE HATE THE GOVERNMENT. LESS GOVERNMENT. SMALLER GOVERNMENT." Sounds like a Sarah Palin interview after while :0
You really wouldn't like what libertarians have to say then.
But... as a libertarian/constitutionalist I recognize your right to not like it.
Re: The opposing scale of regulation and efficienc
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandie
Maybe I did. Can you put it a different way?
Sure. The government is criticized when there is some impropriety in one of its programs. However, once the government starts tightening regulations on such programs to avoid future improprieties then we all complain about that government program being inefficient and slow due to buaracractic red tape. Thus those two things, regulation and efficiency oppose each other and if we increase one then we will generally decrease the other.
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
Re: The opposing scale of regulation and efficienc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digging4Truth
The sweet spot is this...
The realization that further centralization of government demands, without fail, further inefficiency.
The control should be on local and state levels with much less oversight by the federal government. MUCH... MUCH... MUCH of the federal government needs to be abolished.
We need to see the incredible shrinking government.
Centralization of government is inefficient? To some degree that is true, but a more centralized government has more access to information and can thus utilize that information to better implement solutions to problems than not as centralized government could. So it's not as clear cut as libertarians try to say.
It's much like artificial intelligence. Sometimes things are better off centralized and other times they are not. It really depends on the cost of communication and error checking going on between each level. It also depends on the amount of redundancy you desire. Less centralization will usually mean it's harder to address problems as they arise and harder to implement and find more efficient complex solutions to problems instead of the simpler solutions that lack of centralization often produces.
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
Re: The opposing scale of regulation and efficienc
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
Centralization of government is inefficient? To some degree that is true, but a more centralized government has more access to information and can thus utilize that information to better implement solutions to problems than not as centralized government could. So it's not as clear cut as libertarians try to say.
It's much like artificial intelligence. Sometimes things are better off centralized and other times they are not. It really depends on the cost of communication and error checking going on between each level. It also depends on the amount of redundancy you desire. Less centralization will usually mean it's harder to address problems as they arise and harder to implement and find more efficient complex solutions to problems instead of the simpler solutions that lack of centralization often produces.
Centralized gubment is limited by the constitution. It is limited for good reason. The Marxists want to control the people.
You can't tell me the gubment can educate the kid in a class or heal a sick baby. Central control says the Doc and the teacher can't do their work without central planning.
I'm not sure how this applies though.
Linear Mode
