Trump - Clown Genius

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Dragline »

@Campitor -- the government doesn't actually need your money. It can print its own, which it does quite regularly. And gets away with it because of the demand elsewhere in the world for that money. This is another fundamental difference between a government and a business.

This is also why you will not be able to limit the power of the government by reducing taxes. Federal tax rates went down substantially during the 80s, for instance, while government power expanded. Same thing happened in the 2000s with a new government agency, Homeland Security, and a new war AND tax cuts. In a fiat money system where the US holds the reserve currency, there is little or no causal connection between government power and taxes. Note, the same is not true for your local government, but really only because it can't print its own money.

Governments more resemble churches, educational institutions and other non-profits than they do businesses. But with largely unlimited coffers (at the federal level).

And yes, the politicians don't answer so much to the voters, because they have a very short attention spans, at least the ones that are likely to change their minds from election to election. They answer to their donor bases mostly, and their various industry or association lobbying organizations. And gerrymander most voting issues away whenever possible.

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Campitor »

@ Dragline

Printing "extra" money would be one of those things that I think should be limited. Our debt is already 104.7% of our GDP.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Chad »

Campitor wrote:
Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:11 am
I'm a fiscal conservative and when I say I want government needs to run like a business, I'm not talking about its political hierarchical structure but how it manages OUR money.
I'm only talking partly about hierarchy. I'm also suggesting that a lot of what they do, as demonstrated in the Lewis article is not the nice tidy and focused problems 98% of businesses work on. This makes running it "like a business" very difficult or not even the right model.

I'm also suggesting that the larger the human organization the better the story is on "terrible" inefficiencies, as the larger the organization the larger the numbers in any inefficiency. However, this doesn't mean it's wildly inefficient just that the larger the organization the larger the numbers and the government is way bigger than the next largest business.

This also ties into the fact that humans are terrible at evaluating massive numbers, size, etc. https://the-sieve.com/2013/11/06/human- ... e-numbers/

I'm not suggesting there aren't inefficiencies that need to be addressed (managers need to be better trained and better instructed on how to fire people). There are and always will be inefficiencies given the size of the organization and the types of problems it tries to solve. It's just not the continuous giant dumpster fire it is always described to be.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by IlliniDave »

Dragline wrote:
Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:18 pm
... the government doesn't actually need your money.
I wish they'd let me keep more of it then. :lol: Of course in the minds of some it's all the government's money anyway and any residual a person gets to keep after taxes is just a government subsidy.

Riffing on that idea, the government will just keep growing no matter what, ultimately requiring more wealth than the nation can provide to feed itself at which point it will just print money until it destroys the nations' wealth (and ultimately itself). The only thing we can possibly do is delay the inevitable slightly by allowing them to seize more private wealth in the short-term.

If I keep hanging around here I'll wind up a prepper yet! ;)

subgard
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by subgard »

Chad wrote:
Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:10 am
It's just not the continuous giant dumpster fire it is always described to be.
This is a big cause of our current problem. For the most part, the US government is quite efficient and effective. "It doesn't work anyway, so we might as well elect a crazy person to tear it all down and start over" is one of the most terrifying memes in our society today.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Dragline »

IlliniDave wrote:
Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:49 am
Dragline wrote:
Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:18 pm
... the government doesn't actually need your money.
Riffing on that idea, the government will just keep growing no matter what, ultimately requiring more wealth than the nation can provide to feed itself at which point it will just print money until it destroys the nations' wealth (and ultimately itself).
Yup, but we'll all be dead by then. And our grandchildren will probably be dead, too. Rome wasn't built in a day and did not collapse in a century, although it devalued its currency for hundreds of years. Other problems caught up with it first -- mostly the bane of all empires, which is too much military might for the economy to support.

The same thing befell Britain more recently, but the country did not disappear. It just took a reeeeally long time to pay off that debt and paid it in a fiat currency instead of the hard one it was issued in: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/uk-fina ... war-i.html

Don't be surprised if the US does not start issuing 100 year notes at some point to finance its wars.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by jennypenny »

I'd hate to be the person in charge of ordering business cards in this white house.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Riggerjack »

It's just not the continuous giant dumpster fire it is always described to be.
Citation needed.
For the most part, the US government is quite efficient and effective.
Either we are using different definitions, or you need to back up that statement.
I'm also suggesting that the larger the human organization the better the story is on "terrible" inefficiencies, as the larger the organization the larger the numbers in any inefficiency. However, this doesn't mean it's wildly inefficient just that the larger the organization the larger the numbers and the government is way bigger than the next largest business.
This is a good start for describing the problem, scale. Beyond this, look at the individual incentives. The larger the scale, the less individual incentives will align with the organization's goals. And the bigger the organization, the less capable it is in realigning incentives to goals. This applies to all human organizations, from churches to business to government. centralization only improves the center, by removing feedback and giving a more direct line of command. Look to the military to see this in action.
The world has changed. It's running up against hard limits on a number of resources. The current economic model is undercutting most people's financial stability, all while technology is making those people irrelevant. 'The market' isn't going to fix up the environment or reinvent standardized schooling or replace outdated infrastructure or develop cohesive plans for dealing with regional or global crises (public health, natural disasters, environmental, etc). The problems are too big now for piecemeal solutions even by those with the best intentions -- the government is going to have to step into the breach.

While I am sure that is a comforting idea, it seems like it would be hard to match to the real world. Please, give me an example of this stepping into the breach, that worked for the people who occupied said breach.

Don't get me and my libertarian tendencies wrong. I do believe that good people are in these organizations, trying to make good things happen. But I also believe they are as good at it as Dilbert is at making great software.

The purpose of organizations is always the organization, with superficial effort going to a display of purpose.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Riggerjack »

Something needs to change. We are operating a 21st century country on a 19th century premise. A lot of what the government does is extremely complicated and very gray, which means it's difficult to identify the goal/win/achievement. This is why I hate it when people say it needs to be run more like a business. What 98% of businesses do is basic arithmetic compared to these government projects. The Fortune 500 companies I have worked for have well defined goals and they are still varying degrees of messy, so it's no surprise the government with bigger, more difficult, and sometimes less defined goals is too. Then throw in Congress screwing with how organizations function naturally (e.g., The NIH director only controls some of the specific health institutes under NIH. Institutes such as Cancer get their funding directly from Congress, thus no control by the director. Makes it hard to steer the ship.). It's just humans being humans.
If this is correct, maybe combining nearly unlimited funds and poorly defined goals could be recognized as a problem by a rational, neutral observer, rather than a messy solution.

The thing is, I want science to be funded. I want cancer to be researched, I want roads to be maintained, I even want people on welfare to have food and shelter. And I don't mind paying for it.

What I object to, is oversight of oversight. The HR costs of having an HR department dedicated to the needs of the HR department. Continuing with a project that is directly contradictory to the other projects currently running, because it is both funded and approved. All of this is the reality of government today.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by IlliniDave »

Riggerjack wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:28 pm
The purpose of organizations is always the organization, with superficial effort going to a display of purpose.
Yep, at a certain point the organization will begin to function like an organism, and when the organizations charter becomes a source of stress for the organism, the organism's response is predictable.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Chad »

Riggerjack wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:28 pm
It's just not the continuous giant dumpster fire it is always described to be.
Citation needed.
We both know I could list all the positives and it wouldn't satisfy you. :) There are negatives too. I don't argue against that.
Riggerjack wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:28 pm
I'm also suggesting that the larger the human organization the better the story is on "terrible" inefficiencies, as the larger the organization the larger the numbers in any inefficiency. However, this doesn't mean it's wildly inefficient just that the larger the organization the larger the numbers and the government is way bigger than the next largest business.
This is a good start for describing the problem, scale. Beyond this, look at the individual incentives. The larger the scale, the less individual incentives will align with the organization's goals. And the bigger the organization, the less capable it is in realigning incentives to goals. This applies to all human organizations, from churches to business to government. centralization only improves the center, by removing feedback and giving a more direct line of command. Look to the military to see this in action.
Yes, scale. It does create problems, but not having organizations of proper scale also creates other problems in a country this size.

I'm not sure scale has a lot to do with aligning an individual's goals with the organization. It's easier to identify people in a larger organization that don't have the same goals as the organization, but that's just because 100 people in a very large organization stick out more to people thousands of miles away than 2 people from a small organization.

And, again, it's the scaling up of numbers/measurements that throughs humans for a loop. Finding out a large organization has 400 people doing some inefficient task seems like a lot until you take the size of an organization into account. All I'm suggesting is the big numbers screw with our heads and the mistakes/inefficiencies seem way worse than what they are. This doesn't mean the mistakes/inefficiencies aren't bad and shouldn't be identified and solved if possible. Though, this will never be 100%, which always seems to be the benchmark those that say, "government needs to be run like a business" use and then imply is occurring in business.

Where I will agree is that large organizations have a tougher time changing, redefining goals, etc. just because of their size.
Riggerjack wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:24 pm
Something needs to change. We are operating a 21st century country on a 19th century premise. A lot of what the government does is extremely complicated and very gray, which means it's difficult to identify the goal/win/achievement. This is why I hate it when people say it needs to be run more like a business. What 98% of businesses do is basic arithmetic compared to these government projects. The Fortune 500 companies I have worked for have well defined goals and they are still varying degrees of messy, so it's no surprise the government with bigger, more difficult, and sometimes less defined goals is too. Then throw in Congress screwing with how organizations function naturally (e.g., The NIH director only controls some of the specific health institutes under NIH. Institutes such as Cancer get their funding directly from Congress, thus no control by the director. Makes it hard to steer the ship.). It's just humans being humans.
If this is correct, maybe combining nearly unlimited funds and poorly defined goals could be recognized as a problem by a rational, neutral observer, rather than a messy solution.

The thing is, I want science to be funded. I want cancer to be researched, I want roads to be maintained, I even want people on welfare to have food and shelter. And I don't mind paying for it.
I'm suggesting the poorly defined goals aren't usually due to ineptitude or malfeasance, but because the problem itself has no hard 100% solution. Many of the problems the government is trying to solve are squishy. They aren't like making 500,000 tons of steel, where each part of the process can be defined and measured.
Riggerjack wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:24 pm
What I object to, is oversight of oversight. The HR costs of having an HR department dedicated to the needs of the HR department. Continuing with a project that is directly contradictory to the other projects currently running, because it is both funded and approved. All of this is the reality of government today.
I'm sure this happens, but what would be the cost to stop 90% of this? Would it be more than just letting it play out?

And, how much of this is really going on? $2B? $5B? $20B? $50B? If even if it's $50B that's still only 1.25% of total government expenditures.

My argument isn't that we shouldn't try to limit this, just that it's not the end of civilization like so many make it out to be.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by jennypenny »

As crazy as the hiring/firing of Scaramucci was, it sounds like Kelly is having a positive effect on the WH. They're behaving like they've had a substitute teacher for six months and now they finally have a real teacher.

I don't like Scaramucci, but he'd get my vote for worst week ever this week (hired, divorced, humiliated, fired).

McCain's healthcare vote was mostly about giving Trump a final and very public middle finger before being forced to retire. Some are speculating that if McCain's prognosis is bad, he might feel free to speak out more against Trump. I wonder if Trump would have trouble responding in kind since he'd look like he was bullying a dying war hero. If Kelly is in charge of the twitter feed you won't see any anti-McCain tweets.

It's concerning that, with Priebus gone, there isn't a direct connection to the republican party. "Pence doesn't count" is what was communicated to me. I heard more bad stuff about him that I can't repeat. Suffice it to say that he's competent, well-spoken, polite with everyone, and respectful of the press pool ... and they all still dislike him. I was on the Pence-for-Prez bandwagon but I'm definitely off it now. I'd rather see them rein in Trump enough for people to do their jobs.

The military may not follow the transgender order. While trivial in the scheme of military concerns at the moment, it would be a political crisis for the military to intentionally not follow the orders of the commander in chief.


News from the democratic side this week ...

Apparently Kushner keeps meticulous notes and copies his staff on everything. Once the names of all the attendees of the Don Jr Russian meeting were made known and a timeline was established, the Dems on the investigating committee realized that those same names had popped up in the investigation of Fusion, Awan, and DWS. Suddenly everything is behind closed doors. The talk is that 'it's dirty all around' and won't work to anyone's advantage to make it all public. Most expect Awan to roll and DWS will be forced to fall on her sword.

I questioned why the Dems were still putting Schumer and Pelosi out there as the face of the party. I thought their best chance was to put out more likable representatives like Harris, Booker, and others. I was told that the Dems are purposely sending the old guard out to quell some of the more emotional rhetoric and put on a more distinguished face. They are nervous that they've been waving the resistance banner too much, and the fear is that they might incite too many fringe groups and the movement will end up taking over the party. They don't want to end up with their own Trump-like candidate in 2020 who speaks mainly to the 'resist' base. That makes sense. I guess the picture of someone like Chelsea Handler on stage at a debate wearing a pink pussy hat has scared them straight.

There's a lot of infighting over Perez's about-face on giving pro-life democratic candidates financial support. Most of the public reaction has been negative. What I don't think many of the people complaining realize is that a big part of the reason he changed his mind was because of a recent Pew poll on abortion. Most only read the headline that showed an uptick in support for abortion. What people seemed to miss was the breakdown by race. Note the hispanic breakdown ...

Image

That's making some in the democratic party nervous, especially with their intention to run on amnesty/immigration issues next cycle.


That's enough for now. I'm not sure how many of you are even interested in this stuff.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Dragline »

"Palace Intrigue" indeed. Like an even stranger version of House of Cards.

But it does look like the tweet-storm has hit a lull. I wonder how long that will last. There is a certain sense of exhaustion after the week of the Mooch.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by jennypenny »

I've never seen House of Cards but so many people have referenced it I might have to watch an episode or two.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Riggerjack »

The military may not follow the transgender order. While trivial in the scheme of military concerns at the moment, it would be a political crisis for the military to intentionally not follow the orders of the commander in chief.
I don't listen to news anymore. But was there an order? I heard there was a tweet. I realize the media doesn't know or care about the difference, but you can bet you ass the military does.

There was a bit of resistance from the military over don't ask, don't tell, and that was a real order. Still it took 10 months from the order to the last briefing of my short career. I don't like Clinton, but give him his due, he was a solidly competent politician. He worked, and got it done. I see no such effort coming out of the current white House.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by BRUTE »

too bad they never made more than 2 seasons of HoC.

Hispanics are catholic. who would've thought they dislike abortion.

brute finds jennypenny's analysis of the theater very intriguing and interesting.

in other news, John McCain has the exact type of brain tumor that the Ketogenic Diet is reported to help with/heal - glioblastoma. example study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874558

since brute doesn't care super much for John McCain and has 0% chance of reaching him, mentioning it here is about as much action as he will take on this. maybe jennypenny has her ways and would prefer McCain to stick around a bit longer ;)

George the original one
Posts: 5404
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by George the original one »

jennypenny wrote:
Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:26 pm
As crazy as the hiring/firing of Scaramucci was
Not crazy if it got the desired results of shaking up the staff, making the people you were saddled with go away of their own volition. My feeling is that it went exactly as Trump expected it to go.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by jennypenny »

@RJ--They are definitely drafting the order ('he wants to sign something'). DoD is subtly communicating that they won't follow it in an attempt to get the administration to back off. I can't see Trump backing down without good reason (meaning getting something in return). Maybe he'll end up trading it for a concession on the new military budget, but who knows. I've given up trying to predict what he'll do.

@brute--Catholics are pretty evenly split on most issues including unrestricted access to abortion and political affiliation. They skewed towards Trump and W a little more, but favored Obama in both of those elections. Hispanic Catholics vote more democratic, in line with the tendency to live in more urban areas, but adopt a more typical US Catholic view once established. (meaning that hispanics who enter the ranks of the middle and upper middle class and have the money to donate to political parties tend to lean more republican than the hispanic catholic population at large -- always a consideration in politics)
Last edited by jennypenny on Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Campitor »

This doesn't mean the mistakes/inefficiencies aren't bad and shouldn't be identified and solved if possible. Though, this will never be 100%, which always seems to be the benchmark those that say, "government needs to be run like a business" use and then imply is occurring in business.
@ Chad

This is one of the counter arguments I often hear when I promote my view of limited government. But let me state for the record that I 100% agree with you. Any enterprise, regardless if its government or private business, will be run inefficiently because humans run them; we are imperfect hence our institutions are imperfect. But a private business has to contend with the inherent competition of the free market which forces them to be as efficient as humanly possible and to correct their business model when their products/services aren't desired. Government has no competition therefore its allowed to act like the bull in the china shop if it so desires. So in my opinion the only means of forcing a government to act responsibly is to limit its money and not letting it borrow or print its way out of bad behavior.

And if we both agree that nothing can ever be 100% or that problems are "squishy" then why aren't we setting limits on what the government can possibly solve? If US government is spending 1.3 Trillion on social services that provides for the general welfare of 86.5% of its population how much more should it spend to try and wipe out the last 13.5% in poverty? 1 billion? 5 billion? 500 billion? We spend 500 billion on National Defense - how much more should we spend to make us 1% more safe? Or can we agree that we will never be 100% safe and forego any increase in defense spending trying to eliminate every enemy that may crawl out from under a rock?

And the Lewis article - it was a super interesting read. But it left me shaking my head in disgust. If the DoE is so important and vital, why did DoE employees "wait" for Trump people to show up and why isn't it mandatory for every President elect or his representatives to meet with them? Every incoming POTUS should have requirements in regards to briefings with the departments they will oversee - if they don't meet then he/she can't be sworn in (amendment needed) or their cabinet's budgets aren't approved. More Government stupidity - a private business running like this would be bankrupt by the end of their fiscal year.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by IlliniDave »

jennypenny wrote:
Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:04 pm
I've never seen House of Cards but so many people have referenced it I might have to watch an episode or two.
I pretty much got hooked right away and "political drama" is pretty far down my list genre favorites. They manage to reflect some of the dynamics/issues of current politics without any heavy-handed taking of one side over the other (i.e., red vs blue). If you like conspiracy and intrigue, you'd probably like it.

Locked