Brexit Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I generally agree, Seamus, but why do you sound like bureaucracy is purely a government thing? I get the impression that corporations introduce quite a bit of bureaucracy of their own, perhaps as well because they become really hard to control beyond a certain size if things aren't kept track of and so on. Plus of course the idea that everything that can be measured can also be improved and more. Why wouldn't a country need a bureaucracy for similar reasons? Sure, I agree that it can go too far, but I still think that is partially due to the nature of many people that tries to exploit everything. And while a corporation can fire those types if needed (or hire them as lawyers or accountants ), a country cannot just throw them out and needs to counter with more laws and bureaucracy. Of course life would be easier if we all inherently stuck to the same rules and behaviors.

As for drinking water, several lab tests here in Germany have shown that our tap water contains fewer germs than many of the high-priced bottled waters, I would therefore apply the old principle of "never change a running system". I see no reason to privatise if the current system is so well-regulated that it works just fine and isn't overly expensive. The idea has come up here as well, but I'm very strongly against it.

In a regulated but mostly open market, an overly bureaucratized organization will be weeded out when it cannot respond quickly enough to change or crisis or cost overheads prevent profitability. Thus the private sector (which does indeed need bureaucracy just as much as the public sector) is more self correcting.

Example: Executives at my wife's company have to be a VP to get an admin person. Directors share admins at 1 admin per 4. Project managers and lower are expected to handle their own paperwork. Why? Because they will not be competitive in bidding for work if their overhead costs are too high.


NOT so, the pubic sector, hence my emphasis. The public sector has a "limitless" pool of funding for added bureaucracy [via taxation and or deficit spending] and thus has little competitive incentive to prune back. Moreover, organizational politics favors MORE positions, rules, and people to write them as individuals in the bureaucracy make logical [in their specific context] moves to enhance their power base and position by controlling more staff, funding, etc. Do not mistake me, the public sector is needed and must regulate the market to some extent....but it tends to overdo this task, not provide the minimum necessary.

Example: The US Dept. of Agriculture. 1900 8,000 employees regulating/serving 5.74 million farms with 843.75 million acres of farmland.
1955 85,500 employees regulating/serving 5.1 million farms with 1.052 billion acres of farmland.
NOW 105,778 employees regulating/serving 2.19 million farms with 952.65 million acres of farmland.
60% of their budget is the food stamps assistance program, which started after 1955.



As to the water, I tend to agree with you. Take note of this.

[Idaho]

In a regulated but mostly open market, an overly bureaucratized organization will be weeded out when it cannot respond quickly enough to change or crisis or cost overheads prevent profitability. Thus the private sector (which does indeed need bureaucracy just as much as the public sector) is more self correcting.

Example: Executives at my wife's company have to be a VP to get an admin person. Directors share admins at 1 admin per 4. Project managers and lower are expected to handle their own paperwork. Why? Because they will not be competitive in bidding for work if their overhead costs are too high.


NOT so, the pubic sector, hence my emphasis. The public sector has a "limitless" pool of funding for added bureaucracy [via taxation and or deficit spending] and thus has little competitive incentive to prune back. Moreover, organizational politics favors MORE positions, rules, and people to write them as individuals in the bureaucracy make logical [in their specific context] moves to enhance their power base and position by controlling more staff, funding, etc. Do not mistake me, the public sector is needed and must regulate the market to some extent....but it tends to overdo this task, not provide the minimum necessary.

Example: The US Dept. of Agriculture. 1900 8,000 employees regulating/serving 5.74 million farms with 843.75 million acres of farmland.
1955 85,500 employees regulating/serving 5.1 million farms with 1.052 billion acres of farmland.
NOW 105,778 employees regulating/serving 2.19 million farms with 952.65 million acres of farmland.
60% of their budget is the food stamps assistance program, which started after 1955.



As to the water, I tend to agree with you. Take note of this.

This is based on a fantasy version of the world, and selective perception of what government does. The budget has increased because it does more. There is more complexity, and more awareness of that complexity (in agriculture there is more disease management, regulation of markets, research, environmental concern, technology, etc).

Secondly, the private sector pisses away money on dead ends and pointless projects. The idea that the private sector is more efficient is nonsense. The very fact that private sector makes money is a sign of excess. They have more cash to throw around because they are systematically encouraged to overcharge. Having an excess is their raison detre. Public sector may be just as useless, but they have an imperative to deliver something not just profit.

[Idaho]

Directors share admins at 1 admin per 4. Project managers and lower are expected to handle their own paperwork. Why? Because they will not be competitive in bidding for work if their overhead costs are too high.

You are getting confused between motivation and justification.
The motivation for cost cutting is greater profit. The justification is pricing pressure.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is based on a fantasy version of the world, and selective perception of what government does. The budget has increased because it does more. There is more complexity, and more awareness of that complexity (in agriculture there is more disease management, regulation of markets, research, environmental concern, technology, etc).

Secondly, the private sector pisses away money on dead ends and pointless projects. The idea that the private sector is more efficient is nonsense. The very fact that private sector makes money is a sign of excess. They have more cash to throw around because they are systematically encouraged to overcharge. Having an excess is their raison detre. Public sector may be just as useless, but they have an imperative to deliver something not just profit.

The fantasy line is neither accurate nor polite. Why don't you tone down your commentary with me, please. To my recollection, I have never tossed any rudeness (even implicitly) your way even when disagreeing with you.

My USDA example does reflect the fact that much more complexity (and better science) went into farming, especially after the dust bowl caught everyone's attention. Yet the drop in the number of farms is not simply a product of individual farmers being more productive per person and per acre (they are) but of the growth of corporate agriculture. So a goodly portion of those services designed to cope with a more complex understanding of agriculture is being used to advance the corporations you seem to detest so thoroughly and it is not in service of "the little farmer."

Profit, and the market, DO have quite a lot of inefficiencies in practice. The "invisible hand" is as haphazard as any other human endeavor -- including government. Governments may not have to meet the earnings expectations of stockholders, but the other drags on their efficiency are every bit as problematic and -- to my experience -- more so. I would concur that most government control and regulation efforts are not intending to squeeze more from their customers, but too much of government (at least in the USA, I cannot claim to know yours equally well) is horribly inefficient and ends up costing the public as much or more for a given service than most private ventures.

On the other hand, some issues simply cannot be met effectively by the private sector (infrastructure issues for one; defense against aggression for another) and government is required to regulate the private sector at least to the level of minimizing fraud and keeping the air and water clean -- because some issues are too important and enough private sector folk are unethical so as to mandate the need for regulation.

I am neither unaware of, nor happy with, the weaknesses of a regulated but largely decentralized capitalist system. I am simply not trusting of government enough -- at least as it is currently constituted -- to see a small cadre of "experts" as the solution. That path also has too many pitfalls.

How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?

[Brenus]

"How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?" Err, millennia? Not that long in Europe (few century ago in fact) market was not the benchmarking, but honour.
At your death bed, you had to give your fortune, your earthly possessions as you had to prepare to face God as you came, naked...
During millennia in fact, civilisations bloomed without the market economy. I explained it on the line market economy is a political construction, where the ones who possess protected their property/powers (through laws, force and propaganda) against the ones who have none.

[Fragony]

It's looking good http://www.politico.eu/article/round...es-early-test/

[Pannonian]

It's looking good http://www.politico.eu/article/round...es-early-test/

It's remarkable how Dutchland is the best source for optimism over Brexit.

[Fragony]

It's remarkable how Dutchland is the best source for optimism over Brexit.

Of course, the Dutch are merchants at heart. A lot dutchies want out as well and really like it that England is doing fine, makes a nexit closer. Fellow dutchie Krazilec or TA will probably really disagree with me, and in a much better argumented manner. But the results don't lie. Results are neglectable. Not without any pain as so far, saying that would be cruel, but it looks promising.

Can I still move to the UK if I was right all the time?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?" Err, millennia? Not that long in Europe (few century ago in fact) market was not the benchmarking, but honour.
At your death bed, you had to give your fortune, your earthly possessions as you had to prepare to face God as you came, naked...
During millennia in fact, civilisations bloomed without the market economy. I explained it on the line market economy is a political construction, where the ones who possess protected their property/powers (through laws, force and propaganda) against the ones who have none.

No.

Not correct, not even a little bit.

Greece and Rome basically ran on Capitalism and the entire medieval period was a debate over capitalism.

That's why in English today when you get a loan the bank is lending you capital - because Thomas Aquinas determined that whilst loans were usury (a mortal sin) lending capital was not.

[Montmorency]

Greece and Rome basically ran on Capitalism

Mercantilism isn't equivalent to capitalism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Mercantilism isn't equivalent to capitalism.

Rome, at least, ran on Capitalism.

[edyzmedieval]

It grew by more than expected because of the sudden drop in the pound post-Brexit that really helped.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Mercantilism isn't equivalent to capitalism.

I labeled it "markets/capitalism" precisely for a reason. I wanted it to be understood that I was referring to the divers forms of market exchange (capitalism, mercantilism, barter, etc.) that rely on negotiation (implicit or explicit) and the individual protecting their own value in the exchange. I was not trying to quibble over which form was in ascendance at which point in history. I was contrasting it with efforts at directed or controlled economies.

There are always points of time where some expert or cadre of experts believes that they can direct/control things better than the controlled chaos of the marketplace in order to promote the greater good. Such efforts have always fallen short, even if they enjoyed short term success, and we revert back to some form of markets/capitalist exchange.