Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (12671)	5/10/2002 4:54:30 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

Productivity is enhanced when it takes less to get more. The more favorable ratio can either go to expanding production, or to investing saved resources elsewhere. The idea is not efficiency for its own sake, but for the sake of shareholders and consumers. If government becomes more productive, we get more and better services for the same or less revenue. Thus, productivity is a key element in social well- being. Productivity is increased by adding to mechanization, improving training, streamlining procedures, enhancing work incentives, and/or eliminating dead wood through disciplinary action. Rules which discourage "best practice" or the application of technology are generally wrong- headed......

To: Solon who wrote (12671)	5/10/2002 5:01:06 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Karen...it is the LAW. They have to be translated by LAW. For you to call them unproductive because they do not break either man-made or natural laws is simply ludicrous. Solon, that's exactly the point. It's the law. The law is part of the system that makes agencies unproductive. I keep trying to make the point that stupid laws aren't the bureaucrats' fault. They don't diminish the bureaucrats who have to implement them. I know from personal experience the effort that goes into disabusing the stupid system of some of its idiocy. I'm not putting down bureaucrats. I'm saying that there is a lot built into the system that is inherently unproductive. Making employees translate when everyone understands the language being spoken is a law that breeds inefficiency. The legislators may have passed that law with full understanding of how inefficient that would be and accepted the cost as necessary. Or they may be a bunch of bozos. Either way, the process is inefficient, albeit, perhaps, necessary. Let me give you one fairly minor anecdote from my collection. I say "minor" because the waste was measurable in millions rather than billions. A certain Honorable Member from Bay City, Michigan, wanted some pork so he had EPA build a facility there. Of course, the facility had to have a function so he opted to put there the supercomputer that was already budgeted and headed for North Carolina, where EPA's big computers and expertise are. He also insisted on moving the ship that EPA keeps on the Great Lakes from its central location to Bay City, where of course they had to build a dock and dredge, etc. That was maybe ten years ago. The Honorable Member is gone, the computer has since been moved to NC where it belonged, and the ship is back, as well. Perhaps Bay City is using the facility for Boy Scout meetings. I don't have a clue. Of course, all this money was squandered during a period of budget cuts... You have a lot to say about how inefficient your government agency was. Let me assure you that there are many private industries which run with incredible inefficiency as well. I'm not saying that private industries are not inefficient. I'm only saying that there are a number of factors in government administration that are unique to government and that are inherently inefficient. I've worked for four Federal agencies. I've been party to creating two new agencies (small ones, but Congress in its wisdom determined that these puny functions needed to be separate agencies), to moving a bureau from one department to another, and to elevating an agency to cabinet level, not to mention bunches of major internal reorganizations. Now, the Administration is talking about a cabinet level agency for homeland security and splitting the INS into two agencies. I just roll my eyes. Reorganization is the surest way I know of to wipe out productivity, and probably effectiveness, for years to come. As for the role of OMB, that has varied over time. It's one of those things that sounds much better in law than in practice. Trust me. Program evaluations are not what that process is about.