Efficiency in government is a lie told by people who want government to serve the smallest number of (rich) people possible and no one else.
-
Efficiency is a ratio between undesired inputs (costs) and desired outputs.
You don't want to have to buy fuel but you do want to get somewhere quickly.
Same with government.
But what is the desired outcome? Is it a healthy, housed, well-nourished, educated, safe, happy population doing satisfying, useful work?
If so, you don't improve efficiency by cutting costs unless you at least maintain all those things.
Since we're nowhere near meeting those criteria, the best way to become more efficient may include having *more* government workers, if their work is useful and satisfying.
So, efficiency itself - as an outcome of good process - is not a bad thing. Obviously! Waste, especially in a warming world, is to be avoided.
It's efficiency as a primary *goal* - a particularly deranged symptom of capitalist, neoliberal ideology - that leads to the kind of collapsed services, enshittified businesses and hollowed out society we see today.
-
Efficiency in government is a lie told by people who want government to serve the smallest number of (rich) people possible and no one else.
You cannot have efficient government because eventually service efficiency always boils down to a triage process: who have you decided is hopeless/undeserving and therefore not worth serving?
But any government that does that is fascist and illegitimate. Government serves *all* the people, or it is radioactive poisonous garbage.
@johnzajac 100%. And in practice efficiency is measured by one or both of service reduction (corner cutting) and profit extraction.
-
So, efficiency itself - as an outcome of good process - is not a bad thing. Obviously! Waste, especially in a warming world, is to be avoided.
It's efficiency as a primary *goal* - a particularly deranged symptom of capitalist, neoliberal ideology - that leads to the kind of collapsed services, enshittified businesses and hollowed out society we see today.
@johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
Because in business, efficiency per se is used to refer to lowest cost without regard to actually creating a good product. The goal is to create a minimally acceptable product to create profit for shareholders.
But that's not the goal in government, despite the current/regressive fad. Many of us (people on Earth) have forgotten that the government's goal is to protect its citizens. From each other, penury, exploitation, external aggression, all that.
-
Efficiency in government is a lie told by people who want government to serve the smallest number of (rich) people possible and no one else.
You cannot have efficient government because eventually service efficiency always boils down to a triage process: who have you decided is hopeless/undeserving and therefore not worth serving?
But any government that does that is fascist and illegitimate. Government serves *all* the people, or it is radioactive poisonous garbage.
@johnzajac Efficiency can be good, but all too often it's a cover for an unsavory strategy.
Efficiency that's worth doing is exactly the stuff that local councils were invented for: a way to invest in central resource and specialization, to do the best job for the most people, on a service-focused not-for-profit basis.
Its also worth automating repetitive stuff, so people can do more.
But "the free market makes it cost-effective" is a lobbyist lie.
-
Efficiency in government is a lie told by people who want government to serve the smallest number of (rich) people possible and no one else.
You cannot have efficient government because eventually service efficiency always boils down to a triage process: who have you decided is hopeless/undeserving and therefore not worth serving?
But any government that does that is fascist and illegitimate. Government serves *all* the people, or it is radioactive poisonous garbage.
@johnzajac @anandamide desiring efficiency in capitalism results in someone getting poorer. Two companies, largely running the same business and competing for the same market merge to create "efficiencies" results in customers being screwed, and employees being deemed to be surplus.
Efficiency is undesirable at almost any macro level.
-
@johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
Because in business, efficiency per se is used to refer to lowest cost without regard to actually creating a good product. The goal is to create a minimally acceptable product to create profit for shareholders.
But that's not the goal in government, despite the current/regressive fad. Many of us (people on Earth) have forgotten that the government's goal is to protect its citizens. From each other, penury, exploitation, external aggression, all that.
@DejahEntendu @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft The governments (all of them) goal is to protect the wealthy from the poor.
-
@johnzajac Efficiency can be good, but all too often it's a cover for an unsavory strategy.
Efficiency that's worth doing is exactly the stuff that local councils were invented for: a way to invest in central resource and specialization, to do the best job for the most people, on a service-focused not-for-profit basis.
Its also worth automating repetitive stuff, so people can do more.
But "the free market makes it cost-effective" is a lobbyist lie.
Efficiency is not something you "do"; it's an outcome of *how* you do something.
Efficiency as a goal in and of itself is aberrant and nonsensical outside of the particularly deranged logical errors of our current industrial era.
-
Efficiency in government is a lie told by people who want government to serve the smallest number of (rich) people possible and no one else.
You cannot have efficient government because eventually service efficiency always boils down to a triage process: who have you decided is hopeless/undeserving and therefore not worth serving?
But any government that does that is fascist and illegitimate. Government serves *all* the people, or it is radioactive poisonous garbage.
@johnzajac
The most efficient hospital has one bed as you can guarantee 100% occupancy but its fuck all use to nearly every one else on the planet who requires that level of treatment. -
So, efficiency itself - as an outcome of good process - is not a bad thing. Obviously! Waste, especially in a warming world, is to be avoided.
It's efficiency as a primary *goal* - a particularly deranged symptom of capitalist, neoliberal ideology - that leads to the kind of collapsed services, enshittified businesses and hollowed out society we see today.
@johnzajac Cost efficiency is a bad thing.
Cost efficiency is why we're in this mess, on the whole and by and large.
('cost efficiency' = I want the largest possible pile of accounting tokens because that maximizes my relative advantage)
Gotta watch out for efficiency of outcomes, too; lots of people's preferred outcomes really do include consigning their neighbors to perdition.
Better to specify outcomes and reward effectiveness overtly, not implicitly.
-
@johnzajac Cost efficiency is a bad thing.
Cost efficiency is why we're in this mess, on the whole and by and large.
('cost efficiency' = I want the largest possible pile of accounting tokens because that maximizes my relative advantage)
Gotta watch out for efficiency of outcomes, too; lots of people's preferred outcomes really do include consigning their neighbors to perdition.
Better to specify outcomes and reward effectiveness overtly, not implicitly.
@graydon @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
"Specify outcomes and reward effectiveness" is precisely what I mean when I say efficiency as an additional benefit of good process is a good thing.
Cost efficiency and outcome (what I call service) efficiency are an example of designing for efficiency rather than for outcome or effectiveness.
TBH, it reminds me of when I used to consult with startups and I would ask "why this product?" and the founders would say "because we want to be billionaires".
-
@johnzajac
The most efficient hospital has one bed as you can guarantee 100% occupancy but its fuck all use to nearly every one else on the planet who requires that level of treatment.Which is why, of course, most Western hospitals ran out of ICU beds and ventilators in April 2020 and Jan 2022: cost and service efficiency fallacies that were pursued contra mission requirements.
-
@graydon @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
"Specify outcomes and reward effectiveness" is precisely what I mean when I say efficiency as an additional benefit of good process is a good thing.
Cost efficiency and outcome (what I call service) efficiency are an example of designing for efficiency rather than for outcome or effectiveness.
TBH, it reminds me of when I used to consult with startups and I would ask "why this product?" and the founders would say "because we want to be billionaires".
@johnzajac "because we want to be billionaires" is exactly the problem, yeah. Which can only really be addressed by making being a billionaire impossible.
The problem with keeping "efficiency is good sometimes" around is that it's precisely the wedge that got used (from the formal process of enclosure forward, and which I could wish more people were aware of, because what is being called enshitification is digital enclosure) to get us here.
-
So, efficiency itself - as an outcome of good process - is not a bad thing. Obviously! Waste, especially in a warming world, is to be avoided.
It's efficiency as a primary *goal* - a particularly deranged symptom of capitalist, neoliberal ideology - that leads to the kind of collapsed services, enshittified businesses and hollowed out society we see today.
@johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
"efficiency" is a euphemism for unemploying workers. there is no way for an "efficient" government to be pro-labour.
-
Which is why, of course, most Western hospitals ran out of ICU beds and ventilators in April 2020 and Jan 2022: cost and service efficiency fallacies that were pursued contra mission requirements.
@johnzajac
And of course capitalism pushes inefficiency when there is big bucks to be made.
Look at the typical car, one of the biggest purchase/rentals anyone can make. Sits doing nothing all night, travels a distance most weekdays sits for 8 hours and then performs the return journey. Add in a few shopping trips here and there but it is idle most of the time.
However it is sold as an convenience and an efficiency because alternatives may not exist due to deliberate industry propaganda. -
Efficiency in government is a lie told by people who want government to serve the smallest number of (rich) people possible and no one else.
You cannot have efficient government because eventually service efficiency always boils down to a triage process: who have you decided is hopeless/undeserving and therefore not worth serving?
But any government that does that is fascist and illegitimate. Government serves *all* the people, or it is radioactive poisonous garbage.
@johnzajac @cstross Related to this, the phrase “good enough for government work” really ᴏᴜɢʜᴛ to mean “completed to a very high standard of quality” and the fact that it doesn’t mean that is an indicator of how successful the toxic propaganda has been.
-
@johnzajac "because we want to be billionaires" is exactly the problem, yeah. Which can only really be addressed by making being a billionaire impossible.
The problem with keeping "efficiency is good sometimes" around is that it's precisely the wedge that got used (from the formal process of enclosure forward, and which I could wish more people were aware of, because what is being called enshitification is digital enclosure) to get us here.
@graydon @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
I'm not saying "efficiency is good sometimes", I'm saying "efficiency as an outgrowth of good process and appropriate use of resources is desireable", which seems like a small distinction but is a huge difference, practically.
In a service provider example, resultant efficiency gains can lead to better service to more people (in the instance of resource crunches) and help critical infra *avoid* triage situations.
-
@graydon @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
I'm not saying "efficiency is good sometimes", I'm saying "efficiency as an outgrowth of good process and appropriate use of resources is desireable", which seems like a small distinction but is a huge difference, practically.
In a service provider example, resultant efficiency gains can lead to better service to more people (in the instance of resource crunches) and help critical infra *avoid* triage situations.
@graydon @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
But, the only way to "design" for this kind of efficiency is to design processes that have adequate resources (both material and human) applied to them and that have parts that can operate orthogonally.
So, really the *opposite* of "designing for efficiency", which is why systems designed for efficiency don't have resource buffers and often fail catastrophically when stressed, leading to extraordinary costs and obliterated efficiency "gains".
️ -
@graydon @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
But, the only way to "design" for this kind of efficiency is to design processes that have adequate resources (both material and human) applied to them and that have parts that can operate orthogonally.
So, really the *opposite* of "designing for efficiency", which is why systems designed for efficiency don't have resource buffers and often fail catastrophically when stressed, leading to extraordinary costs and obliterated efficiency "gains".
️@graydon @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
But all the rich people get richer, so there you have it.
-
@johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
"efficiency" is a euphemism for unemploying workers. there is no way for an "efficient" government to be pro-labour.
@burnitdown @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
I'd go so far as to say "pro-person".
-
@burnitdown @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
I'd go so far as to say "pro-person".
@johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft sure, but they aren't cutting jobs of politicians, who are also people.
