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.
-
@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.
-
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 Sadly, in the US we currently have government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.
Apologies to Abraham Lincoln.
-
@DejahEntendu @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft The governments (all of them) goal is to protect the wealthy from the poor.
@cybervegan @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
Yes, that is what they are currently *doing*. That is not what we signed up for. (I will agree you can read that in the US's founding docs.)
-
@graydon @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
But all the rich people get richer, so there you have it.
@johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft Which reduces neatly to "nice things or rich people, pick one".
It's not so much that you get what you reward as you get whatever manages to make the most of itself. (Sometimes by copying, sometimes by growing.) And our current system replicates greed.
-
@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.
@johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft What I'm saying might reduce to "don't call that efficiency, we need another word". ("Effectiveness")
Because efficiency-the-word is pretty strictly the cost-efficiency zero-margin meaning and fighting with the mammonites for it is a lot more work than I think we have to do.
Jane Jacob's guardian and trader syndromes ("what can I get for this?" versus "what's the most I can turn this into?") come to mind here.
-
@cybervegan @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
Yes, that is what they are currently *doing*. That is not what we signed up for. (I will agree you can read that in the US's founding docs.)
@DejahEntendu @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft What a system does is what it is for.
-
@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.
This is because, desired output is different for different people, and the costs accrue to different people.
In a government by the people—democracy—the government is supposed to arrive at a negotiated compromise between all parties. An almost impossible task in a complex system.
In government by the rich and powerful, such as in a large corporation or an oligarchy, it's a much simpler task, maximize wealth and power for the few.
-
@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".
That's what the Faust legend is about.
Selling your soul to the devil, for Earthly power and wealth.
-
@DejahEntendu @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft What a system does is what it is for.
Not a useful aphorism because it trivializes the important question "is it fit for purpose?"
With that definition, the answer is always "yes".
Better (more useful) to ask "Whose purpose?"
Cicero said Lucius Cassius was famous for asking "cui bono?"—who benefits?.
-
@DejahEntendu @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft What a system does is what it is for.
@cybervegan @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
What a system does it what it was subverted to do. -
@DejahEntendu @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft What a system does is what it is for.
@cybervegan @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
What a system does is what it was subverted to do by those with the power to subvert. That's what checks and balances are intended to stop. Which is why allowing gerrymandering, for instance, is evil. It is using the power of a ruling party to subvert the voice of the people.
-
@cybervegan @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
What a system does it what it was subverted to do.@DejahEntendu @cybervegan @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
No. The engineering principle of POSIWID (purpose of a system is what it does) is intended to help people understand that "reform" of a system is impossible. A system can either be used or removed, but it cannot be "reformed".
If you "reform" a system to the point where it has a different outcome entirely, you're simply replacing the system with another whose purpose is...the new outcome.
-
@DejahEntendu @cybervegan @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
No. The engineering principle of POSIWID (purpose of a system is what it does) is intended to help people understand that "reform" of a system is impossible. A system can either be used or removed, but it cannot be "reformed".
If you "reform" a system to the point where it has a different outcome entirely, you're simply replacing the system with another whose purpose is...the new outcome.
@johnzajac @cybervegan @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
Engineering is not politics. The principle applies to a certain degree insofar as sometimes tearing it down and starting over is the only option to repair/reform. But, in poliotics, new laws are a reformation. Unless, of course, you're using reform as to make again and not as improve. -
@johnzajac @cybervegan @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
Engineering is not politics. The principle applies to a certain degree insofar as sometimes tearing it down and starting over is the only option to repair/reform. But, in poliotics, new laws are a reformation. Unless, of course, you're using reform as to make again and not as improve.Exactly.
The US government does different things from before Trump. Largely because it's purpose has changed.
POSIWID is useful in pointing out that it's purpose is not as written in the constitution, but the purpose for the people in power, and for other groups of people, can be understood separately and its actual function analysed in terms of its effectiveness in fulfilling those purposes.
@johnzajac @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft -
Exactly.
The US government does different things from before Trump. Largely because it's purpose has changed.
POSIWID is useful in pointing out that it's purpose is not as written in the constitution, but the purpose for the people in power, and for other groups of people, can be understood separately and its actual function analysed in terms of its effectiveness in fulfilling those purposes.
@johnzajac @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
It may be that what we call "reform" today - e.g. "shuffling around the deck chairs to try and confuse people into thinking something's changed - and what we called "reform" in previous eras of US government are substantially different things.
In this era, esp u40s are (rightly) skeptical of anyone who claims to be a "reformer".
But the implosion/surborning of language has been one of the great betrayals of the modern age, so...
-
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
It may be that what we call "reform" today - e.g. "shuffling around the deck chairs to try and confuse people into thinking something's changed - and what we called "reform" in previous eras of US government are substantially different things.
In this era, esp u40s are (rightly) skeptical of anyone who claims to be a "reformer".
But the implosion/surborning of language has been one of the great betrayals of the modern age, so...
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
While I'm not a fan of exporting industry terms to the public sphere ("don't make perfect the enemy of good" being a stellar example of how dangerous it can be) I do think the concept behind POSIWID is extremely *useful* in an unjust political environment that is both systems-heavy and systems-deferential.
When someone says, for example, that "our incarceration system is broken", it ignores the historical and practical *purpose*...
-
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
While I'm not a fan of exporting industry terms to the public sphere ("don't make perfect the enemy of good" being a stellar example of how dangerous it can be) I do think the concept behind POSIWID is extremely *useful* in an unjust political environment that is both systems-heavy and systems-deferential.
When someone says, for example, that "our incarceration system is broken", it ignores the historical and practical *purpose*...
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
...of that system: to recreate an environment in which slavery can be re-instituted without resistance from most white Americans. After all, the 14th Amendment was really clear that if you wanna, you can enslave prisoners (lol lmao).
Californians in 2024, of all people and times, are like "we're curious about this enslaving prisoners thing, and would like to keep it open as an option".
