Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Kyle Aaron]

If for no other reason, the sheer cost effectiveness of civilian space versus government bureacracy space.

Private enterprise is not inherently more efficient than public. When an organisation is old enough, it becomes bloated, bureaucratic and inefficient. We see this with many large companies, it takes a huge effort by leaders to avoid this fate.

The only difference is that in private enterprise, incompetent bureaucratic organisations can simply collapse under the weight of their own inefficiency - or the corruption people engage in to get around it. Enron and so on are good examples of this. Some of course will be deemed Too Big To Fail, which is why Lockheed-Martin and their ilk plod along uselessly decades after they should have die. But in principle all, and in practise at least some bloated bureaucratic companies can and do simply collapse, and their members and assets can go on to more productive uses.

But government departments are never allowed to die. They're like a terminal cancer patient who's brain dead and whose family will never, ever pull the plug. All you can do is trim the tumours from time to time like hedges.

If NASA becomes an FAA, then in 20 years SpaceX will be just as slow, overpriced and useless as most US defence companies are today. That steady flow of government money will cause them to expand from the top and put in diversity managers and all that nonsense.

[Ghostmaker]

Private enterprise is not inherently more efficient than public. When an organisation is old enough, it becomes bloated, bureaucratic and inefficient. We see this with many large companies, it takes a huge effort by leaders to avoid this fate.

The only difference is that in private enterprise, incompetent bureaucratic organisations can simply collapse under the weight of their own inefficiency - or the corruption people engage in to get around it. Enron and so on are good examples of this. Some of course will be deemed Too Big To Fail, which is why Lockheed-Martin and their ilk plod along uselessly decades after they should have die. But in principle all, and in practise at least some bloated bureaucratic companies can and do simply collapse, and their members and assets can go on to more productive uses.

But government departments are never allowed to die. They're like a terminal cancer patient who's brain dead and whose family will never, ever pull the plug. All you can do is trim the tumours from time to time like hedges.

If NASA becomes an FAA, then in 20 years SpaceX will be just as slow, overpriced and useless as most US defence companies are today. That steady flow of government money will cause them to expand from the top and put in diversity managers and all that nonsense.

The best solution might be to establish a private certification board, something like Underwriters' Laboratories, for spacecraft and spaceflight.

Unfortunately, the chances of that are pretty damn slim.

[Mistwell]

Trying to get mistwell to engage in intellectual honesty is like trying to nail jello to a wall. He will keep moving goalposts and telling bold faced lies until your common sense tells you to give up and then he will declare victory.

Jeff, can you show me where Biden promised to scrap NASA if elected?

It's the same goalpost. Same exact words used since my first post about it. Not one step away from it. Still waiting.

[Mistwell]

Cute. NONE of that shows Biden promised to scrap NASA if elected.

It's a super simple thing. Find a QUOTE FROM BIDEN where he says the word PROMISE or something directly comparable to that word or a commitment along the lines of a promise, where he says he will SCRAP NASA or something directly comparable to that word.

Expressing a desire to change NASAs priorities is not a promise to scrap NASA. For example, Trump expressed a desire to change the priorities of the EPA if elected, and this was not him promising to scrap the EPA. An anti-Trump might lie and act like him wanting to change the priorities is the same as him wanting to scrap it, but that would be bullshit we'd all understood. Just like we all understand what you just tried to do was lie

Need help moving those goalposts around, Misty?

'Change priorities'. Wow, way to undersell 'we're pivoting away from actual space exploration and going to prop up diversity hiring and the climate change grift'.

But hey, it won't be scrapped. It'll be a pathetic shell of its former self, housing the usual woke bullshit, but it won't go away!

Are you fucking high?

ONE goalpost was set by Spinachcat. He said Biden promised to sack NASA if he won. That's it. That's the one single goal post. NOTHING in your links shows he promised to sack NASA if he won. YOU are trying to move the goal post away from what he set. SHOW ME THE PROMISE.

You can't. Because he lied. And now you're lying. Why though? Why compound his lie with your own?

No, but you seem to be. You're arguing semantics when both Spinach and I are pointing out how NASA has been hollowed out and might as well be dead.

Iowahawk's axiom still holds true about leftards:
1) Identify a respected institution.
2) Kill it.
3) Gut it.
4) Wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

Tell me, does it ever cross your tiny pea-brain to ask why SpaceX keeps launching (and occasionally failing, but that's rocket science for you) while NASA doesn't do shit?

I doubt it. You probably cheer on NASA's lurch into idpol idiocy.

It's not semantics you fucking liar because we all know what the words promise and scrap mean and there is no dispute about the finer nuances of what it means to make a promise or to scrap something. There was no promise about NASA to begin with, and he never threatened to scrap NASA no matter how you spin the word "scrap".

If he didn't promise to scrap it, then why did douchenozzle make the claim? If he meant "Biden won't support NASA as much as Trump did" then why did he say he made a promise (which he didn't) to scrap it (which he didn't)?

The rest of your bullshit about SpaceX is a total distraction which has nothing to do with Biden or his promise to scrap anything. You're trying to shift the topic to 'What does NASA do now' so we don't talk about the FACT that Biden did not promise to scrap NASA if elected.

Face it. He lied and hoped nobody would call him on it. You guys are circling the wagons like some SJW circle jerk because a member of your tribe was caught lying and God forbid he be held accountable for it. Can't have personal responsibility if they're a member of your tribe, right? Personal responsibility for the bullshit you say online is only for people outside the tribe, right?

[Ghostmaker]

Cute. NONE of that shows Biden promised to scrap NASA if elected.

It's a super simple thing. Find a QUOTE FROM BIDEN where he says the word PROMISE or something directly comparable to that word or a commitment along the lines of a promise, where he says he will SCRAP NASA or something directly comparable to that word.

Expressing a desire to change NASAs priorities is not a promise to scrap NASA. For example, Trump expressed a desire to change the priorities of the EPA if elected, and this was not him promising to scrap the EPA. An anti-Trump might lie and act like him wanting to change the priorities is the same as him wanting to scrap it, but that would be bullshit we'd all understood. Just like we all understand what you just tried to do was lie

Need help moving those goalposts around, Misty?

'Change priorities'. Wow, way to undersell 'we're pivoting away from actual space exploration and going to prop up diversity hiring and the climate change grift'.

But hey, it won't be scrapped. It'll be a pathetic shell of its former self, housing the usual woke bullshit, but it won't go away!

Are you fucking high?

ONE goalpost was set by Spinachcat. He said Biden promised to sack NASA if he won. That's it. That's the one single goal post. NOTHING in your links shows he promised to sack NASA if he won. YOU are trying to move the goal post away from what he set. SHOW ME THE PROMISE.

You can't. Because he lied. And now you're lying. Why though? Why compound his lie with your own?

No, but you seem to be. You're arguing semantics when both Spinach and I are pointing out how NASA has been hollowed out and might as well be dead.

Iowahawk's axiom still holds true about leftards:
1) Identify a respected institution.
2) Kill it.
3) Gut it.
4) Wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

Tell me, does it ever cross your tiny pea-brain to ask why SpaceX keeps launching (and occasionally failing, but that's rocket science for you) while NASA doesn't do shit?

I doubt it. You probably cheer on NASA's lurch into idpol idiocy.

It's not semantics you fucking liar because we all know what the words promise and scrap mean and there is no dispute about the finer nuances of what it means to make a promise or to scrap something. There was no promise about NASA to begin with, and he never threatened to scrap NASA no matter how you spin the word "scrap".

If he didn't promise to scrap it, then why did douchenozzle make the claim? If he meant "Biden won't support NASA as much as Trump did" then why did he say he made a promise (which he didn't) to scrap it (which he didn't)?

The rest of your bullshit about SpaceX is a total distraction which has nothing to do with Biden or his promise to scrap anything. You're trying to shift the topic to 'What does NASA do now' so we don't talk about the FACT that Biden did not promise to scrap NASA if elected.

Face it. He lied and hoped nobody would call him on it. You guys are circling the wagons like some SJW circle jerk because a member of your tribe was caught lying and God forbid he be held accountable for it. Can't have personal responsibility if they're a member of your tribe, right? Personal responsibility for the bullshit you say online is only for people outside the tribe, right?

I bet your hands were shaking in tiny tard rage as you wrote this, Misty. Boy, it must be hard when people point out your flaws.

There is no reason for NASA to be involved in 'Muslim outreach'. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. The only reason to implement such imbecilic 'duhversity' systems is to infect and cannibalize the organization until it is nothing more than a shell of its former self.

Bitching about how 'oh well that's not scrapping' is pointless semantics, and you know it, because I can't imagine a reason otherwise for you to plant your flag on this hill. If this status quo persists, NASA will no longer exist as a force for space exploration and development. It'll limp along for a while, continuing its mission of 'duhversity' until some bean counter with more sense than you puts it out of its misery.

So why don't you just get back to slobbering Biden's knob like a good little bitch? It's all you're good at.

[Spike]

Private enterprise is not inherently more efficient than public.

That is an interesting thesis statement you have there. I wonder how you are planning to back that up?

The only difference is that in private enterprise, incompetent bureaucratic organisations can simply collapse under the weight of their own inefficiency - or the corruption people engage in to get around it. Enron and so on are good examples of this. Some of course will be deemed Too Big To Fail, which is why Lockheed-Martin and their ilk plod along uselessly decades after they should have die. But in principle all, and in practise at least some bloated bureaucratic companies can and do simply collapse, and their members and assets can go on to more productive uses.

I see. You intend to DISPROVE your own thesis statement. Bold Move, Cotton.

But government departments are never allowed to die.

So. In summary, Private Enterprise is not more efficient than Government, because both Private Enterprise and Government can become bloated, beaurocratic messes unable to find their own asses with the help of six billion dollar ass-finding tools, except that bloated, inefficient beaurocratic private enterprises can and do die off and are replaced with efficient, cost effective and competent new businesses, while Government just trundles on forever?

With a side corollary that sometimes Government keeps the bloated inefficient incompetent private enterprises on well past their funerals, thus... what?  Private Enterprise Bad, Government Good?

[Ghostmaker]

Private enterprise is not inherently more efficient than public.

That is an interesting thesis statement you have there. I wonder how you are planning to back that up?

The only difference is that in private enterprise, incompetent bureaucratic organisations can simply collapse under the weight of their own inefficiency - or the corruption people engage in to get around it. Enron and so on are good examples of this. Some of course will be deemed Too Big To Fail, which is why Lockheed-Martin and their ilk plod along uselessly decades after they should have die. But in principle all, and in practise at least some bloated bureaucratic companies can and do simply collapse, and their members and assets can go on to more productive uses.

I see. You intend to DISPROVE your own thesis statement. Bold Move, Cotton.

But government departments are never allowed to die.

So. In summary, Private Enterprise is not more efficient than Government, because both Private Enterprise and Government can become bloated, beaurocratic messes unable to find their own asses with the help of six billion dollar ass-finding tools, except that bloated, inefficient beaurocratic private enterprises can and do die off and are replaced with efficient, cost effective and competent new businesses, while Government just trundles on forever?

With a side corollary that sometimes Government keeps the bloated inefficient incompetent private enterprises on well past their funerals, thus... what?  Private Enterprise Bad, Government Good?

Yeah, I have NO idea where he was going with that. The whole 'too big to fail' problem is rightfully flagged as an aberration of the free market and a result of interference, not a feature.

Central planning in general is just not good at handling market shifts. This is why decentralization works.

[Pat]

Private enterprise is not inherently more efficient than public.

That is an interesting thesis statement you have there. I wonder how you are planning to back that up?

Yeah, I have NO idea where he was going with that. The whole 'too big to fail' problem is rightfully flagged as an aberration of the free market and a result of interference, not a feature.

I raised my eyebrows at that intro as well, but Kyle Aaron builds logically from that introductory statement to the rest of the post, which you both correctly interpreted, and support. So I don't see why you have a problem with the lede, because in situ it's clearly just emphasizing the primary difference between a public organization and a private company is creative destruction. I.e. it's not the structure or nature of companies that leads to better outcomes, but their environment. Specifically, it's the competitive pressures, and a method to winnow out the failures.

I do still have one objection to the statement, but it's relatively minor: A private company also has an advantage in calculation and thus prediction. A market provides costs, and those can be used to calculate cost-benefit ratios and otherwise determine the most efficient use of resources. A government organization is insulated from this by political demands and public funding, which often leads to quixotic choices like hiring standards designed to favor certain interest groups, and perverse incentives, most particularly the tendency for failure to lead to an increase in funding. But that is a corollary point.

[shuddemell]

Private enterprise is not inherently more efficient than public.

That is an interesting thesis statement you have there. I wonder how you are planning to back that up?

Yeah, I have NO idea where he was going with that. The whole 'too big to fail' problem is rightfully flagged as an aberration of the free market and a result of interference, not a feature.

I raised my eyebrows at that intro as well, but Kyle Aaron builds logically from that introductory statement to the rest of the post, which you both correctly interpreted, and support. So I don't see why you have a problem with the lede, because in situ it's clearly just emphasizing the primary difference between a public organization and a private company is creative destruction. I.e. it's not the structure or nature of companies that leads to better outcomes, but their environment. Specifically, it's the competitive pressures, and a method to winnow out the failures.

I do still have one objection to the statement, but it's relatively minor: A private company also has an advantage in calculation and thus prediction. A market provides costs, and those can be used to calculate cost-benefit ratios and otherwise determine the most efficient use of resources. A government organization is insulated from this by political demands and public funding, which often leads to quixotic choices like hiring standards designed to favor certain interest groups, and perverse incentives, most particularly the tendency for failure to lead to an increase in funding. But that is a corollary point.

In particular, you have hit on why government has worse outcomes that private sector efforts. It's not an "inherent" difference in efficiency, it's a lack of negative consequences in governmental institutions for failure. Typically, they increase in size when they fail, and very rarely do poor performers get fired from government institutions for gross incompetence. Whereas private institutions are usually directed either by a board, shareholders or owners that demand profit and therefore some basic levels of competence. The consequences are usually loss of of revenue, loss of jobs, and in some cases complete failure of the company. This is where crony capitalism has bypassed these consequences in some industries (auto manufacturing and banking being prime examples) and made such outcomes similar to governmental outcomes, almost all of which stems from governmental regulations and bailouts.

[Pat]

This is where crony capitalism has bypassed these consequences in some industries (auto manufacturing and banking being prime examples) and made such outcomes similar to governmental outcomes, almost all of which stems from governmental regulations and bailouts.

Not some industries. All. We live in a heavily regulated world, and regulatory agencies and boards are always captured by the industries they represent. There's a difference in degree, yes, but it's a truism across all industries that regulations tend to favor the large, established companies and create barriers to new entrants. And that's not even considering the implicit bias when regulators look forward to a cushy job as a lobbyist or advisor in one of the companies they regulated, upon retirement. Or the bias inherent in special interests -- the companies in an industry have a vested interest in the things that affect their industry, so they'll spend money and work for years and decades to influence things in their direction. By contrast, legislators, regulators in general, and the public at large tend to focus on a few proud nails or egregious examples, and thus lose the long game of influence via incremental changes.

Crony capitalism is an inevitable result of heavy, obscure, and ever-changing laws and regulations, where the regulators, legislators and judges have a great deal of discretion when making the rules and rulings. The best way to minimize it is to reduce the number of rules, but even more importantly to make the rules transparent, stable, and have them consistently enforced. If the rules are clearly understood, the consequences are reliably enforced, and government officials can't make decisions that subtly favor one side or the other, then regulatory capture becomes much less of a competitive advantage, and companies will tend to focus on competing with each other instead of lobbying for favors.

[Kyle Aaron]

it's not the structure or nature of companies that leads to better outcomes, but their environment. Specifically, it's the competitive pressures, and a method to winnow out the failures.

Well-paraphrased, thankyou.

A private company also has an advantage in calculation and thus prediction. A market provides costs, and those can be used to calculate cost-benefit ratios and otherwise determine the most efficient use of resources. A government organization is insulated from this by political demands and public funding, which often leads to quixotic choices like hiring standards designed to favor certain interest groups, and perverse incentives, most particularly the tendency for failure to lead to an increase in funding. But that is a corollary point.

It's a fair point. In principle government organisations can adopt similar ideas, in practice they tend not to, or it's some bizarre perversion of it mostly designed just to sack people some manager dislikes.

But in general, large groups of people who work together every day will adopt similar behaviours, and certin behaviours will appear given enough time and organisational size, thus the observations in Parkinson's Laws, such as work expanding to fill the available time, and the law of triviality which states that the less important a decision, the more time and argument will be spent over it, and so on.

In particular, you have hit on why government has worse outcomes that private sector efforts. It's not an "inherent" difference in efficiency, it's a lack of negative consequences in governmental institutions for failure.

Yes. And this has applications for child-rearing, education - and roleplaying games. If you never allow people to fail, they can't get better. So in roleplaying games, you must ask whether you want a passive experience like watching a movie, or an active participatory experience like playing a game of tennis, where you expect to be challenged (not overwhelmed, but challenged) and gradually strive to improve your play.

[dkabq]

And back to the COVID.

Looks like those of us in the Land of Enchantment will be locked down well into 2021:
https://www.krqe.com/health/coronavirus-new-mexico/mayor-keller-officials-to-provide-update-on-citys-response-to-covid-19/

And another douche-nozzle lectures the hoi polloi on following COVID restrictions and then breaks them. He should have invited Gavin Newsome, Lori Lightfoot, and Neil Ferguson to party with him.
https://summit.news/2020/11/25/doctor-who-demanded-mandatory-mask-law-pictured-partying-maskless-on-boat-surrounded-by-bikini-clad-women/

[consolcwby]

Covid-19's threat, currently, is as real as this: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/time_travel/project_lookingglass.htm
(Notice, I'm NOT saying it's fake...)

[shuddemell]

This is where crony capitalism has bypassed these consequences in some industries (auto manufacturing and banking being prime examples) and made such outcomes similar to governmental outcomes, almost all of which stems from governmental regulations and bailouts.

Not some industries. All. We live in a heavily regulated world, and regulatory agencies and boards are always captured by the industries they represent. There's a difference in degree, yes, but it's a truism across all industries that regulations tend to favor the large, established companies and create barriers to new entrants. And that's not even considering the implicit bias when regulators look forward to a cushy job as a lobbyist or advisor in one of the companies they regulated, upon retirement. Or the bias inherent in special interests -- the companies in an industry have a vested interest in the things that affect their industry, so they'll spend money and work for years and decades to influence things in their direction. By contrast, legislators, regulators in general, and the public at large tend to focus on a few proud nails or egregious examples, and thus lose the long game of influence via incremental changes.

Crony capitalism is an inevitable result of heavy, obscure, and ever-changing laws and regulations, where the regulators, legislators and judges have a great deal of discretion when making the rules and rulings. The best way to minimize it is to reduce the number of rules, but even more importantly to make the rules transparent, stable, and have them consistently enforced. If the rules are clearly understood, the consequences are reliably enforced, and government officials can't make decisions that subtly favor one side or the other, then regulatory capture becomes much less of a competitive advantage, and companies will tend to focus on competing with each other instead of lobbying for favors.

Yeah, I didn't want to be hyperbolic in case I missed an industry not overly burdened by regulations, but honestly I couldn't think of one. Otherwise, well put.

[shuddemell]

it's not the structure or nature of companies that leads to better outcomes, but their environment. Specifically, it's the competitive pressures, and a method to winnow out the failures.

Well-paraphrased, thankyou.

A private company also has an advantage in calculation and thus prediction. A market provides costs, and those can be used to calculate cost-benefit ratios and otherwise determine the most efficient use of resources. A government organization is insulated from this by political demands and public funding, which often leads to quixotic choices like hiring standards designed to favor certain interest groups, and perverse incentives, most particularly the tendency for failure to lead to an increase in funding. But that is a corollary point.

It's a fair point. In principle government organisations can adopt similar ideas, in practice they tend not to, or it's some bizarre perversion of it mostly designed just to sack people some manager dislikes.

But in general, large groups of people who work together every day will adopt similar behaviours, and certin behaviours will appear given enough time and organisational size, thus the observations in Parkinson's Laws, such as work expanding to fill the available time, and the law of triviality which states that the less important a decision, the more time and argument will be spent over it, and so on.

In particular, you have hit on why government has worse outcomes that private sector efforts. It's not an "inherent" difference in efficiency, it's a lack of negative consequences in governmental institutions for failure.

Yes. And this has applications for child-rearing, education - and roleplaying games. If you never allow people to fail, they can't get better. So in roleplaying games, you must ask whether you want a passive experience like watching a movie, or an active participatory experience like playing a game of tennis, where you expect to be challenged (not overwhelmed, but challenged) and gradually strive to improve your play.

Absolutely, I would even submit, lack of consequences from helicopter parenting and the notion that everyone gets a trophy is a particularly toxic manifestation of this problem, and it is woefully obvious in a large portion of those subjected to such nonsense. Growth almost always stems from adversity, not the avoidance of it.