Shay wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Companies don't think like individuals, they think like groups, and 
>> basic group psychology is that **groups** will do things that, if 
>> given bad direction, will be worse, more vile, less moral or ethical, 
>> and fundamentally less beneficial to anyone "but themselves", than 
>> they would as individuals.
> 
> And what is government but the biggest, richest "group" (mob)?
Hmm. That is sometimes true. However, in principle, governments like 
ours have what corporations don't. In corporations you get one guy 
leading everything, a board that only sees what it wants, and everyone 
below that doesn't get much say on "anything". There are no checks and 
balances, no means to "elect" a new person, unless they lose money, 
etc., and the board gets rid of them (that they did the right thing 
isn't relevant at all, just that they hurt someone's pocket book). There 
is no principles in most businesses that demand they "try" to find the 
right path, not just the most profitable one. This means they are more 
stream lined, and directed at one thing, even if that thing leads to 
something like the near collapse of IBM back when the mainframe market 
failed, or the recent drop in Microsoft's fortunes, and the layoffs from 
it, which resulted from the same short sighted view of trying to "own" 
the market.

In short, Governments are made up of a "lot" of independent groups, all 
trying to get what they want, while businesses tend to all be one 
monolithic group, with a single goal. In the former, if one group drives 
over a cliff, only the people who attached themselves to that goal go 
over with them. With businesses, **everyone** goes over the same cliff. 
Its not much, but its "way" better than basically letting everyone jump 
off cliffs, without trying to prevent it. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:02:19 -0800, Chambers wrote:
> > [2]I think there was even a Red Dwarf episode about this.
> 
> There was, but Red Dwarf isn't exactly intended to be used as a show
> for
> prognostication about what "might have been". ;-)

What, you mean I shouldn't take it seriously? :o

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com



> 
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In corporations you get one guy 
> leading everything, a board that only sees what it wants, and everyone 
> below that doesn't get much say on "anything".

Not really. Of course, it depends on the size of the corporation.

Stockholders elect the Board of Directors, who in turn hire the officers, 
who in turn run the business and make the decisions.

> is no principles in most businesses that demand they "try" to find the 
> right path, not just the most profitable one. 

For for-profit corporations, "profitable" is the "right path", by law.

> In short, Governments are made up of a "lot" of independent groups, all 
> trying to get what they want, while businesses tend to all be one 
> monolithic group, with a single goal. In the former, if one group drives 
> over a cliff, only the people who attached themselves to that goal go 
> over with them. 

I'll disagree. If a government goes over a cliff, they take everyone with 
them. See, for example, Zimbabwe.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:51:29 -0800, Chambers wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:02:19 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>> > [2]I think there was even a Red Dwarf episode about this.
>> 
>> There was, but Red Dwarf isn't exactly intended to be used as a show
>> for
>> prognostication about what "might have been". ;-)
> 
> What, you mean I shouldn't take it seriously? :o

Imagine that! ;-)

FWIW, I think the episode title was "Time Jump" - I haven't looked it up 
but that's what popped into my head.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> In corporations you get one guy leading everything, a board that only 
>> sees what it wants, and everyone below that doesn't get much say on 
>> "anything".
> 
> Not really. Of course, it depends on the size of the corporation.
> 
> Stockholders elect the Board of Directors, who in turn hire the 
> officers, who in turn run the business and make the decisions.
> 
>> is no principles in most businesses that demand they "try" to find the 
>> right path, not just the most profitable one. 
> 
> For for-profit corporations, "profitable" is the "right path", by law.
> 
>> In short, Governments are made up of a "lot" of independent groups, 
>> all trying to get what they want, while businesses tend to all be one 
>> monolithic group, with a single goal. In the former, if one group 
>> drives over a cliff, only the people who attached themselves to that 
>> goal go over with them. 
> 
> I'll disagree. If a government goes over a cliff, they take everyone 
> with them. See, for example, Zimbabwe.
> 
Yes, but, you are using yet another example of a government that "is" 
basically monolithic. Most governments are made up of a small number of 
people in charge, with all the same opinions (or at least consistency in 
them), who, if things go bad, can't recover, because when they go bad it 
undermines "all of them". Its the sort of government that the 
Republicans in the US have been striving for, where nearly everyone in 
every branch is a Republican, all the justices are, the president is, 
and everyone under him is, etc. When everyone agrees, and they are 
wrong, well... the government is pretty much screwed, since there isn't 
anyone around that can say, "Uh... I think I know how to fix this, if 
you will listen 'this time'." Everyone just runs around trying to 
ineffectively put out the fire, by beating it to death with what ever 
idiot idea they started the fire with in the first place.

Governments where everyone has the same vision either work, because its 
a workable vision, or they eventually crash like a plane that lost all 
its engines. Same for companies. And, if someone takes over, who shifts 
that "universal" vision in a bad direction, you go from "it works" to 
"crash and burn" very quickly. You have to have, in stable governments, 
the ability for some people, who where *not* involve with the "current" 
scandal, to step in and fix things. Governments that function like 
businesses, with one single perspective, and all of that perspective 
focused only on themselves, can't recover from scandals, because pretty 
much everyone in them is either complicit with the problem, or isn't 
aware it existed, so has no plan to fix things already in place.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You have to have, in stable governments, 
> the ability for some people, who where *not* involve with the "current" 
> scandal, to step in and fix things. 

Hence the constitution, separation of powers, limited enumerated powers, 
FOIA, etc.  Having a government that ignores *these* things is the problem.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Also, women in France cry when the American Idol winner is announced. I
> wouldn't make too much of that.

http://sorethumbs.keenspot.com/d/20041108.html

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> You have to have, in stable governments, the ability for some people, 
>> who where *not* involve with the "current" scandal, to step in and fix 
>> things. 
> 
> Hence the constitution, separation of powers, limited enumerated powers, 
> FOIA, etc.  Having a government that ignores *these* things is the problem.
> 
True. But, its only "really" a problem if you also have a government 
which, like a company, can appoint someone to the top, or elect them, 
then "keep them there", forever. Imagine if companies had to re-elect 
CEOs ever 4 years, with a limit of 8 for any single leader... Would see 
a very different situation there, even "with" the same identical board 
members. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:

>>  Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic 
>> habit of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions.
> 
> Um when has America ever courted world opinion when there hasn't been 
> something in it for America?

Um why should we?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 27-Jan-09 2:55, John VanSickle wrote:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> 
>>>  Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic 
>>> habit of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions.
>>
>> Um when has America ever courted world opinion when there hasn't been 
>> something in it for America?
> 
> Um why should we?

He might have phrased that like: "when has America ever courted world 
opinion when there hasn't been something in it for America just now?" 
with the obvious answer to your question: "because it would make the 
world safer and that will ultimately pay off to the US as well".

Post a reply to this message