[Polpolion]

However, I really don't see why efficiency, why spending and saving the people's money efficiently can't garner votes. I'd vote for such a government. Would you? At the end of the day, no matter what someone stands for, surely they'd get behind that, measures that make your everyday life easier?

Tell me, how many successful campaigns have been run on the "less efficient" and "wasteful spending" platform?

[Lorric]

I'm not going to dance to your tune on your terms with your cherry picked sentence. Goodbye.

Okay!

Your point and your posting are now meaningless! You have no argument and refuse to engage in rational argumentation! Everyone should ignore you! You'll probably get banned or monkeyed as being white noise!

I'm cool with that. Are you? No? Then answer the question as it was originally posed.

Empty words. You have no power over me. You cannot harm me and you have nothing I desire.

Lorric, if you're making certain claims, it is upon you to substantiate them. You're saying "There must be a better way". We're asking you to define what that better way would look like in practice. Arguing from an idealist perspective can only go so far, you know. Yes, we know the current system has its downsides, but it's the best system humanity has come up with over the past couple millennia.

We're asking you to think about how to implement your ideas because we would like to see you identify the points where your ideas run into problems, and see how you address them.

The E, we have spoken in friendly fashion on this subject. I do not wish to toss aside my response to you for this one thing though. Please address my reply to you in it's entirity, and I will speak on this with you along with the rest.

That's it for me for now anyway. I must sleep.

[The E]

Countries have been going bankrupt for centuries. The wiki may be enough for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_default

Or if you prefer, the source:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13946.pdf

It's a minor point though I suppose. Even if this global recession was unique, the knowledge would be known now, that a change is needed.

Thanks for the correction.

Now on to the overseas contracts, here is the reason this popped into my head:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9656393/David-Cameron-defends-arms-deals-with-Gulf-states.html

David Cameron himself was touring the Middle East pushing that deal. I guess these things are more a partnership between government and business. I think it’s still enough to argue my point. This section near the bottom in particular:

"The defence industry is like any other industry. The Prime Minister has been making the point that we are in a global race.
Other countries will be looking to get these contracts and that is why he is very keen to lend his personal support to try to further the industries of our export companies.”

I suspect you have misread that quote. Governments and countries do not compete economically, not in the same way Burger King and McDonalds compete. Arms contracts are big deals, because they usually equate to massive, long term investments, so governments have a reason to push the deals. Ultimately though, they are not the ones who actually produce and sell the wares.

But maybe there could be a melding of the two ideas, there’s no need for extremes like letting the sick and elderly die off because they’re a drain on profits, which is the kind of counter I’ve heard when someone says “The government should be run like a business”.

You do not seem to realize that governments are highly unprofitable by design. It's their job to invest in things for the common good because corporations cannot do this and turn a profit.

But maybe more like a business, with a more business mindset. Instead of cutting away the “unprofitable” people or squeezing benefits and the like, looking instead to efficiency, either by the government making money, or making it easier for people to make money so there’s more money in the tax pot. And certainly cutting wasted expenditure as much as possible. A reprioritising on this I really believe is needed, especially if as you say there is no incentive for governments to be efficient, then there needs to be one.

Explain how to create an incentive to a government to improve efficiency. For businesses, it's simple: They either are efficient and successful, or they fail and go bankrupt. Being profitable is a life-or-death deal here. Governments are not under the same pressure, so how would you go about creating that pressure?

There’s no need for radical change, but a change of focus on what’s important. I’m not even the kind of person who gets angry when the government sends out some money in overseas aid, but I do get annoyed and sometimes genuinely angry when money is spent that doesn’t need to be. Like when the politicians attend functions and meetings and spend way, WAY too much on food and hotels and/or the building the meeting/function is conducted in. I have no problem with these people being comfortable on such occasions, but they’re not royalty, and shouldn’t be treated as such.

And you know all these expenditures are unjustified how, exactly? You are not in a position to evaluate these decisions objectively. All you have to go on are news reports and the like, and those, by necessity, only cover the most outrageous things. Most of the time, these things are handled correctly and responsibly, but you do not hear about it because that's boring.

I once really considered opening a thread on Barack Obama’s $100,000,000 vacation, but in the end decided it wasn’t my place not being an American. But a British equivalent would have had me climbing the walls!

And you would have been ridiculed. Every single claim in those reports can be justified in some way or another.

I fully agree with cutting out the human element, it goes double for government. It’s a shame it has to be that way, but I fully agree that it does. But what do you think about a shift in focus towards efficiency? No more unnecessary expenditure. And by unnecessary I mean in the framework of good government, not the extremes like cutting off help to the disabled and letting them die and the like.

Define unnecessary. I can't repeat this enough: You are making claims you cannot substantiate. You're not showing any indication that you've actually sat down and thought about this in depth. It's all well and good to shout "We need a better way of doing things!", but if your reaction to being asked to be constructive, to actually show in concrete terms what you want to do is to just withdraw and say "You do not have power over me, you can't make me do anything", we have a hard time taking you or your claims seriously.

And this goes back to what I said about the all-salesman company. The people making the decisions are the wrong people to be making them because they are not qualified for such things. They may have had a set of rules to follow, but I question their ability to actually apply the procedures properly.

How? On what basis? And how would you go about identifying those who can apply the rules correctly?

Polpolion asked in a post on the previous page how many governments were campaigning for election or reelection on the basis of promising reforms to increase efficiency. The answer is simple: Every. Single. One. Do you understand what that means?

[Lorric]

Thanks for the correction.

You’re welcome.

I suspect you have misread that quote. Governments and countries do not compete economically, not in the same way Burger King and McDonalds compete. Arms contracts are big deals, because they usually equate to massive, long term investments, so governments have a reason to push the deals. Ultimately though, they are not the ones who actually produce and sell the wares.

Agreed, I thought the same when I read it, how similar it was to what I’d been saying. This was big news here in the UK, extensively reported over a period of several days, and I suspect the idea has been planted in my mind. But like I said before, I still believe it counts as an incentive for governments.

You do not seem to realize that governments are highly unprofitable by design. It's their job to invest in things for the common good because corporations cannot do this and turn a profit.

I do recognise this. That’s why they have to tax the populous. I’m not expecting the government as a whole to run at a profit. I’m expecting it to cut it’s losses and maximise it’s gains by applying a stronger emphasis on efficiency, especially in this global recession.

Explain how to create an incentive to a government to improve efficiency. For businesses, it's simple: They either are efficient and successful, or they fail and go bankrupt. Being profitable is a life-or-death deal here. Governments are not under the same pressure, so how would you go about creating that pressure?

Public pressure. We should demand it. It should become a key component in the running of government. Be efficient or be replaced by another party that can be. Make efficiency equal success for government.

And you know all these expenditures are unjustified how, exactly? You are not in a position to evaluate these decisions objectively. All you have to go on are news reports and the like, and those, by necessity, only cover the most outrageous things. Most of the time, these things are handled correctly and responsibly, but you do not hear about it because that's boring.

The reason I feel this way is because while I know that things will indeed run smoothly in the majority of cases, when these news stories hit, I think to myself that no business would ever do something so stupid. And if they did, people would be punished, likely with the loss of their job. And businesses don’t make such mistakes because they have the right people in the right areas to ensure that such mistakes do not happen.

And you would have been ridiculed. Every single claim in those reports can be justified in some way or another.

I don’t think so. I don’t think you understand the argument I would have made. It wouldn’t have been that the expenses spent were OTT to protect Obama. It would have been that Obama shouldn’t have taken the vacation in the first place. And I mean THAT vacation, not no vacation.

Define unnecessary. I can't repeat this enough: You are making claims you cannot substantiate. You're not showing any indication that you've actually sat down and thought about this in depth. It's all well and good to shout "We need a better way of doing things!", but if your reaction to being asked to be constructive, to actually show in concrete terms what you want to do is to just withdraw and say "You do not have power over me, you can't make me do anything", we have a hard time taking you or your claims seriously.

Unnecessary for a start cutting out mistakes like this one. You must have seen things in the news where government spending on something is the topic and you just have a face palm moment. These are things that get put out of my mind, it’s like urgh, not again. I have too many face palm moments. How about you?

Obama’s vacation for instance would qualify under this. So would the extravagant functions and meetings I’ve mentioned. For those, I don’t object to them having their expenses paid, but it should be in a manner a business would conduct such an event. Nothing flashy. Food and accommodation you or I would partake of. These politicians are well paid, if they want to upgrade to classier accommodation or finer food, let them, but have them pay the difference on their own coin. Also, business bail outs, I don’t understand the whole “too big to fail” thing. I know sometimes it’s necessary, but other times I think why? Why not let them die, and let someone else who can do a better job move into that gap in the market? If you just bail out such businesses, they’ll never have an incentive to work their way back into the black, they’ll just think “Oh, the government will just send us more money.” I can understand bailing out the banks, but not things like a car dealership. Why do that? Let the companies that can sell their vehicles without needing any help take over that gap in the market. People aren’t going to run out of cars because one car company goes bankrupt!

I am well within my rights to reject being dictated to in that manner. I decide how and with who I spend my time. So do you. For instance I remember that one time we had an exchange of PMs and you just simply stopped talking to me. Or when you just lock threads you and I are in. Does that make me the "winner" by default? No, it doesn't. And neither does this should I decide to stop talking.

How? On what basis? And how would you go about identifying those who can apply the rules correctly?

Polpolion asked in a post on the previous page how many governments were campaigning for election or reelection on the basis of promising reforms to increase efficiency. The answer is simple: Every. Single. One. Do you understand what that means?

You would set about replacing those people who make such terrible mistakes, by hiring people with experience in making comparable key decisions.

I understand what it means. It means there is a status quo in place, and I’m saying that’s the problem. Parties win elections on this strategy not because they are beating inferior strategies with it, but because everyone uses the same election strategy.

Also, my “strategy” is not based on merely promising these things. It’s based on applying them. The words of politicians are often empty. People know this. Actions speak louder than words, and my argument is if a party applied efficiency and transparency during it’s election term, people would see the results and re-elect them. The election cycle behaviour does not need to change, I’m talking about policy being enacted during the election term itself.

[The E]

I do recognise this. That’s why they have to tax the populous. I’m not expecting the government as a whole to run at a profit. I’m expecting it to cut it’s losses and maximise it’s gains by applying a stronger emphasis on efficiency, especially in this global recession.

So you would increase taxes and cut spending to reduce Government debt. Welcome to austerity policies, also known as the thing that the greek are almost revolting over, or the thing that kills a lot of public services in the US right now. These policies are not guaranteed to work, and may in fact be harmful; this is a matter of debate in economists' circles (Personally, I believe that austerity does more harm than good by cutting investment in the economy).

Public pressure. We should demand it. It should become a key component in the running of government. Be efficient or be replaced by another party that can be. Make efficiency equal success for government.

And this is different to the current state of affairs how, exactly?

The reason I feel this way is because while I know that things will indeed run smoothly in the majority of cases, when these news stories hit, I think to myself that no business would ever do something so stupid. And if they did, people would be punished, likely with the loss of their job. And businesses don’t make such mistakes because they have the right people in the right areas to ensure that such mistakes do not happen.

Businesses do stupid bull**** all the time. Ethics violations, mismanagement, outrageous spending on silly things, all of this happens in businesses as well. They're just usually better about covering it up.

I don’t think so. I don’t think you understand the argument I would have made. It wouldn’t have been that the expenses spent were OTT to protect Obama. It would have been that Obama shouldn’t have taken the vacation in the first place. And I mean THAT vacation, not no vacation.

Those "100 Million Dollars!!!" claims are inflated to a ridiculous degree. They include, among other things, the operating costs for a Carrier battlegroup, something the US would pay anyway.

Unnecessary for a start cutting out mistakes like this one. You must have seen things in the news where government spending on something is the topic and you just have a face palm moment. These are things that get put out of my mind, it’s like urgh, not again. I have too many face palm moments. How about you?

No, not really. I can think of only one instance in the recent past (the Euro Hawk debacle). Don't get me wrong, governments cause plenty of facepalming. But I also understand the constraints under which these things happen, and I do realize that they're working OK most of the time. I cannot realistically expect more.

Obama’s vacation for instance would qualify under this. So would the extravagant functions and meetings I’ve mentioned. For those, I don’t object to them having their expenses paid, but it should be in a manner a business would conduct such an event. Nothing flashy. Food and accommodation you or I would partake of. These politicians are well paid, if they want to upgrade to classier accommodation or finer food, let them, but have them pay the difference on their own coin. Also, business bail outs, I don’t understand the whole “too big to fail” thing. I know sometimes it’s necessary, but other times I think why? Why not let them die, and let someone else who can do a better job move into that gap in the market? If you just bail out such businesses, they’ll never have an incentive to work their way back into the black, they’ll just think “Oh, the government will just send us more money.” I can understand bailing out the banks, but not things like a car dealership. Why do that? Let the companies that can sell their vehicles without needing any help take over that gap in the market. People aren’t going to run out of cars because one car company goes bankrupt!

Yeah, you've lost me somewhat. First, you're making a big deal out of something that really isn't one. When you're hosting representative functions, a bit of ostentaciousness is expected. Prove that overspending on such functions is really a problem first, then we'll talk (Hint: The money spent there? It's a drop in the bucket compared to a government budget. Cutting it won't save you much).

I am well within my rights to reject being dictated to in that manner. I decide how and with who I spend my time. So do you. For instance I remember that one time we had an exchange of PMs and you just simply stopped talking to me. Or when you just lock threads you and I are in. Does that make me the "winner" by default? No, it doesn't. And neither does this should I decide to stop talking.

Right. Next time you decide to not reply to someone? Do not waste everyone's time by typing out a few paragraphs about how you're not replying.
The fact of the matter, as I see it anyway, is this: You want to participate in political debates. You have some ideas about how you would like politics to look like, but you're not inclined to actually sit down and come up with a plan to get there. We're asking you to elaborate on your ideas because we can see where they are flawed, and we're hoping that by making you think about them, and how to apply them in the real world, you can see these flaws too and arrive at a better model as a result.
When you refuse to do so out of hurt feelings, or out of a desire to go your own way, as it were, it makes you seem somewhat childish. We cannot take you seriously as a result.

You would set about replacing those people who make such terrible mistakes, by hiring people with experience in making comparable key decisions.

Point 1: Firing people for mistakes means that noone will want to risk making them. This will cause a desire to always follow procedure in order to avoid getting blamed. Firing people who followed bad policies is a bad idea, because it doesn't solve the problem.
Point 2: People with experience will not want to work for the government. Their skills are valued more and appreciated more in private businesses.

I understand what it means. It means there is a status quo in place, and I’m saying that’s the problem. Parties win elections on this strategy not because they are beating inferior strategies with it, but because everyone uses the same election strategy.

Also, my “strategy” is not based on merely promising this these things. It’s based on applying them. The words of politicians are often empty. People know this. Actions speak louder than words, and my argument is if a party applied efficiency and transparency during it’s election cycle, people would see the results and re-elect them. The election cycle behaviour does not need to change, I’m talking about policy being enacted during the election period itself.

No, it means that you cannot campaign on this platform alone and be taken seriously. Election campaigns are about promises, and you first need to get elected to turn your promises into reality.

[Lorric]

So you would increase taxes and cut spending to reduce Government debt. Welcome to austerity policies, also known as the thing that the greek are almost revolting over, or the thing that kills a lot of public services in the US right now. These policies are not guaranteed to work, and may in fact be harmful; this is a matter of debate in economists' circles (Personally, I believe that austerity does more harm than good by cutting investment in the economy).

No. The situation is not so desperate in the UK as to warrant that. I’m looking more to promoting growth in the economy and cutting unnecessary spending. And by unnecessary, no spending on things which don't benefit the people. Money on a hospital? Good. Money on a big expensive sculpture outside said hospital? Bad.

And this is different to the current state of affairs how, exactly?

It isn’t different. It should be intensified. The UK government is starting to shift to a greater focus on efficiency. The pressure needs to be kept up. How are things with the German government? The stereotype is that efficiency and Germans go hand in hand, and Germany has always seemed to have a strong economy.

Businesses do stupid bull**** all the time. Ethics violations, mismanagement, outrageous spending on silly things, all of this happens in businesses as well. They're just usually better about covering it up.

Well, I don’t know about whether this is true. I just know the impression I have on this.

Those "100 Million Dollars!!!" claims are inflated to a ridiculous degree. They include, among other things, the operating costs for a Carrier battlegroup, something the US would pay anyway.

That’s the first I’ve heard of that. But even so, would it not be too much to ask for the president to vacation in a favourable location within America in order to save many millions of dollars and show a little respect for the financial situation?

No, not really. I can think of only one instance in the recent past (the Euro Hawk debacle). Don't get me wrong, governments cause plenty of facepalming. But I also understand the constraints under which these things happen, and I do realize that they're working OK most of the time. I cannot realistically expect more.

This again makes me wonder if the German government may have a better handle on efficiency than the UK one. For instance, I would grab on with both hands to keep our UK politicians over those of the US.

Yeah, you've lost me somewhat. First, you're making a big deal out of something that really isn't one. When you're hosting representative functions, a bit of ostentaciousness is expected. Prove that overspending on such functions is really a problem first, then we'll talk (Hint: The money spent there? It's a drop in the bucket compared to a government budget. Cutting it won't save you much).

But why? What is the purpose of this ostentatiousness?

You are correct that it’s somewhat small fry in the grand scheme of things, but what I want is a mentality of efficiency across all aspects of government. I don’t want to see things being brushed off as a “measly” few hundred thousand pounds, or even few thousand pounds. It all adds up.

Government expenses are a nice little thing for the news, because they can dress it up as “Oh look at where these politicians are staying and eating, oh and look, they’ve got entertainment too! Meanwhile, you’re struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over your head!” But it’s still correct.

Do you have an opinion on bailing out businesses?

Right. Next time you decide to not reply to someone? Do not waste everyone's time by typing out a few paragraphs about how you're not replying.
The fact of the matter, as I see it anyway, is this: You want to participate in political debates. You have some ideas about how you would like politics to look like, but you're not inclined to actually sit down and come up with a plan to get there. We're asking you to elaborate on your ideas because we can see where they are flawed, and we're hoping that by making you think about them, and how to apply them in the real world, you can see these flaws too and arrive at a better model as a result.
When you refuse to do so out of hurt feelings, or out of a desire to go your own way, as it were, it makes you seem somewhat childish. We cannot take you seriously as a result.

I didn’t do that. I just stated I wasn’t going to be replying. You want me to just go quiet? No explanation, no nothing? I can do that, I just wonder why? If I decide to stop talking to you, do you just want me to stop without saying anything?

I wish to discuss this. I make no illusions that I have the ability to run governments or some grand master-plan, I don’t, I doubt anyone here does. A serious effort to effect such change would maybe involve large numbers of people with varying qualifications and thick dossiers. Let us just discuss our views on the subject. Do you believe we truly have the best system we can possibly have? If I felt that way, I would be a little more at peace with the World. My whole issue is with inefficiency, if I felt that this was as efficient as we could get, then I could accept that. The things I see though make me think enough is enough and it’s time for a change though. Many people feel this way.

Enough of this “we” please. Speak only for you. Everything was nice between us until NGTM-1R arrived. There’s no reason for it not to stay that way. Let us just have a pleasant discussion.

Are you saying if I had simply not acknowledged NGTM-1R at all, there would have been no problem?

Point 1: Firing people for mistakes means that noone will want to risk making them. This will cause a desire to always follow procedure in order to avoid getting blamed. Firing people who followed bad policies is a bad idea, because it doesn't solve the problem.
Point 2: People with experience will not want to work for the government. Their skills are valued more and appreciated more in private businesses.

Hmmm, yes, tricky. Tricky indeed. Do you think there’s a better way, or are we just stuck this way? Is there a way working for the government could become more attractive?

No, it means that you cannot campaign on this platform alone and be taken seriously. Election campaigns are about promises, and you first need to get elected to turn your promises into reality.

What I mean to say is campaign for election in the tried and tested way, then when you actually gain office, go down the efficiency and transparency route so the people will want to keep you in office.

[Lorric]

This is a very interesting topic that should open eyes on some level how the government systems work.

Being a government official (well sort of) on the technical side, MP-Ryan's comment on the first page is dead on. However, there's something I'd like to add: the bureaucracy has weird rules, some of these rules (I'd love to say most of them) are typically very much out of date, but you'll still have to obey them. The legalization is very slow to change in these parts.

What it comes to government officials spending on trips, the critique is occasionally right, occasionally it is dead wrong. I do recall one MP of ours causing a public outcry due to him buying a bottle of wine on the government's credit card in a restaurant evening. That's the dead wrong part - doing that isn't forbidden by any law and the cost was very minor (compared to stuff even I have done). However, I do recall also our former president flying to Africa and filling a travel claim worth of millions of euros (she had a private jet), which on the other hand, I think, was unjustified and should have caused some consequences but was shushed in the media. I can't comment Obama's 100 M$ claim, but if you are the president of US, you certainly are not traveling alone and those salaries and the security has to be organized somehow.

Rest assured, we are frustrated by the government bureaucracy since it really does hinder doing stuff - and it does that on a DAILY basis. From what I have heard in the 1980s, it was so bad that there was a shadow procurement organization in our working place since the official channel could really not get anything done in time (technical side is much more time critical than other parts of the governments). Currently, I'm mostly annoyed by the competition laws that require us to make a public competition race of certain things when they exceed a certain amount of money. Well, I can sort of understand that, but the problem is, we (on the technical side) are usually much better informed of the current technological status of things than the guys running the offer competition who are looking for the price.

So what usually happens is that we also have to review the offers, work for three months to see that all participants have understood correctly what we want, and then evaluate the results, usually to find out that the company we recommended first was selected, but with additional cost of our three month salary that tends to negate all the advantages of the offer competition. Luckily there are ways to bypass this, but not always - and working here makes you very good at writing documents that explain why the official way was bypassed. However, I have always taken care of those documents existing, so that all decisions can still be reviewed. From other government branches, I have heard that occasionally you'll come across with an offer that is much cheaper than the rest, and it is pretty much guaranteed that the guys who left that aren't even planning to do all that they were asked to do.

And what it comes to private companies being more efficient, I partially disagree. All my colleagues who have left to private side say that their jobs became EASIER, and they get paid more - I'm not saying that this happens on all government branches, but at least on ours. When reviewing the labor hours of private companies to ours, we usually find our hours are about half of what private companies spent. Unfortunately, we also have to support quite a bit of research infrastructure, so that the hour advantage does not transfer to us being cheaper. But on hourly basis, we actually are much more efficient.

Hello Mika.

It is indeed, and yes.

Didn't you once say you ran your own company one time, and you ended up getting people saying they wanted to work for you? I don't know where you're from, but perhaps it's like that further afield as well, certainly it makes a lot of people long for change.

Well I wouldn’t kick up a fuss about a bottle of wine, unless it was one of those obscenely expensive ones. I’m surprised such a thing made the news if the cost was very minor.

I don't really have any comment to make on the rest of your post though. I simply read it and took it in. I'd be interested to hear more, if you would like to share.

[NGTM-1R]

Enough of this “we” please. Speak only for you. Everything was nice between us until NGTM-1R arrived.

If you actually believe The E's tone has changed since then you may have a problem. It's amusing, I grant, that you want to blame everything on me, but your ignorance got you here. Sorry man, them's the breaks.

In general though, you're now working very hard to be point-by-point...noncommittal, which is odd. If you really have so little opinion now, why not exit the discussion? You're not contributing by saying you have no opinion...

But why? What is the purpose of this ostentatiousness?

The government is expected to maintain a degree of formality and class in its own halls. A formal function has to be formal; a head of state has to live well, even if they're paid poorly, or nobody would want the job.

[Lorric]

[Polpolion]

If you spent more time thinking up a rational argument and less time making baseless suppositions and asking poorly thought out questions I'm sure you'd feel less like NGTM-1R was trying to bait you into an argument you can't win.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Well, I don’t know about whether this is true. I just know the impression I have on this.

Why does this seem to summarize just about everything you've said in this thread?

[Lorric]

Well, I don’t know about whether this is true. I just know the impression I have on this.

Why does this seem to summarize just about everything you've said in this thread?

Is it so wrong to want to learn and to speak of something you're not intimitely familiar with?

[AdmiralRalwood]

Well, I don’t know about whether this is true. I just know the impression I have on this.

Why does this seem to summarize just about everything you've said in this thread?

Is it so wrong to want to learn and to speak of something you're not intimitely familiar with?

Nothing wrong with wanting to learn; the problem is you seem more inclined to get involved in a conversation about a subject you admit to knowing nothing about, and insist that everyone else is "dong it wrong."

[Lorric]

Well, I don’t know about whether this is true. I just know the impression I have on this.

Why does this seem to summarize just about everything you've said in this thread?

Is it so wrong to want to learn and to speak of something you're not intimitely familiar with?

Nothing wrong with wanting to learn; the problem is you seem more inclined to get involved in a conversation about a subject you admit to knowing nothing about, and insist that everyone else is "dong it wrong."

This conversation could not have taken place if I did not feel there was something wrong with the political system.

[Nuke]

there is something wrong with the political system:

its run by humans.

i think we should put cats in charge. we would get better results. we could also get tax breaks if we pay in tuna.

[The E]

No. The situation is not so desperate in the UK as to warrant that. I’m looking more to promoting growth in the economy and cutting unnecessary spending. And by unnecessary, no spending on things which don't benefit the people. Money on a hospital? Good. Money on a big expensive sculpture outside said hospital? Bad.

Really? Because, I don't know, paying money to make sure that the local artisans don't get unemployed, or making sure that art is publically available, is certainly something governments should work on. Furthering the local culture is a pretty good thing, I think.

It isn’t different. It should be intensified. The UK government is starting to shift to a greater focus on efficiency. The pressure needs to be kept up. How are things with the German government? The stereotype is that efficiency and Germans go hand in hand, and Germany has always seemed to have a strong economy.

You know one big reason why that is? Germans are sticklers for procedure. We loooove us some good rules. Hiring someone for a government position based on his or her "common sense" is anathema to us, because we like predictability and accountability, and this would undermine both.

Well, I don’t know about whether this is true. I just know the impression I have on this.

It's very simple. Corporations, especially publically traded ones, have a strong interest in keeping those things under wraps. Thus they encourage reporters to look at easier targets (like governments).

That’s the first I’ve heard of that. But even so, would it not be too much to ask for the president to vacation in a favourable location within America in order to save many millions of dollars and show a little respect for the financial situation?

State visits like this (and don't mistake it for anything you or I would call a "Vacation") have multiple purposes. They're big statements the hosting country makes, big publicity boosts. There's value to those that cannot be measured in direct economic terms (Although the money flowing into the hosting country's economy is certainly a good thing).

This again makes me wonder if the German government may have a better handle on efficiency than the UK one. For instance, I would grab on with both hands to keep our UK politicians over those of the US.

You mean the ones who think up ridiculous internet legislation? The ones that want to abolish the NHS? The ones whose policies encourage Scottish independence? Those ones?

But why? What is the purpose of this ostentatiousness?

You are correct that it’s somewhat small fry in the grand scheme of things, but what I want is a mentality of efficiency across all aspects of government. I don’t want to see things being brushed off as a “measly” few hundred thousand pounds, or even few thousand pounds. It all adds up.

You underestimate the value appearances, and the keeping up of them, have in politics.

Government expenses are a nice little thing for the news, because they can dress it up as “Oh look at where these politicians are staying and eating, oh and look, they’ve got entertainment too! Meanwhile, you’re struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over your head!” But it’s still correct.

Correct, but overblown. I know that, for example, a Memeber of the german Bundestag makes in excess of 6000 Euros in compensation each month. That sounds like a lot, but then you have to realize that that member has to pay his staff from that money as well. So I'm gonna take all of these things with a grain of salt before I get all outraged over them.

Do you have an opinion on bailing out businesses?

Yes. It shouldn't be done, period.

I didn’t do that. I just stated I wasn’t going to be replying. You want me to just go quiet? No explanation, no nothing? I can do that, I just wonder why? If I decide to stop talking to you, do you just want me to stop without saying anything?

It would be preferable, because posting about not posting is the very definition of uselessness. It adds nothing to the thread.

I wish to discuss this. I make no illusions that I have the ability to run governments or some grand master-plan, I don’t, I doubt anyone here does. A serious effort to effect such change would maybe involve large numbers of people with varying qualifications and thick dossiers.

True, it is unlikely that anyone of us will be able to end up in a position to make effective changes ourselves. But when thinking about changes, it is not enough IMHO to just identify the places where you want to make them, you also have to put some thought into the how and the consequences of making those changes. If you teach yourself to think through a couple of steps, and if you apply those skills to the promises made during elections, you are better able to choose the party that will actually make changes you agree with.

Let us just discuss our views on the subject. Do you believe we truly have the best system we can possibly have?

Yes, actually. It might not be an optimal system, and improvements can always be made, but on the whole? It's hard to see how we could do better without handing over the government to inhuman agencies.

If I felt that way, I would be a little more at peace with the World. My whole issue is with inefficiency, if I felt that this was as efficient as we could get, then I could accept that. The things I see though make me think enough is enough and it’s time for a change though. Many people feel this way.

And what we're saying is that there are reasons why things are the way they are, and that understanding those reasons (something you still need to acquire) is a necessary precursor to finding effective solutions.

Enough of this “we” please. Speak only for you. Everything was nice between us until NGTM-1R arrived. There’s no reason for it not to stay that way. Let us just have a pleasant discussion.

I don't know if you've realized this, but NGTM-1R and I concur on a great many issues. I feel confident in adopting the "we", because I am pretty sure our opinions on matters like this are effectively the same, we just have different ways of addressing them. Also, you trying to dictate to me how I am supposed to address you is hilarious. If you reserve for yourself the right to answer in a manner of your choosing, you do not get to demand that other people follow specific forms of address when speaking to you.

Are you saying if I had simply not acknowledged NGTM-1R at all, there would have been no problem?

I believe I did, yes. It wouldn't be good form exactly, but it would have been better than doing the internet equivalent of sticking fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Hmmm, yes, tricky. Tricky indeed. Do you think there’s a better way, or are we just stuck this way? Is there a way working for the government could become more attractive?

Sure. Offer payment equivalent to what you get in private practice. Offer career paths. You won't get that past the tabloids, but hey. Never said it would be easy.

What I mean to say is campaign for election in the tried and tested way, then when you actually gain office, go down the efficiency and transparency route so the people will want to keep you in office.

Look up the term "Realpolitik". Really, do it.

[Lorric]

Really? Because, I don't know, paying money to make sure that the local artisans don't get unemployed, or making sure that art is publically available, is certainly something governments should work on. Furthering the local culture is a pretty good thing, I think..

I guess we’re just different then. Something like that would be high on the list of things to cut for me. Artists can make money, and lots of it in some cases, without government help.

You know one big reason why that is? Germans are sticklers for procedure. We loooove us some good rules. Hiring someone for a government position based on his or her "common sense" is anathema to us, because we like predictability and accountability, and this would undermine both.

I like such things too. Very much in fact.

It's very simple. Corporations, especially publically traded ones, have a strong interest in keeping those things under wraps. Thus they encourage reporters to look at easier targets (like governments).

How would they provide such encouragement?

State visits like this (and don't mistake it for anything you or I would call a "Vacation") have multiple purposes. They're big statements the hosting country makes, big publicity boosts. There's value to those that cannot be measured in direct economic terms (Although the money flowing into the hosting country's economy is certainly a good thing).

What value? I don’t know what value it could have to get a return on investment.

You mean the ones who think up ridiculous internet legislation? The ones that want to abolish the NHS? The ones whose policies encourage Scottish independence? Those ones?

Yes. Don’t mistake that for me agreeing with things, it’s a case of viewing our politicians as less incompetent. Also, I’ve never heard any talk of abolishing the NHS, and a quick Google didn’t yield anything. Politicians I’ve only ever heard speak of the NHS in glowing terms, so that would be very foolhardy to instil national pride in something you wish to remove.

You underestimate the value appearances, and the keeping up of them, have in politics.

I do not see the value full stop. I would have thought there’d be greater value in not showing an attitude of disrespect living it up on our coin.

Correct, but overblown. I know that, for example, a Memeber of the german Bundestag makes in excess of 6000 Euros in compensation each month. That sounds like a lot, but then you have to realize that that member has to pay his staff from that money as well. So I'm gonna take all of these things with a grain of salt before I get all outraged over them.

Personal expenses are not an issue with me. And when they break the law with such things, the law deals with those individuals. I was referring again to the lavish functions and meetings.

Yes. It shouldn't be done, period.

Hmmm, you’re even more hard line on that than I am. Even the banks, letting people who had money invested in that bank lose it all?

It would be preferable, because posting about not posting is the very definition of uselessness. It adds nothing to the thread.

Very well.

True, it is unlikely that anyone of us will be able to end up in a position to make effective changes ourselves. But when thinking about changes, it is not enough IMHO to just identify the places where you want to make them, you also have to put some thought into the how and the consequences of making those changes. If you teach yourself to think through a couple of steps, and if you apply those skills to the promises made during elections, you are better able to choose the party that will actually make changes you agree with.

How would you teach/learn this? I do not know how to predict how politics will work. Do you? This whole thing has me thinking (as I have done for other things in the past) why don’t they teach this stuff in schools? (I don’t expect you to answer this.) Understanding government and why it runs as it does and thus having a greater understanding of how to vote well are surely very important things for a populace to know. Voting numbers are falling, especially in the young generation, who are completely disillusioned with politics.

Yes, actually. It might not be an optimal system, and improvements can always be made, but on the whole? It's hard to see how we could do better without handing over the government to inhuman agencies.

See, until now in this thread, I’ve never heard anyone say anything like that ever. I only ever hear criticism about the government. (Couldn’t run a bath, much less a country/If I can see that, why can’t they, it’s common sense!/Politicians are out of touch, they don’t know how the real World works/ etc, etc, etc…) I’m still trying to get my head around it, around something that all my voting life (when I first started paying real attention) has seemed nonsensical to me and made me very disillusioned. Help me?

And what we're saying is that there are reasons why things are the way they are, and that understanding those reasons (something you still need to acquire) is a necessary precursor to finding effective solutions.

How did you come to understand (if you feel you do)?

I don't know if you've realized this, but NGTM-1R and I concur on a great many issues. I feel confident in adopting the "we", because I am pretty sure our opinions on matters like this are effectively the same, we just have different ways of addressing them. Also, you trying to dictate to me how I am supposed to address you is hilarious. If you reserve for yourself the right to answer in a manner of your choosing, you do not get to demand that other people follow specific forms of address when speaking to you.

I actually thought you were speaking more for HLP as a whole than NGTM-1R. I am certainly aware of what you say, I've known it since our pm exchange. I appreciate the clarification though. If you’re speaking for one individual, I have no problem with that, that is between you and them. I would request if you ever apply it to anyone else though, you let me know. I would still prefer you to speak only for yourself, so I request one last time that you please do so, but if you decide not to, I won’t oppose it.

I believe I did, yes. It wouldn't be good form exactly, but it would have been better than doing the internet equivalent of sticking fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

I will do so in future.

Sure. Offer payment equivalent to what you get in private practice. Offer career paths. You won't get that past the tabloids, but hey. Never said it would be easy.

Then that is what should be done.

Look up the term "Realpolitik". Really, do it.

I have done. I now know what it means I think, basically the goal is all that matters. I’m not sure what you want me to take from it though, I still want morality in place, not some efficiency at all costs drive. German word. What do you think of it?

[The E]

What value? I don’t know what value it could have to get a return on investment.

If a head of state visits another country, journalists of all stripes will follow inevitably. This is then a chance to present an appealing image to an otherwise apathetic audience, which will translate into increased awareness of that country, and which will in turn yield more interest. Which leads to more tourism, more people investigating investments, all of that. That's your ROI in a nutshell.

Yes. Don’t mistake that for me agreeing with things, it’s a case of viewing our politicians as less incompetent. Also, I’ve never heard any talk of abolishing the NHS, and a quick Google didn’t yield anything. Politicians I’ve only ever heard speak of the NHS in glowing terms, so that would be very foolhardy to instil national pride in something you wish to remove.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2013/mar/05/nhs-reforms-government-privatise

I do not see the value full stop. I would have thought there’d be greater value in not showing an attitude of disrespect living it up on our coin.

An affluent country is one that has options and opportunities. A country that cannot even host international events in style is one who hasn't got either of those. Perceptions are important in politics.

Hmmm, you’re even more hard line on that than I am. Even the banks, letting people who had money invested in that bank lose it all?

Nope, never said or implied that. See, banks are bound by law to guarantee the savings of private persons (up to a certain amount). Thus, no matter what happens to the bank, people must always get their money back. This is a fundamental guarantee without which the private banking system would flat-out not work.

How would you teach/learn this? I do not know how to predict how politics will work. Do you? This whole thing has me thinking (as I have done for other things in the past) why don’t they teach this stuff in schools? (I don’t expect you to answer this.) Understanding government and why it runs as it does and thus having a greater understanding of how to vote well are surely very important things for a populace to know. Voting numbers are falling, especially in the young generation, who are completely disillusioned with politics.

I can't tell you. I was raised in a very political household (My father was a member of the Social Democrat Party for a long time, and worked closely with the local functionaries), and discussions about politics happened often. My father made an effort to show me and my sister how politics work, and to encourage us to think critically about politics. Politics were also a topic in school for me, and one I was interested in learning more about (The fact that our household was free of tabloids and rich in serious newspapers was a bonus too).

See, until now in this thread, I’ve never heard anyone say anything like that ever. I only ever hear criticism about the government. (Couldn’t run a bath, much less a country/If I can see that, why can’t they, it’s common sense!/Politicians are out of touch, they don’t know how the real World works/ etc, etc, etc…) I’m still trying to get my head around it, around something that all my voting life (when I first started paying real attention) has seemed nonsensical to me and made me very disillusioned. Help me?

Can't, really. I cannot teach you how to analyze rhetoric, because I have no idea where to start and have no time to do it in any case.

How did you come to understand (if you feel you do)?

Answered above. My upbringing had a lot to do with it.

Then that is what should be done.

Yes, however getting a pay raise past the public is impossible. "Why are they getting paid so much when they can't get it to work?" is the headline you'll see.

I have done. I now know what it means I think, basically the goal is all that matters. I’m not sure what you want me to take from it though, I still want morality in place, not some efficiency at all costs drive. German word. What do you think of it?

Understanding Realpolitik is the key to understanding politics IMHO. Charles Stross recently wrote an essay on the issue, which is definitely worth reading.
Realpolitik means that all the idealism and all nice little concepts someone has during the election period will have to go right out the window the second that person is elected. It is impossible to impose radical change quickly, and so one has to work within the existing framework, maybe make a couple of tweaks here and there, and hope that the end result will be closer to the ideal than before.

[Phantom Hoover]

Lorric, the reason everyone tells you to shut up is because you will, despite having no knowledge or insight into a topic and being repeatedly shown up for this, continue to flap your gums about it for page after page regardless. This thread was reasonably interesting until you turned it into "HLP tries to teach Lorric about the outside world, fails: part 143". It is getting exceedingly grating.

[Lorric]

Lorric, the reason everyone tells you to shut up is because you will, despite having no knowledge or insight into a topic and being repeatedly shown up for this, continue to flap your gums about it for page after page regardless. This thread was reasonably interesting until you turned it into "HLP tries to teach Lorric about the outside world, fails: part 143". It is getting exceedingly grating.

Ohhhhh, I'm sorry if my attempts to learn inconvenience you...

And you're wrong. It's working.