marcinmoka

So hideous its beautiful, the Tupolev 95 (Bear). Perhaps most admirable, is the simplicity of the design. Sure its often mocked as backwards due to its turbo-prop design, but why bother with jet engines, which at the time were expensive, inefficient, required massive maintenance times, and were thus compromised in their ability to be serviced in less than ideal (i.e. true battle) conditions. Also, for a while, I lived quite close to the Airbus plant in Toulouse, which was a treat since I got to see the A-380 far more often than most. Though in my first week there, I will never forget seeing this monstrosity, aptly nicknamed the "Beluga". For a second, I thought the "invasion has begun".

I first read this about 10 years ago. Since, it only became more true :-( A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (Ford Motor Co.) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing. Feeling a deeper study was in order; American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing. Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering directors, and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners, and free pens for the rowers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to 'equal the competition' and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters. The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the American management laid-off one rower, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses. The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles), so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold, and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India. Sadly, the End. Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving its factories out of the US , claiming they can't make money paying American wages. TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US . The last quarter's results: Ford folks are still scratching their heads and collecting bonuses.

“Experience is the best teacher but a fool will learn from no other”

In transiting through questionable French neighbourhoods during the fall of 2005 , above all else, I found the coercive powers of the state, in the form of 'Monsieur CRS' and his muzzled Malinois to be a far more effective means of guaranteeing my well-being than mere faith in my ability to make 'deals' with the less-than-friendly locals. Has there ever been a successful society without a state or government, other than in the writing of More? If no, why not? Though I respect your opinions, I can't help but recall an old adage about academics, obsessed with the question of It works in practice, but does it work in theory ?

Is government (the concept, not that of a particular institution) not a social convention, at least amongst modern liberal democracies? Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by "private arrangements". These may work all fine & dandy on the micro level (familes, tribes, etc), but amongst a larger group, let alone on the national or international levels seems absurd. Than again, I'd prefer you explain your idea before I elaborate any further.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...onal/home"" target="_blank">Globe & Mail Not an ideal, but i suppose its better than an Ivanov, let alone a Zhirinovsky.

But all this is trivial without the relative social stability provided by the government. Its a 'chicken or the egg' scenario. As per the original question, Australia has an interesting take on the issue: http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australi...do%20not%20vote Don't know quite what to think about. On one hand, the absence of a vote could be a political message in itself (even though I sure as hell would never abstain). On the other, I'm quite sure that the bulk low voter turn out has more to do with laziness or apathy than anything else.

Well, how do you? A definition of terms is always in order. Although I would have trouble categorizing eating (along with defecating, mating, etc) as rational, rather than instinctual behaviour. My dog, as smart as he is, would hardly constitute a reasoned creature. In economics, the idea of the "rational individual" is purely that, an idea, not fact. Above all, it is an assumption of convenience for no other reason that it makes modeling far more manageable. Are we all lunatics? No. Most of us do act rationally (depending on your interpretation of course) most of the time. But when a minority segment acts irrationally, this has ramifications far beyond the realm of those directly concerned (sort of a la Arrow's Theorem). My point is, unless you have a definition of reason which encompasses the whole "gamme" of human behaviour, (every perversion, deviation, instability,etc included), you cannot label the individual as rational.

eg. People will not pile up debt they cannot afford to pay back? To be honest, if you can even possibly rationalize the actions of all individuals, from teens who torture small animals to folks who buy homes they cannot afford, I pity you Anyhow, back to the original question, who do you suggest draft this new financial plan?

If only such a decision could be placed in the hands of all Liberal Party Members.

Any other suggestions? Yourself? You clearly seem to buy in to many standard model assumptions; i.e. people are rational, act to maximize their self interest, etc. But seriously. You mean a new financial order marketed by the likes of Harper, Bush, Sarko, Brown. Leaders toiling into the wee hours of the night crafting their own risk-management algorithms; would be a sight to see. Mugabe, Jong Il et al excepted. What next, the aforementioned conducting their very own war-game simulations?

Say what??? Or are you just another one of 'them' suggesting turning our backs on civilization and living in a pre-agrarian nomadic lifestyle? I suppose living a neanderthalic life (which many already seem to embrace, knowingly or otherwise) would put the liquidity/credit crises to rest. Unfortunately, mass starvation is not my thing.

Amidst all the anxiety over the present day economy, I am somewhat excited about possibly witnessing the birth of a new global financial order. What effect will this have over the current day geopolitical structure? Will it usher in a greater level of cooperation between old allies who have not been on best terms of late? Or will it only lead to further splintering of global powers? Though best to hear out the proposals before jumping to conclusions. I just hope Canada remains well placed to increase its presence in the world. Time will tell. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...pageRequested=1

Anyone ever read Yiddish Policeman's Union?

No, you didn't, not in this post at least. I often hear mention of this matter, but rarely in a way which fits the historical record.

Just sought to share this: http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstate...ory_id=11885292 From economist And my favourite excerpt: Is the old adage stating that all publicity is good publicity a falsehood? In an era where we are bombarded with an endless stream of information, it may very well be the case.

Try making an overt critique of the Orthodox Church, let alone the political administration. Though it is a "secular" and "democratic" nation, I highly doubt the state would let such comments slip by without repercussions. As an observer, you seem to fail to grasp a key notion. Russia has a state enforced 'pc' culture, one inherited from decades of Soviet, if not even Czarist 'iron fist' rule. What differentiates them is the respective taboos (both social, and state enforced) present in both.

And your point? It's a relatively homogenous society, so to whom must you act "pc" towards? The 15-20% comprised of guest workers who have no political pull? Doubt it. But Russia as a free society? Spoken as a tourist (and ungrateful westerner). While there is little political correctness, there is also very little debate, since no deviation from the current status quo is even tolerated.

lol! Sad, yet true. Ultimately, this tidbit belongs in the Political Philosophy section with regards to the decline of western civilization.

Maybe a modern equivalent of the ol' Haversack Ruse. Doubt it, but you never now!

My own standing. Hard to qualify. I want law & order. I want fiscal conservatism, but not at the cost of long term social stability. I want a government who is diplomatic, but carries a big stick just in case things don't pan out. Above all, I want a government who thinks strategically, puts pragmatism over idealism, and doesn't simply see the world as either black or white.

What a joke. How can you honestly expect to elicit serious answers when you've limited the options available? NDP'ers believe there is some vast right wing conspiracy, with the Liberals acting in center right fashion and the Conservatives acting in an uber-right fashion. Meanwhile, the die-hard "Reform" branch of the Conservative party pouts about some entrenched left wing conspiracy, divvied up between the Liberals and the NDP. The reality is that there is ONLY a middle party in Canada (NDP doesn't count; face it, they are unelectable). Even if their initial intentions were different, their goal is to attract, and ultimately retain power, and the sole means of achieving that is to accurately reflect the interests of the electoral base in as broad a scope as they can. This can only be done be staking the middle ground. P.S. The Green party = centrist?

Obama? If he didn't have Dr. B at his side advising him, he would be taken for a ride. Afterall, the road to hell is paved with.....well, you know. Furthermore, "credibility" & "competency" are radically different in foreign affairs. The way I see it, Obama is like the inversion of the current administration. He seems to think everything can be solved wit the proverbial 'carrots', whereas Bush sought only to use the 'stick'. McCain, unlike them both, seems to appreciate the need for balance between the two. As per the map....ah....gee, thanks. But your point?

Though we can't forget. 'Speaking with', and 'being soft on' your enemies are not the things. On that note, I still think McCain would be the best, seeing as he is both pragmatic, experienced and somewhat stubborn.

And Clinton never inhaled. And Exon Mobil is an 'environmental solutions' firm. This is all just primitive PR, basic damage control in a world flooded by soundbytes with no in-depth explanation. You judge a group/individual on actions, not words. Far from it. Militarily, this is a very peaceful conflict (think of the sheer no. of casualties in most other historical conflicts). In reality, could any other force still outgun them, even in this supposed "moment of weakness"? As per the financial burden, maybe so, but only in the short term. But as in domestic capital markets, no pain, no gain. Think of this more along the terms of a 'value investment', one going for the long term. With $200 / bl petrol, it might start seeming a bargain. Even than, how do you calculate the value of preventing a foreign rival from accessing these same reserves? -------- This having been said, there were plenty, and I mean plenty of bad management decisions made along the way, from "marketing/PR" right down to "operations". Nonetheless, the idea had far more validity than its execution, but in this regards, only time will tell. U.S may of lost the Vietnam war on paper, but as any visitor to modern day Vietnam might attest to, it sure doesn't look that way now!