bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 ..Into publics - how about a group that will look at the claims made about the benefits of corporate welfare, then follow up on whether a bailout, or government subsidy has the benefits intended ? These aren't even things that the left or right would have monopoly on - Hudak in Ontario is coming out against them, as have been members of the left. How about a group that will look at publics welfare ? Are the "publics" a cost center or profit center for government ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 How about a group that will look at publics welfare ? Are the "publics" a cost center or profit center for government ? I guess the answer is both. Government has limited resources, so it's pointless to have a public that is disconnected to costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 I guess the answer is both. Government has limited resources, so it's pointless to have a public that is disconnected to costs. Agreed, but on balance, "publics" are a net cost to government. That's why the corporations have such leverage, because they are net profit centers even with bailouts. Publics rarely organize to reduce pogey or benefits...quite the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Agreed, but on balance, "publics" are a net cost to government. Maybe, maybe not. They're also the stakeholders, so there's the "you get what you pay for" aspect. That's why the corporations have such leverage, because they are net profit centers even with bailouts. Publics rarely organize to reduce pogey or benefits...quite the opposite. Corporations are also stakeholders, and therefore can have representatives in the publics. They already do, of course, big time. As to whether they are profit centres or not, that is not clear. What is clear is that nothing is clear, so setting up some boundries around costs/services and getting focused groups to get through issues would probably be a good step don't you think ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 .... What is clear is that nothing is clear, so setting up some boundries around costs/services and getting focused groups to get through issues would probably be a good step don't you think ? Maybe, but it doesn't change the fundamental relationship between corporations and government. Either we have a robust system of organizing and investing capital or we don't. Government cannot escape the dogs of economics for very long, unless you want to live in Somalia and play pirate raider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Maybe, but it doesn't change the fundamental relationship between corporations and government. Either we have a robust system of organizing and investing capital or we don't. I like that you used the word 'robust' as it is very qualitative. I'm sure we can say what 'not robust enough' means but what about 'too robust' ? At what point does the business/investment environment start to reward mediocrity, and move away from being a meritocracy ? Maybe you don't think this can ever happen. Government cannot escape the dogs of economics for very long, unless you want to live in Somalia and play pirate raider. No, and that's why when you go to an open data conference you will not be able to tell the politics of the participants. They, like me, want to align the goals AND the available resources. Whether you're left-wing or right-wing, there are horror stories all around. Colbert had a story last week about tanks being produced for the military that go straight to the boneyard. We're not talking about that story this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Here you are: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/07/new-air-force-planes-go-directly-to-boneyard.html Now, the decisions that end up with such waste are a veritable pinball machine of complexity... it needs to be disassembled... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 And I don't bring up the American example because it's worse than Canada - it's because I believe they are the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 I like that you used the word 'robust' as it is very qualitative. I'm sure we can say what 'not robust enough' means but what about 'too robust' ? At what point does the business/investment environment start to reward mediocrity, and move away from being a meritocracy ? Maybe you don't think this can ever happen. There is no shortage of failed businesses if that's what you mean. Government is not held to the same standard. No, and that's why when you go to an open data conference you will not be able to tell the politics of the participants. They, like me, want to align the goals AND the available resources. Whether you're left-wing or right-wing, there are horror stories all around. Colbert had a story last week about tanks being produced for the military that go straight to the boneyard. We're not talking about that story this week. No, there will be no goals alignment per se, just like interests or competing interests. The government will provide your "public data" mugshot to a web site publisher hell bent on extortion...so who's interest is being served ? Military procurements do not follow "just in time" efficiencies, and never were designed to. It's called Army-Navy Surplus for a reason. I just came out of a data warehouse and business analytics meeting...the government should be the least of your worries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 And I don't bring up the American example because it's worse than Canada - it's because I believe they are the same. No biggy....I know it is far easier to Google Yankee data. I always give extra credit for genuine Canadian content in a Canadian forum ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Military procurements do not follow "just in time" efficiencies, and never were designed to. It's called Army-Navy Surplus for a reason. Who is prioritizing these stockpiles and why ? I just came out of a data warehouse and business analytics meeting...the government should be the least of your worries. If it's government data, maybe it should be the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Who is prioritizing these stockpiles and why ? I suspect that nobody is. The Congress and Pentagon spend enormous sums of money that even the GAO can't keep up with. Very wasteful, but it sure beats running out of pencils or batteries in the former Soviet Union. If it's government data, maybe it should be the most. But it's not....government can't even get out of its own way on this. At least the corporatists are trying to make a buck or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 I suspect that nobody is. The Congress and Pentagon spend enormous sums of money that even the GAO can't keep up with. Very wasteful, but it sure beats running out of pencils or batteries in the former Soviet Union. Exactly. When the founding fathers designed our modern democracy, then couldn't have imagined a government with the scope of what we have today, or media such as we have. The core design was good, however it needs to be adapted to our current situation, IMO. ie. Massive government, masses of voters, small and indifferent unidentified publics with good ideas and opinions, pervasive media with no interest in mundane matters, etc. I expect you will say that there's nothing new under the sun, but the current forms are new and I say that to keep democracy intact, we have to return to the founding design. But it's not....government can't even get out of its own way on this. At least the corporatists are trying to make a buck or two. Big data is a great idea. It's starting to get used now, and Canada will get to it in about a century at this rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Canada goes 'meh' about pretty much anything that isn't a top priority national concern. Why ? Because Canada is not a public, it's masses. If you expect the institutions of the past to reverse their decline and rise up and help you then you're really part of the problem. Whatever it is I'll be cheering should the day ever come when confederation falls apart and we all start going our separate ways. The only thing I expect from Canada's institutions is more of what we're used to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Whatever it is I'll be cheering should the day ever come when confederation falls apart and we all start going our separate ways. Ie. You can't wait until we join the US. The only thing I expect from Canada's institutions is more of what we're used to And I only expect from you what I'm used to, ie. abject pessimism even beyond what is supported through historical context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Ie. You can't wait until we join the US. No I wouldn't be interested in that however I would definitely adopt their fisheries management over ours. And I only expect from you what I'm used to, ie. abject pessimism even beyond what is supported through historical context. As I'm sure anyone else with such unbounded naive optimism would say. If you've seen one process junkie you've seen them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 No I wouldn't be interested in that however I would definitely adopt their fisheries management over ours. Really. Why is theirs better ? I'm talking about root causes and results here. As I'm sure anyone else with such unbounded naive optimism would say. If you've seen one process junkie you've seen them all. I don't think I've ever seen one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Really. Why is theirs better ? I'm talking about root causes and results here. Their west coast fisheries are managed by each individual state, our's are managed by Ottawa. They're still fishing for the most part and we're not. Cause and effect. I don't think I've ever seen one. You'd sure make a good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Their west coast fisheries are managed by each individual state, our's are managed by Ottawa. They're still fishing for the most part and we're not. A state is much more local, and probably a better public than an entire mation. You'd sure make a good one. Thanks, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Relying on the mainstream media to highlight issues for us is a dead end. But yet anything from the alternative media is also shot down. Not blase, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 But yet anything from the alternative media is also shot down. Not blase, eh? Not anything but almost anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 I'm a Data Absurdist. I believe all data should be stored in a completely disorganized way, so nobody can make heads or tails of any of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 I'm a Data Absurdist. I believe all data should be stored in a completely disorganized way, so nobody can make heads or tails of any of it. Humour is welcome always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 I'm a Data Absurdist. I believe all data should be stored in a completely disorganized way, so nobody can make heads or tails of any of it. Isn't that pretty much what we've got? Maybe it's just the analysts that are out-to-lunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Isn't that pretty much what we've got? Maybe it's just the analysts that are out-to-lunch. BAM. Happy April Fools Day everyone. The Fools are we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.