Ron, I understand your view. I might just be too radical. However, my experience is that starting with a clean plate - taking in a minimum of the regulations and try to catch the regulation with as generic statements as possible is a good starting poin. The other way to eliminate what is not required is just not going to eliminate anything - it actually will add more stuff. My thinking is that any law that is not easy enforceable is useless and laws that does not make sense or violates general moral (did not find a better word) should not be allowed. I do know very little about building roads. However, I think the industry knows what is required. I see no reason that the government should be involved in determine how. The competition would easily force a set of standards to be 'typical' and then the buyer could buy what standard he wants. I know that someone is saying that would be people taking short cuts. That is just as it is today also. It is still very costly and in-effective to litigate based on details. The method I suggest (to delegate the standardization would bring new methods in quicker as it could create competitive advantages to the implementer. Now we are doing things as we always done and hope for a better result and you know what that means.:) Just stick with what always was and then no risk for the behind and no difficult new stuff to have to learn about. This goes for most of our regulation.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ron Wormus <prot...@frii.com> wrote: > Lennart, > I agree that a change in the system is desperately needed. we need a more > equitable distribution of wealth but I don't see this happening without gov > intervention & regulation. > > I certainly agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in > government regulation as most institutions are very CYA & risk averse (I > work with highway dept. projects all the time), but that said, codes and > standards are essentially good for industry & society even if > implementation can always be improved. > Ron > > > --On Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:04 AM -0800 Lennart Thornros < > lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > > >> >> Ron - I agree that is as it is. Money is there for manipulation. It was >> originally to help the barter. Now it is a system all by itself. Its >> production is zilch. It is just working for political reasons. >> Maybe I am naive. you know I heard almost 30 years ago when i moved to >> the US that leadership and management was control over the workforce and >> to get the maximum for minmum pay. Today the theory is coming close to >> what I believed already at that time. Companies like Google are my >> believe but I do think they grown to big to survive as a forefront in >> this regards. You say that all the fancy stuff Wall street are inventing >> is 'unregulated'. No, not at all. That is products / functions created >> as a pay back to the regulator as a benefit. When the system brakes down >> there are two parties to take responsibilities and that is the >> regulators, which was well aware but wanted Wall street to get this perk >> and than the greedy Wall street itself. It is not unregulated - you and >> I could not start businesses with this type of products. >> If I believed in laissez faire that would be naive. I believe in simple >> system with a minimum of regulations and a minimum of 'products'. Ian >> showed the ideas I think are needed. Not that I believe that this is >> exactly how it could /should be done. Rather that a change is required >> and that technology can replace the many outdated laws we have. >> Everything changes except for the political system. I would rather see >> that we change the current format to a working modern system. The >> alternative is some kind of revolution, when the system becomes so >> obsolete that it implodes. I think that type of change is negative and I >> think that to search for improvement in a moderate pace is better. The >> real problem is that we are moving very fast to the point of no return, >> by constantly 'improving' the existing system. >> Change is necessary and if it is a continuous process it is easy and >> uneventful. Evaluate the situation - make a plan for what could work >> better - implement that plan - evaluate . . . . >> >> >> >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> >> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >> >> lenn...@thornros.com >> +1 916 436 1899 >> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 >> >> >> "Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort." >> PJM >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:57 +0100, Ian Walker wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world. >>> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-c >>> apitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us >>> >>> >>> There are only two types of economies that have been demonstrated in the >> world: An economy which allows people to trade freely; and an economy >> which commands all production and distribution. To date, no one has >> demonstrated how the latter can replace the former. The narrator in the >> video, above, equates capitalism with violence, but there is no causal >> link between the two. Free trade does not lead to mass surveillance, >> wars, and riot squads. He is, rather, equating a philosophy based on >> violence with a philosophy based on free trade, where no such >> relationship can be shown to exist. >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
