Lennart,
I guess we will just have to disagree.
As an example just compare countries (or states) with strong code
enforcement to those with little on none. You will find the former much
nicer. Corners will always be cut if it's possible.
Ron
--On Thursday, August 13, 2015 12:32 PM -0800 Lennart Thornros
<lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
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
