The "great mental ward of the Pacific Northwest"

On 12/23/2018 6:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 14:13:20 -0600, AMuzi wrote:



Since the 1976 "improvement" to the budgeting process it's
happened some 18 or so times. All the pencil pushers* get
their full pay after a few days of paid vacation. Pay is
late but not short.

There's no there there despite the dramatic clutching of
pearls.
If there were some serious intent to remove 'nonessential
employees' and sell the vehicles and building I would be
excited.

*This only affects 'nonessential employees'. No actual
business can support 'nonessential employees let alone pay
them to not work at all.

In some, perhaps many, of the government workplaces the
rank, and thus
the pay, of the manager is dependent, to some extent, on
how many
people he supervises. Thus there is a very great desire to
inflate the
amount of work being accomplished and the dire need of
more people to
do it.

When I was assigned at Edwards AFB, the USAF Test Center,
which is jam
packed with government employees I was once given the task
of making a
small push-pull rod that operated something on a camera. I
found a
piece of material chucked it up in the lathe, drilled and
tapped a
hole in one end, had a cuppa and chatted with a friend,
drilled and
tapped the other end and logged 1/2 hour on the work
order. The Shop
Chief (a civilian) admonished me for only logging 1/2 hour
when the
job had been "estimated" as a 4 hour job.

I'm sure there are places where fat could be trimmed.

And usually, the first place to look is the fattest.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...bcc4b05526b3d1



An excellent example of numerical manipulation to obscure
the actual facts.

'discretionary spending' is a ridiculous term but the sum
amounts to about 25% of actual spending. When we were young,
Defense was 1/2 the total, now it's roughly 12~14%.

Moreover, the Pentagon clearly wastes half of that.

Trouble is, defense is at some point necessary and all the
other Departments waste virtually all of their budgets,
ranging from inept to pernicious, out there doing evil in my
name all day long but not actually killing any jihadis.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 19:19:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 14:13:20 -0600, AMuzi wrote:



Since the 1976 "improvement" to the budgeting process it's
happened some 18 or so times. All the pencil pushers* get
their full pay after a few days of paid vacation. Pay is
late but not short.

There's no there there despite the dramatic clutching of
pearls.
If there were some serious intent to remove 'nonessential
employees' and sell the vehicles and building I would be
excited.

*This only affects 'nonessential employees'. No actual
business can support 'nonessential employees let alone pay
them to not work at all.

In some, perhaps many, of the government workplaces the rank, and thus
the pay, of the manager is dependent, to some extent, on how many
people he supervises. Thus there is a very great desire to inflate the
amount of work being accomplished and the dire need of more people to
do it.

When I was assigned at Edwards AFB, the USAF Test Center, which is jam
packed with government employees I was once given the task of making a
small push-pull rod that operated something on a camera. I found a
piece of material chucked it up in the lathe, drilled and tapped a
hole in one end, had a cuppa and chatted with a friend, drilled and
tapped the other end and logged 1/2 hour on the work order. The Shop
Chief (a civilian) admonished me for only logging 1/2 hour when the
job had been "estimated" as a 4 hour job.

I'm sure there are places where fat could be trimmed.

And usually, the first place to look is the fattest.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...bcc4b05526b3d1


Well yes, perhaps get rid of the ~2,000,000 military and reserve
personnel. But some of the States may complain:
https://tinyurl.com/yaczjmyy

And course, reducing the military will also result in a reduction of
the need for a large "Defense" industry with the resultant loss of
jobs and other income.
https://tinyurl.com/yc98o9x3
"Industry experts highlighted that approximately 800,000 defense jobs,
intelligence jobs and other occupations are tied to the defense
industry. In addition, more than 10 percent of U.S. manufacturing
demand in the U.S. is dependant on aerospace and defense spending with
contractors including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and
General Dynamics."

The morning's news says that U.S. companies are laying off people due
to trade wars
https://tinyurl.com/y8t97dqf
and digitizing of the work place
https://www.cnbc.com/layoffs/
added to the currently ~6,000,000 currently unemployed
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...ployed-persons

Someone said something about "For every action, there is an equal and
opposite reaction", which may well apply to actions outside of the
physics laboratory :-)

Brother can you spare a dime?

cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 18:52:32 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/23/2018 6:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 14:13:20 -0600, AMuzi wrote:



Since the 1976 "improvement" to the budgeting process it's
happened some 18 or so times. All the pencil pushers* get
their full pay after a few days of paid vacation. Pay is
late but not short.

There's no there there despite the dramatic clutching of
pearls.
If there were some serious intent to remove 'nonessential
employees' and sell the vehicles and building I would be
excited.

*This only affects 'nonessential employees'. No actual
business can support 'nonessential employees let alone pay
them to not work at all.

In some, perhaps many, of the government workplaces the
rank, and thus
the pay, of the manager is dependent, to some extent, on
how many
people he supervises. Thus there is a very great desire to
inflate the
amount of work being accomplished and the dire need of
more people to
do it.

When I was assigned at Edwards AFB, the USAF Test Center,
which is jam
packed with government employees I was once given the task
of making a
small push-pull rod that operated something on a camera. I
found a
piece of material chucked it up in the lathe, drilled and
tapped a
hole in one end, had a cuppa and chatted with a friend,
drilled and
tapped the other end and logged 1/2 hour on the work
order. The Shop
Chief (a civilian) admonished me for only logging 1/2 hour
when the
job had been "estimated" as a 4 hour job.

I'm sure there are places where fat could be trimmed.

And usually, the first place to look is the fattest.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...bcc4b05526b3d1



An excellent example of numerical manipulation to obscure
the actual facts.

'discretionary spending' is a ridiculous term but the sum
amounts to about 25% of actual spending. When we were young,
Defense was 1/2 the total, now it's roughly 12~14%.

Moreover, the Pentagon clearly wastes half of that.

Trouble is, defense is at some point necessary and all the
other Departments waste virtually all of their budgets,
ranging from inept to pernicious, out there doing evil in my
name all day long but not actually killing any jihadis.

Waste? If the military buy pickup trucks General Motors and Ford
benefit, if they buy airplanes then Lockeed and Boeing benefit, and,
if they buy bicycles then Muzi benefits.

In 1961 President Eisenhower warned the nation against the potential
influence of the military - industrial complex. But y'all didn't
listen.

cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 4:52:18 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/23/2018 6:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 14:13:20 -0600, AMuzi wrote:



Since the 1976 "improvement" to the budgeting process it's
happened some 18 or so times. All the pencil pushers* get
their full pay after a few days of paid vacation. Pay is
late but not short.

There's no there there despite the dramatic clutching of
pearls.
If there were some serious intent to remove 'nonessential
employees' and sell the vehicles and building I would be
excited.

*This only affects 'nonessential employees'. No actual
business can support 'nonessential employees let alone pay
them to not work at all.

In some, perhaps many, of the government workplaces the
rank, and thus
the pay, of the manager is dependent, to some extent, on
how many
people he supervises. Thus there is a very great desire to
inflate the
amount of work being accomplished and the dire need of
more people to
do it.

When I was assigned at Edwards AFB, the USAF Test Center,
which is jam
packed with government employees I was once given the task
of making a
small push-pull rod that operated something on a camera. I
found a
piece of material chucked it up in the lathe, drilled and
tapped a
hole in one end, had a cuppa and chatted with a friend,
drilled and
tapped the other end and logged 1/2 hour on the work
order. The Shop
Chief (a civilian) admonished me for only logging 1/2 hour
when the
job had been "estimated" as a 4 hour job.

I'm sure there are places where fat could be trimmed.

And usually, the first place to look is the fattest.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...bcc4b05526b3d1



An excellent example of numerical manipulation to obscure
the actual facts.

'discretionary spending' is a ridiculous term but the sum
amounts to about 25% of actual spending. When we were young,
Defense was 1/2 the total, now it's roughly 12~14%.

Moreover, the Pentagon clearly wastes half of that.

Trouble is, defense is at some point necessary and all the
other Departments waste virtually all of their budgets,
ranging from inept to pernicious, out there doing evil in my
name all day long but not actually killing any jihadis.


The 12-14% is deceptive, too, since total spending includes amounts for SS and Medicare which have separate funding sources and are not paid out of the general fund -- well .01% from general fund. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53624

-- Jay Beattie.

On 12/23/2018 7:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 18:52:32 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/23/2018 6:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 14:13:20 -0600, AMuzi wrote:



Since the 1976 "improvement" to the budgeting process it's
happened some 18 or so times. All the pencil pushers* get
their full pay after a few days of paid vacation. Pay is
late but not short.

There's no there there despite the dramatic clutching of
pearls.
If there were some serious intent to remove 'nonessential
employees' and sell the vehicles and building I would be
excited.

*This only affects 'nonessential employees'. No actual
business can support 'nonessential employees let alone pay
them to not work at all.

In some, perhaps many, of the government workplaces the
rank, and thus
the pay, of the manager is dependent, to some extent, on
how many
people he supervises. Thus there is a very great desire to
inflate the
amount of work being accomplished and the dire need of
more people to
do it.

When I was assigned at Edwards AFB, the USAF Test Center,
which is jam
packed with government employees I was once given the task
of making a
small push-pull rod that operated something on a camera. I
found a
piece of material chucked it up in the lathe, drilled and
tapped a
hole in one end, had a cuppa and chatted with a friend,
drilled and
tapped the other end and logged 1/2 hour on the work
order. The Shop
Chief (a civilian) admonished me for only logging 1/2 hour
when the
job had been "estimated" as a 4 hour job.

I'm sure there are places where fat could be trimmed.

And usually, the first place to look is the fattest.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...bcc4b05526b3d1



An excellent example of numerical manipulation to obscure
the actual facts.

'discretionary spending' is a ridiculous term but the sum
amounts to about 25% of actual spending. When we were young,
Defense was 1/2 the total, now it's roughly 12~14%.

Moreover, the Pentagon clearly wastes half of that.

Trouble is, defense is at some point necessary and all the
other Departments waste virtually all of their budgets,
ranging from inept to pernicious, out there doing evil in my
name all day long but not actually killing any jihadis.

Waste? If the military buy pickup trucks General Motors and Ford
benefit, if they buy airplanes then Lockeed and Boeing benefit, and,
if they buy bicycles then Muzi benefits.

In 1961 President Eisenhower warned the nation against the potential
influence of the military - industrial complex. But y'all didn't
listen.


By 'waste', I meant waste.

After all we do have excellent warriors and excellent
hardware, two good starting points.

One small example; What has the Education Department done
for America? You could argue that the declines are not
entirely the fault of the Department but they certainly
haven't made anything better either. No one in their right
mind says improvements have been made after 1980 by their
action.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 08:12:19 -0800, jbeattie wrote:


The Great Wall was intended to stop invading hoards

The analysis I've heard is that it was never intended to stop them, just
make it uneconomic by stopping them getting away with their loot. it was
easier and cheaper just to respond to alarms and intercept the returning
invaders with a force to inflict economic loss.

think about it, if you build a wall and man it to stop the invaders, it
is expensive which require taxes and quickly becomes unpopular.

The building of the wall(s) was also thought to be a make work scheme. So
letting a few invaders come over the wall to keep the terror threat
alive, then gains you popularity when you intercept the invaders
returning and gibbet let a few. People see the wall as working and are
happy to pay the taxes to support a "less effective wall". well that is
the Chinese Way.

OTOH, the USA has long depended on a seasonal migrant worker flow, but
once that was hindered and walls were erected, the USA started to
undercut it economy and the seasonal migrants tended to stay to avoid
difficulties of the wall crossings.

Lumping drug interception onto any wall plan was just political
opportuism.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 05:37:56 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:


None of which worked, as a wall.
Mental balm for the populace; yes.
Comunity developemnt; maybe,
Totally effective; no.

Really? You might read a little of the excellent Mr Gibbon and inform
yourself of which walls fulfilled their intended purpose.

Lol, your blind "authority shall not be questioned" is amusing. I suspect
Gibbons is the Lord Kelvin of his area. Knowledge, like scientific
development is built on analysing continung developments.

Anyhow, as we
used to say Down Under, we were talking about the sense building the
wall made to those who ordered it built, and no one said anything about
the effectiveness of the walls after they were built.

Aaah, the concept behind "Mcdonalds and ilk"; it is not "food" but we'll
say it is.

As for "community development", they didn't do limp cod-sociology
jargon those days,

Call it what you will, the wise did. The rest gambled on how long they
could keep up their power and suffered revenge when they lost it.

and
the men who ordered nearly all the walls built that I referred to didn't
care **** for the "community" (1), but for their own safety and that of
their house or command or nation,

Is that flailing in all directions/purposes a sign of your desperation.
Did the Roman senate build Hadrians Wall to protect Rome and their
villas. Did the chinese emporers really have a "nation" or was it
internal politics to have feudal lords release their local army to their
empire building desires and ecouraging the western trading routes to come
to their cities.


which you can work out for yourself if
you were well enough read to know which walls were built by slave
labour, which by conscripted labour, and which by professional soldiers
under discipline.

Funny how anything completely built by slaves was basically **** and
quickly crumbled. As does your argument. Did Mr gibbon confuse political
prisioners/captured enemy being forced to work wth "slaves". "Slaves" are
an bonded economic asset which when they die, the owner suffers an
economic loss. Having claimed to have lived in Australia, you should
understand this, especially since its early "white' history involved
convicts and not slaves.


Andre Jute The library is my friend, and can be yours too.
Perhaps you should kick away your "pillars of knowledge(beliefs of
faith)" and return to one with modern knowledge.

(1) The reason they didn't care **** for "community" is that it wasn't
invented yet, and as for its "development", the Emperor of China thanks
you for the giggle.

If the "EmperorS of China though that, they would not have bothered
building the various WallS.

As late as the end of the 20th century, the great
Baroness Thatcher was forced to explain to the yobs that there is no
such thing as "community", that it is a recently minted and vaguely
specified neologism.

Lol, what is that saying about "Those who do not learn from History are
doomed to repeat it" and where is Maggie now? Gone and largely forgotten
except by admiring fools.

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 12:52:18 AM UTC, AMuzi wrote:

'discretionary spending' is a ridiculous term

It's a perfectly respectable term in economics with a very specific meaning: it is the remainder of your net income (i.e. after taxes and other involuntary donations to government, unions etc) and your subsistence (food, shelter, clothing, perhaps even transport for work and medical insurance). So after involuntary deductions and subsistence, however defined, are paid, anything left over is available for two functions between which you may allocate the remainder: savings and discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is therefore simply outgoings for which there is no demonstrable existential reason.

Now, I'll be the first to agree that economists play with the meanings and pigeonholing of the included definitions according to their political outlook, and that this deplorable tendency has over time acted as a barrier to understanding, but that doesn't make the base definition any the less useful..

However, a Government by definition shouldn't have any more income than for two functions: to meet its legitimate outgoings, and to withdraw money from the economy when it is danger of overheating and creating inflation above the longterm norm (today taken as 2% but compare Spain when the silver -- not the gold as in popular myth -- of the Americas upset the previous balance "most grievously" and -- wait for it -- the inflation over a century was well under 2%), but the latter money should be saved for injecting into the economy by increasing the money supply when deflation occurs (this is the one of the two main functions of the Federal Reserve). See Fisher on the impact of the velocity of money, or just think about his formula, reproduced in ***Andre Jute: IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID: a Rhodes Scholar education in one hour***, available from most good ebookstores for a student price or free of charge on request at info at coolmainpress with the commercial extension after the dot.

Today, in a time of almost universally increasing government debt, a third function of a government surplus of income over spending should be to reduce the debt.

Andre Jute
Were I Diogenes, I'd park my barrel on the Capitol steps because that's where the waste starts

My admiration overflows. You surely know everything about everything, News18. But one wonders why someone so omnidirectionally all-knowing should hide such a bright candle behind a pseudonym when the rest of us humble doubters use our own names.

Andre Jute
Sauviter in modo, fortiter in res

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:51:46 AM UTC, news18 wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 05:37:56 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:


None of which worked, as a wall.
Mental balm for the populace; yes.
Comunity developemnt; maybe,
Totally effective; no.

Really? You might read a little of the excellent Mr Gibbon and inform
yourself of which walls fulfilled their intended purpose.

Lol, your blind "authority shall not be questioned" is amusing. I suspect
Gibbons is the Lord Kelvin of his area. Knowledge, like scientific
development is built on analysing continung developments.

Anyhow, as we
used to say Down Under, we were talking about the sense building the
wall made to those who ordered it built, and no one said anything about
the effectiveness of the walls after they were built.

Aaah, the concept behind "Mcdonalds and ilk"; it is not "food" but we'll
say it is.

As for "community development", they didn't do limp cod-sociology
jargon those days,

Call it what you will, the wise did. The rest gambled on how long they
could keep up their power and suffered revenge when they lost it.

and
the men who ordered nearly all the walls built that I referred to didn't
care **** for the "community" (1), but for their own safety and that of
their house or command or nation,

Is that flailing in all directions/purposes a sign of your desperation.
Did the Roman senate build Hadrians Wall to protect Rome and their
villas. Did the chinese emporers really have a "nation" or was it
internal politics to have feudal lords release their local army to their
empire building desires and ecouraging the western trading routes to come
to their cities.


which you can work out for yourself if
you were well enough read to know which walls were built by slave
labour, which by conscripted labour, and which by professional soldiers
under discipline.

Funny how anything completely built by slaves was basically **** and
quickly crumbled. As does your argument. Did Mr gibbon confuse political
prisioners/captured enemy being forced to work wth "slaves". "Slaves" are
an bonded economic asset which when they die, the owner suffers an
economic loss. Having claimed to have lived in Australia, you should
understand this, especially since its early "white' history involved
convicts and not slaves.


Andre Jute The library is my friend, and can be yours too.
Perhaps you should kick away your "pillars of knowledge(beliefs of
faith)" and return to one with modern knowledge.

(1) The reason they didn't care **** for "community" is that it wasn't
invented yet, and as for its "development", the Emperor of China thanks
you for the giggle.

If the "EmperorS of China though that, they would not have bothered
building the various WallS.

As late as the end of the 20th century, the great
Baroness Thatcher was forced to explain to the yobs that there is no
such thing as "community", that it is a recently minted and vaguely
specified neologism.

Lol, what is that saying about "Those who do not learn from History are
doomed to repeat it" and where is Maggie now? Gone and largely forgotten
except by admiring fools.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 23:41:15 +0000, Duane wrote:


Well it’s one thing to not forget history but on the other hand we have
a lot of tech today that could do a better job than a stone wall.

Which is a trap in itself. all that technology will definely give, is
another flood of data, which will be at first be "over responded" then
incompletely analysed, under funded and lastly "ignored".

Technology collected sufficent warnings about 9/11 in USA, but is was
basically ignored and look what happened. The result has been to use more
technology to collect more data than can ever be analysed and justified
by a blind faith that "AI will analyse it all in the future".

There is an interesting story about how the Soviet Union lost
Afghanistan. Like Alexander, they couldn't control the country side, so
they retreated to fortified armed bases. The locals started pulling their
chains by throwing rabbits over the fences, which the soldiers had to
respond to. Eventually they started ignoring the alarms until too late,
the rabbbits turned out to be armed locals in close proximity inside
their armed fortified bases, which were thus useless. History tells us
the locals of Afghanistan were very experienced in dealing with invaders
and seeing their retreating tails.

The only reason the US and others are still able to maintain a presecence
is the locals are currently divided. Also 'educated" remember that they
were able to tap the drone visual feeds.

Given that "Invaders from the South" have at least some basic education,
how long do you think they'll overcome the "technology of the wall"?
Especially since there will be powerful economic actors willing to assist?

Will the "US swamp" be able to specify an effective wall or will its very
design be its undoing? That is before you also consider that the US
public is divided on "the wall".