I have some firsthand experience with what happens with the execution of way-cool ideas and the aftermath in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, big and little. A couple of challenges.
1. Most of these ideas require new regulations, which will need to be enforced. More people, more layers of new bureaucracy. More opportunities for cronyism et al. (The Great Society is a great example. I got to see how it turned into a welfare system for middle-class, college-educated social workers, invested in "helping" people. Some successes, lots of failures.
2. And they require hefty budgets for implementation. Even if in the long run they save money, in the short run they can add more costs to a budget, and early failures will never recoup the extra money. And rarely will taxes be reduced. Actually, new projects are always an excuse to raise taxes.
3. Since old programs have historically been mismanaged, from what planet are we going to import the new honest, competent project managers to do a better job? Our splendid city auditor's office here in Denver has been uncovering incompetence in multi-million projects for years. The mistakes are obvious, and in too many cases, the current municipal managers of these projects refuse to make the changes needed to bring costs and implementation back on track. I would fear the same problems with new ideas.
3. And...what do you do with the people who refuse to comply? In the business sector, you tend to lose employees and customers. Same in the nonprofit sector, but add dissatisfied donors. Cool ideas often create new classes of criminals in the public sector, the need for more jails and prisons. Etc. Recently a new mandatory licensing program for landlords who rent out rooms, apartments, and houses was executed here in Denver. Initial compliance - 8%. It has improved, but this cost money.
Good intentions, and unfortunately, this all reminds me of examples of Hayek's Fata Conceit regarding central planning.
I agree wholeheartedly with the entrepreneurship approach. So, I am all for "un-engineering", meaning decriminalizing, small business and other forms of innovation. For example, an architect friend of ours once calculated that at least 15% of the cost of building a house were un-necessary building code requirements - not substantially adding to health and safety of inhabitants, like doors on kitchen cabinets and electric outlets in every wall in a room. Decorative trim. When he presented his findings to his city council, was voted down.
So, at the fundamental level of our economy and the society at large, I will stick with removing laws and regulations that cripple small businesses and nonprofit enterprises. At least for now.
I agree with you in both spirit and letter, probably entirely. But if your criticism is 1, 2, and 3, it would be more helpful if you could specify which of the proposals I listed would run afoul of those points more than the status quo. Because what I have done, for the most part, I hope, is present ideas on deregulation that don't rely so heavily on classical liberal platitudes like 'limited government,' 'deregulation,' and 'let the market decide,' none of which present anything substantive. I suspect that some of these could be ruined by new regulations, fiscal mismanagement, or bureaucratic mismanagement, but finding those weak joints is more helpful when specified.
By far my favorite change model falls under the category of the "Lean Government" movement. Very good track record for making substantial and sustainable changes in institutions. Not perfect - one consistent problem has been organizations getting great results, then abandoning the model when the goals are achieved, like someone going back on a diet of fast food and cokes once they hit their new healthy benchmarks. Lots of information out there about different variations.
This was a quick and dirty reply to your post. Part of my job was to sit down with clients and help them apply to their great idea, point by point, basic project management guidelines: who, what, when, where, why, etc. Another part was coming in after the fact to help them evaluate the execution of the great idea. Mostly, because it failed. Sometimes, because it was required by law or by the funding organizations. These processes did not take a few minutes. So what I scribbled here were very broad caveats that applied to pretty much all of these ideas. What I can do in the time I have.
I asked obvious questions in my work, the kind people are hesitant to ask because they were afraid of looking stupid and losing face with their bosses and peers. I did not mind looking stupid.
-- Like, who is going to be affected adversely by the great idea and what have you planned (and budgeted) to deal with that legally and ethically?
-- Who has already tried this idea, and how has it succeeded and failed? Have you talked to them?
--Have you planned for a test run on a small scale?
Understood. Neither of us has the time. Then again, there's likely zero chance that any of these would be implemented. So it's kind of moot. My point in the exercise was not to be a policy wonk (which is a mostly useless activity) but to throw out some ideas that, through contrast, reveal the problems with the policies we currently have. 'The world could be better' posts are usually intellectual onanism. But occasionally, they help people wake up to how crappy our current systems are. Then again, most of our readers know that.
But....we do NOT live in a " democratic republic". Can't we, as a society, just get over that notion?
"Unleash the entrepreneurs and innovators."
Agreed. Will return to this.
Meanwhile...
I have some firsthand experience with what happens with the execution of way-cool ideas and the aftermath in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, big and little. A couple of challenges.
1. Most of these ideas require new regulations, which will need to be enforced. More people, more layers of new bureaucracy. More opportunities for cronyism et al. (The Great Society is a great example. I got to see how it turned into a welfare system for middle-class, college-educated social workers, invested in "helping" people. Some successes, lots of failures.
2. And they require hefty budgets for implementation. Even if in the long run they save money, in the short run they can add more costs to a budget, and early failures will never recoup the extra money. And rarely will taxes be reduced. Actually, new projects are always an excuse to raise taxes.
3. Since old programs have historically been mismanaged, from what planet are we going to import the new honest, competent project managers to do a better job? Our splendid city auditor's office here in Denver has been uncovering incompetence in multi-million projects for years. The mistakes are obvious, and in too many cases, the current municipal managers of these projects refuse to make the changes needed to bring costs and implementation back on track. I would fear the same problems with new ideas.
3. And...what do you do with the people who refuse to comply? In the business sector, you tend to lose employees and customers. Same in the nonprofit sector, but add dissatisfied donors. Cool ideas often create new classes of criminals in the public sector, the need for more jails and prisons. Etc. Recently a new mandatory licensing program for landlords who rent out rooms, apartments, and houses was executed here in Denver. Initial compliance - 8%. It has improved, but this cost money.
Good intentions, and unfortunately, this all reminds me of examples of Hayek's Fata Conceit regarding central planning.
I agree wholeheartedly with the entrepreneurship approach. So, I am all for "un-engineering", meaning decriminalizing, small business and other forms of innovation. For example, an architect friend of ours once calculated that at least 15% of the cost of building a house were un-necessary building code requirements - not substantially adding to health and safety of inhabitants, like doors on kitchen cabinets and electric outlets in every wall in a room. Decorative trim. When he presented his findings to his city council, was voted down.
So, at the fundamental level of our economy and the society at large, I will stick with removing laws and regulations that cripple small businesses and nonprofit enterprises. At least for now.
I agree with you in both spirit and letter, probably entirely. But if your criticism is 1, 2, and 3, it would be more helpful if you could specify which of the proposals I listed would run afoul of those points more than the status quo. Because what I have done, for the most part, I hope, is present ideas on deregulation that don't rely so heavily on classical liberal platitudes like 'limited government,' 'deregulation,' and 'let the market decide,' none of which present anything substantive. I suspect that some of these could be ruined by new regulations, fiscal mismanagement, or bureaucratic mismanagement, but finding those weak joints is more helpful when specified.
By far my favorite change model falls under the category of the "Lean Government" movement. Very good track record for making substantial and sustainable changes in institutions. Not perfect - one consistent problem has been organizations getting great results, then abandoning the model when the goals are achieved, like someone going back on a diet of fast food and cokes once they hit their new healthy benchmarks. Lots of information out there about different variations.
This was a quick and dirty reply to your post. Part of my job was to sit down with clients and help them apply to their great idea, point by point, basic project management guidelines: who, what, when, where, why, etc. Another part was coming in after the fact to help them evaluate the execution of the great idea. Mostly, because it failed. Sometimes, because it was required by law or by the funding organizations. These processes did not take a few minutes. So what I scribbled here were very broad caveats that applied to pretty much all of these ideas. What I can do in the time I have.
I asked obvious questions in my work, the kind people are hesitant to ask because they were afraid of looking stupid and losing face with their bosses and peers. I did not mind looking stupid.
-- Like, who is going to be affected adversely by the great idea and what have you planned (and budgeted) to deal with that legally and ethically?
-- Who has already tried this idea, and how has it succeeded and failed? Have you talked to them?
--Have you planned for a test run on a small scale?
Wish I had more time.
Understood. Neither of us has the time. Then again, there's likely zero chance that any of these would be implemented. So it's kind of moot. My point in the exercise was not to be a policy wonk (which is a mostly useless activity) but to throw out some ideas that, through contrast, reveal the problems with the policies we currently have. 'The world could be better' posts are usually intellectual onanism. But occasionally, they help people wake up to how crappy our current systems are. Then again, most of our readers know that.
Agreed. I like throwing out ideas and inspiring people. Thank you!
Brilliance as always, Mad Max! A man who is an authentic Truth Tracker! A true Man. Nothing else need be said.