Comments on: Politicians and Prioritization http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/10/politicians_and.html Dispatches from a Small Business Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:53:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Searchlight Crusade http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/10/politicians_and.html/comment-page-1#comment-1991 Searchlight Crusade Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:01:45 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/10/politicians_and.html #comment-1991 <strong>Links and Minifeatures 11 07 Monday</strong> Activity other than financial and real estate type articles may be light for a while. I'm facing a couple of crunches. Carnival of Personal Finance is up. <br... Links and Minifeatures 11 07 Monday

Activity other than financial and real estate type articles may be light for a while. I’m facing a couple of crunches.

Carnival of Personal Finance is up.
]]> By: Lively Debate http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/10/politicians_and.html/comment-page-1#comment-1990 Lively Debate Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:37:01 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/10/politicians_and.html #comment-1990 <strong>Capitalist Digest</strong> As promised and at the appointed time, my picks from this week's Carnival of the Capitalists: Entrepreneurs Needed asks why weren't pumpkin carving kits around when I was a kid? Politicians and Prioritization points out how absurdly politicians a... Capitalist Digest

As promised and at the appointed time, my picks from this week’s Carnival of the Capitalists:

Entrepreneurs Needed asks why weren’t pumpkin carving kits around when I was a kid?

Politicians and Prioritization points out how absurdly politicians a…

]]> By: Matt http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/10/politicians_and.html/comment-page-1#comment-1989 Matt Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:46:05 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/10/politicians_and.html #comment-1989 <p>It's simple. They don't want to cut _anything_, and they know if they can threaten enough pain, they won't have to. By making "essential" services the first to be cut, they provide themselves with political cover for their desired strategy...that is, no cuts under any circumstances, and any shortfalls to be covered by borrowing or raising taxes.</p> <p>Truth is, I've seen the same behavior in the private sector...one simply has to observe a sufficiently large organization. Once you accrete enough layers of middle management, this kind of agency paradox starts to take over.</p> It’s simple. They don’t want to cut _anything_, and they know if they can threaten enough pain, they won’t have to. By making “essential” services the first to be cut, they provide themselves with political cover for their desired strategy…that is, no cuts under any circumstances, and any shortfalls to be covered by borrowing or raising taxes.

Truth is, I’ve seen the same behavior in the private sector…one simply has to observe a sufficiently large organization. Once you accrete enough layers of middle management, this kind of agency paradox starts to take over.

]]> By: Damon Gentry http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/10/politicians_and.html/comment-page-1#comment-1988 Damon Gentry Tue, 01 Nov 2005 00:34:24 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/10/politicians_and.html #comment-1988 <p>I've been considering asking my state legislators to put forth a bill that would simply prioritize spending in a voter-approved order. Any changes to that order (or perhaps the first N items) would need to be approved by the voters. I've live in several states and I always here the phrase: "Well, we need this money for K-12 education. We need this money for our police departments." </p> <p>Most people (and businesses) prioritize their spending without even thinking about it. Why can't government allocate their financial resources in the same manner? They should fund the most important items first, and the least important items last. Who would oppose a system where the legislators were forced (by law) to fund education and police departments ahead of bridges to small islands?</p> I’ve been considering asking my state legislators to put forth a bill that would simply prioritize spending in a voter-approved order. Any changes to that order (or perhaps the first N items) would need to be approved by the voters. I’ve live in several states and I always here the phrase: “Well, we need this money for K-12 education. We need this money for our police departments.”

Most people (and businesses) prioritize their spending without even thinking about it. Why can’t government allocate their financial resources in the same manner? They should fund the most important items first, and the least important items last. Who would oppose a system where the legislators were forced (by law) to fund education and police departments ahead of bridges to small islands?

]]> By: Don Lloyd http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/10/politicians_and.html/comment-page-1#comment-1987 Don Lloyd Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:41:45 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/10/politicians_and.html #comment-1987 <p>Imagine that you are in a budget meeting at your company. You and a number of other department heads have been called together to make spending cuts due to a cyclical downturn in revenue. In your department, you have maybe 20 projects being worked on by 10 people, all (both people and projects) of varying quality. So the boss says "We have to cut 5%, what can you do?" What do you think her reaction would be if you said "well, the first thing I would have to cut is my best project and I would lay off the best employee in my department". </p> <p>I believe that the correct logic implied in your writing above helps explain the stickiness of wages and why average wages could tend to rise during a recession. A recession is the time to cull the stragglers from the herd.</p> <p>Regards, Don</p> <p><br /> </p> Imagine that you are in a budget meeting at your company. You and a number of other department heads have been called together to make spending cuts due to a cyclical downturn in revenue. In your department, you have maybe 20 projects being worked on by 10 people, all (both people and projects) of varying quality. So the boss says “We have to cut 5%, what can you do?” What do you think her reaction would be if you said “well, the first thing I would have to cut is my best project and I would lay off the best employee in my department”.

I believe that the correct logic implied in your writing above helps explain the stickiness of wages and why average wages could tend to rise during a recession. A recession is the time to cull the stragglers from the herd.

Regards, Don

]]>