The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[lkwdblds]

Yep, you make many good points!

Lakey,

Look at the history and differences in society between the two times.

America's prosperity was build by builders, dreamers, innovators and doers . . . . it got managed to death my those who did not learn to do, dream, or innovate, but who, subsequent to WW2 got "educated in the theory of things" . . . . the wrong things as it happens, and who, as a result of that erroneous education believed they know how to do.

It is also true that at the time America was developing its prosperity, it had an educational system that actually produced literates who could think in the broader context and it was a society of different "values" than these last 50-75 years.

It's no accident that stellar successes like Gates, and Richard Branson, for example are college drop-outs. They are doers! I could name many more.

Take a look at who financed and developed the Japanese motor car industry (Detroit). Take a look at who gave China the technology it has to take our jobs away . . . . hell, Boeing has actually taught them how to make jet planes so Boeing can "get cheaper/lower cost parts"!! Guess whose planes the Chinese and those they influence will be buying in the future . . . . the ones China makes

R

Yes, Roger, you make many good points as to how the build up occurred and what led to its downfall. Beings and governments both seem to have an altruistic tendency to give away their trade secrets and so forth to their competition. Somethimes it is altruistic or in a case such as the Boeing case which you cite, it is not based on altruism but on on a profit motive which is not fully thought out.
Lakey

 

[Enthetan]

It would be interesting to do a study of how America's enormous productive capacity was gained, even in spite of the poor teachings available in Business schools. It was America's overwhelming productive capacity which tipped the scales in both WW I and WW II.

You assume that pre-WW2 managers went to business schools, rather than learning management by working their way up the ranks, independent reading, and by listening to what older successful people said.

I looked around, and didn't find any reference to Henry Ford having gone to college at all in any bio of him. Thomas J Watson, who essentially created IBM, did one year of business school, but it seems he just learned a bit of accounting there. Thomas Edison was home-schooled, having about three months of formal schooling. Bill Hewlett and David Packard, founders of Hewlett-Packard, had engineering degrees.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Lakey,

Look at the history and differences in society between the two times.

America's prosperity was build by builders, dreamers, innovators and doers . . . . it got managed to death my those who did not learn to do, dream, or innovate, but who, subsequent to WW2 got "educated in the theory of things" . . . . the wrong things as it happens, and who, as a result of that erroneous education believed they know how to do.

It is also true that at the time America was developing its prosperity, it had an educational system that actually produced literates who could think in the broader context and it was a society of different "values" than these last 50-75 years.

It's no accident that stellar successes like Gates, and Richard Branson, for example are college drop-outs. They are doers! I could name many more.

Take a look at who financed and developed the Japanese motor car industry (Detroit). Take a look at who gave China the technology it has to take our jobs away . . . . hell, Boeing has actually taught them how to make jet planes so Boeing can "get cheaper/lower cost parts"!! Guess whose planes the Chinese and those they influence will be buying in the future . . . . the ones China makes

R

You’re battin’ close to a 1,000 on this Management stuff Rog, IMO.

The formal study of Management began after WWII and was fueled by the GI Bill. Iacocca, whom I greatly admire, was trained as an Industrial Engineer. The top managers from his generation had degrees (if they had one) in something other than management. The GI bill gradually shifted the emphasis from OJT, however Managers during the boom were primarily “Home Grown” and the cream rose to the top. Also, a number of these guys had served in the Military as NCO’s and Officers and had already lead, been taught and learned the fundamentals of leadershipand managing. Much of the work force had been in the Military or part of the massive production and logistical support system, were specialist trained, were imbued with “Can Do” unit and team dynamics and were not whiners. This era, WWII and forward, also saw the entrance and impact of women in larger numbers in the workforce and I proffer that women don't get the credit they deserve for the War effort and the "Boom" years.

By far, the best business classes I had in College were taught by retired Execs and the worst by career Academicians. This gets back somewhat to Ted’s Wrong Stat premise; Management Schools, for the most part, don’t teach how to create or build an organization, they teach you how to make money for yourself off of the blood, sweat and tears of others.

While in College I learned the most about Management from my employers, bosses and the School of Hard Knocks.

Face

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

A key datum.

You’re battin’ close to a 1,000 on this Management stuff Rog, IMO.

The formal study of Management began after WWII and was fueled by the GI Bill. Iacocca, whom I greatly admire, was trained as an Industrial Engineer. The top managers from his generation had degrees (if they had one) in something other than management. The GI bill gradually shifted the emphasis from OJT, however Managers during the boom were primarily “Home Grown” and the cream rose to the top. Also, a number of these guys had served in the Military as NCO’s and Officers and had already lead, been taught and learned the fundamentals of leadership. Much of the work force had been in the Military or part of the massive production and logistical support system, were specialist trained, were imbued with “Can Do” unit and team dynamics and were not whiners.

By far, the best business classes I had in College were taught by retired Execs and the worst by career Academicians. This gets back somewhat to Ted’s Wrong Stat premise; Management Schools, for the most part, don’t teach how create or build and organization, they teach you how to make money for yourself off of the blood, sweat and tears of others.

While in College I learned the most about Management from my employers, bosses and the School of Hard Knocks.

Face

So well said, Face!

I could write a bunch on this and not add much that would be useful. "Nuff said!

I just might add that I learned so very much from my employees when I was a very young service chief.

I operated on one single thing that my uncle Curt, a carpenter/housebuilder, told me was all I needed to know to do OK in running an organization.

"Take care of your people, and they'll take care of you."

Really, it is that simple, in my experience.

Mike, EP

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

So well said, Face!

I could write a bunch on this and not add much that would be useful. "Nuff said!

I just might add that I learned so very much from my employees when I was a very young service chief.

I operated on one single thing that my uncle Curt, a carpenter/housebuilder, told me was all I needed to know to do OK in running an organization.

"Take care of your people, and they'll take care of you."

Really, it is that simple, in my experience.

Mike, EP

Thanks EP...You're so right re: employees. I might add co-workers, as well. As long as your eyes are open and your heart is sincere the world around you constantly gives first rate lessons in Management.

Face

 

[Ted]

You’re battin’ close to a 1,000 on this Management stuff Rog, IMO.

The formal study of Management began after WWII and was fueled by the GI Bill. Iacocca, whom I greatly admire, was trained as an Industrial Engineer. The top managers from his generation had degrees (if they had one) in something other than management. The GI bill gradually shifted the emphasis from OJT, however Managers during the boom were primarily “Home Grown” and the cream rose to the top. Also, a number of these guys had served in the Military as NCO’s and Officers and had already lead, been taught and learned the fundamentals of leadership. Much of the work force had been in the Military or part of the massive production and logistical support system, were specialist trained, were imbued with “Can Do” unit and team dynamics and were not whiners. This era, WWII and forward, also saw the entrance and impact of women in larger numbers in the workforce and I proffer that women don't get the credit they deserve for t he War effort and the "Boom" years.

By far, the best business classes I had in College were taught by retired Execs and the worst by career Academicians. This gets back somewhat to Ted’s Wrong Stat premise; Management Schools, for the most part, don’t teach how to create or build and organization, they teach you how to make money for yourself off of the blood, sweat and tears of others.

While in College I learned the most about Management from my employers, bosses and the School of Hard Knocks.

Face

Yep. Short-term profits.

Don't you just love senior execs in collusion with accounting types doing a "creative accounting" thing to make the numbers look good? Bonuses all around! WhooHoo! Bonuses, yes, but just for the seniors.

I was speaking with a friend last week who was going through this situation. The sales force was having a hard time collecting on bonuses due being behind thousands of dollars. Some of the force were having to get Payday loans, pay late fees and all that goes with not having enough money, even though bonuses, as due, would have given them more than enough.

It seems top management was holding back to make the spreadsheet look good for their own bonuses.

 

[lkwdblds]

No, I don't assume they went to Business Schools.

You assume that pre-WW2 managers went to business schools, rather than learning management by working their way up the ranks, independent reading, and by listening to what older successful people said.

I looked around, and didn't find any reference to Henry Ford having gone to college at all in any bio of him. Thomas J Watson, who essentially created IBM, did one year of business school, but it seems he just learned a bit of accounting there. Thomas Edison was home-schooled, having about three months of formal schooling. Bill Hewlett and David Packard, founders of Hewlett-Packard, had engineering degrees.

No, I didn't assume they went to business schools. I knew that most of them didn't. I pointed out that someone like Lee Iacoca did go to college but that is not where he learned how to run a successful car company.

Maybe the sentence structure I used flowed together in such a way as to lead you to believe that I had made that assumption, I can see how you arrived at that conclusion by rereading my text, but in actual fact I never made such an assumption. In any case, thanks for pointing out what you did.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Excellence in posting!

You’re battin’ close to a 1,000 on this Management stuff Rog, IMO.

The formal study of Management began after WWII and was fueled by the GI Bill. Iacocca, whom I greatly admire, was trained as an Industrial Engineer. The top managers from his generation had degrees (if they had one) in something other than management. The GI bill gradually shifted the emphasis from OJT, however Managers during the boom were primarily “Home Grown” and the cream rose to the top. Also, a number of these guys had served in the Military as NCO’s and Officers and had already lead, been taught and learned the fundamentals of leadership. Much of the work force had been in the Military or part of the massive production and logistical support system, were specialist trained, were imbued with “Can Do” unit and team dynamics and were not whiners. This era, WWII and forward, also saw the entrance and impact of women in larger numbers in the workforce and I proffer that women don't get the credit they deserve for t he War effort and the "Boom" years.

By far, the best business classes I had in College were taught by retired Execs and the worst by career Academicians. This gets back somewhat to Ted’s Wrong Stat premise; Management Schools, for the most part, don’t teach how to create or build an organization, they teach you how to make money for yourself off of the blood, sweat and tears of others.

While in College I learned the most about Management from my employers, bosses and the School of Hard Knocks.

Face

Excellent post Face. You and Ted have pretty much put this subject to bed.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

An interesting anecdote about using stats.

The weeknesses and insanities of the Stat System of the Hubbard Managment Technology is illustrated by this short anecdote of my experience.

First of all, the Director of Disbursement's main statistic of "Bills Paid" was totally wrong and totally worthless insofar as judging Dir of Disbursements production and job performance. The Dir of Disb had no choice of what bills to pay or how much to write his checks for. The FP(Financial Planning) committee approved all the expenditures and then they were reviewed by the Commanding Officer, the FBO and the Guardian's Office. The Dir of Disb only mechanically wrote the checks which he was directed to write by the FP committe and okayed by the 3 layers of management.

HOW ONE'S STATS COULD GO UP SEVEN TIMES BY A 1/8" STROKE OF A PEN!!
I figured this out immediately as soon as I became Dir of Disb. If I was asked to write a $100 check my bills paid stat went up by $100, but if I wrote a $700 check, all I had to do was make a little 1/8' tail at the top of the numeral one. To be thorough I would also have to write the word seven instead of one on the check. All the journal entries and accounting were identical for the two transactions.

MY SHORT ANECDOTE: Our org was averaging about $8,000 a week in gross income in 1973. Bills paid ran maybe $5,000 per week. One week, we sold 20 $1,000 training packages at Peter Gilham's mission in Phoenix and our GI was $25,000. Instead of the usual $5000 in bills, I was asked to write about$15,000 in bills. So far so good but I saw a problem. If I wrote all the checks this week for $15,000, the following week I would be in Non Existence with my paltry $5000. I therefore wrote only about $9,000 of the checks for the current week ending, leaving $6,000 which I wrote up separately dating them for the first day in the following week. I figured that I would count $9,000 for this week and count $6000 for the next week. I mailed them at the same time because even if the check arrived the next day, they would all be good. Meanwhile, I figured I would get my normal $5,000 from FP the next week and I would combine those with the $6,000 already mailed, giving me $11,000 for the next week, up from $9,000 previous record week.

THE REASON I NEEDED TO DO THIS HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH A PARTY MY PARENTS WERE PUTTING ON AT THEIR HOUSE, PERHAPS IT WAS THEIR ANNIVERSARY OR SOMETHING. I promised I would be there and had them schedule the party on my day off. With this huge spike in the Income, I would have my day off cancelled and not be able to attend their party.

AT THE STAFF MEETING - I BLABBED WHAT I HAD DONE.
At stat night when Sarah Mitchell held up the graphs, nearly everyone had highest evers. My Bills Paid stat was read as $9,000 highest ever. Eveyone clapped. IN TYPICAL STUPID LAKEY FASHION WHICH I AM TRYING TO OVERCOME ON THIS BOARD, I OPENED UP MY BIG MOUTH AND MENTIONED THAT I COULD HAVE ACTUALLY ATTAINED $15,000 BUT SAVEd $6000 FOR NEXT WEEK.

Heber said, "Lakey, you can't do that! That is an Ethics offense." He made me come and see him after the stat meeting. He said that what I had done was totally off policy and was actually out Ethics. I told him about my parents anniversary party which I had to go to. He said to CSW to attend the party next week and he would approve my day off next week but that I would lose a day off later on to offset that day off. My official stat was revised to $15,000 and sure enough it was back in a $5,000 range the next week. I was allowed to attend the anniversary party and gave up my day off the following week.

The point of the anecdote is just that the Bills Paid stat on which Disbursements was judged was 100% meaningless in evaluating the Dir of Disb performance.

WHAT WAS A VALID STAT FOR DISBURSEMENTS?
Dept 8, Disbursements had a "Valuable Final Product' of "Pleased Creditors". This was at least partially under the control of disbursements. Writing and mailing out the checks rapidly was key and policy required that a letter promoting the Org be sent with each check.

If the Org could not pay on time, we had to send a later saying that their payment is on date line to be paid and that payment would occur in approximately 3 weeks. This method of delaying payment was very effective and usually held a creidtor at bay for at least two months. We made enough so that our dateline never got over 60 days and was usually much less. If a bill did go the full 60 days, I would often drive the check over and give it to them personally if it was a local creditor. Policy did not call for this but I just did it on my own. We had pleased creditors the whole time I was on post. The Org was always thought honest and fast paying for my entire tenure. A lot of that was due to my letters and calling to let creditors know about when to expect their payments. How to statitize that function of Pleased Creditors? I could never figure out a good way to do it. A category called dunning creditors or displeased creditors could have been kept and if this stayed at 0 or just 1 or 2, then that would show a good DIr of Disb was on the job. That was the best I could think of. Fun and games circa 1973!
Lakey

 

[Ted]

[snippage...]

WHAT WAS A VALID STAT FOR DISBURSEMENT?
Dept 8, Disbursements had a "Valuable Final Product' of "Pleased Creditors". This was at least partially under the control of disbursements. Writing and mailing out the checks rapidly was key and policy required that a letter promoting the Org be sent with each check.

If the Org could not pay on time, we had to send a later saying that their payment is on date line to be paid and that payment would occur in approximately 3 weeks. This method of delaying payment was very effective and usually held a creidtor at bay for at least two months. We made enough so that our dateline never got over 60 days and was usually much less. If a bill did go the full 60 days, I would often drive the check over and give it to them personally if it was a local creditor. Policy did not call for this but I just did it on my own. We had pleased creditors the whole time I was on post. The Org was always thought honest and fast paying for my entire tenure. A lot of that was due to my letters and calling to let creditors know about when to expect their payments. How to statitize that function of Pleased Creditors? I could never figure out a good way to do it. A category called dunning creditors or displeased creditors could have been kept and if this stayed at 0 or just 1 or 2, then that would show a good DIr of Disb was on the job. That was the best I could think of. Fun and games circa 1973!
Lakey

A Pleased Creditor is, perhaps, an ideal scene for the Dir. of Disbursements. The measure of the creditor's pleasure is how much credit he is willing to extend. In that case, credit extended vs credit used would be one possible stat.

There could be other possibilities, this one just off the cuff.

Often neglected with the usual idiot conditions assignments in an org, your stat is very dependent on what someone else is doing on their post. The Dir. of Disbursements can work his ass off, yet if there is no or inadequate GI the stat for that post will eventually crash through no particular fault of the Dir. of Disbursements.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

A Pleased Creditor is, perhaps, an ideal scene for the Dir. of Disbursements. The measure of the creditor's pleasure is how much credit he is willing to extend. In that case, credit extended vs credit used would be one possible stat.

There could be other possibilities, this one just off the cuff.

Often neglected with the usual idiot conditions assignments in an org, your stat is very dependent on what someone else is doing on their post. The Dir. of Disbursements can work his ass off, yet if there is no or inadequate GI the stat for that post will eventually crash through no particular fault of the Dir. of Disbursements.

And, so it is with most of El Ron's "Breakthrough Management 'Tech'".

Face

 

[nw2394]

It seems top management was holding back to make the spreadsheet look good for their own bonuses.

Unless the law is radically different where you are, that sounds like not just "creative" accounting, but illegal accounting.

Nick

 

[Terril park]

Another zinger from the Tedster!

I agree on the wrong stat and decriminalization of drugs.

When I was in Scn Senior Management the four stats given the most importance were Gross Income, Paid Completions, and Cash/Bills. I never saw how that was going to make a better world. When I was running service Orgs I kept my attention on active Auditors in the Field, getting folks through Internships and Auditing whether in the Field, Mission or Org and on FSM hatting and assistance…worked like a charm. I wanted the Org to be a place where people wanted to come, even if just to “hang out” and I made sure that I visited with as many public, new and old, as possible throughout the week to “feel the pulse” of things.

The way I saw it, successful Field Auditors and Missions fed the Academy, the Academy was where you made Auditors and without Auditors auditing the entire operation was pointless and had a limited future. A person that got “in” via an FSM was 3-4 times as likely to “stick”, make good progress and require less hand holding and spoon feeding in the early stages.

It takes a while for the GI, Pd Comps and C/B to reflect the soundness of focusing on the right stats, but once it does, you can't kill it with an ax...that required Flag Management and Mission "Tech". The idiot Flag Rep I had went from threatening me with Comm Ev and Expulsion if I didn't jump through their compliance/stat push hoop to reveling in their rank promotion, new uniform and bonus when the Org won the Birthday Game.

Regarding management by statistics, IMO stats should be used as a tool, not a driver and overly simplistic stat systems—such as Scn’s—can create havoc. Scn’s stat system creates artificially compressed time and internal conflicts that fetter team playing and team players.

Wrong stats and faulty stat systems lead to stat pushing and pushing a wrong stat leads to all manor of insanity…such as the illegal drug trafficking, illegal immigrant mess, the recession we are in and Institutionalized Scn.

Face

I have for some time considered that scn key stats should be directly related to tech, and not related to money as even VSD is. WDAH as an
org main stat would encourage co-auditing, public assists given in hospitals etc, and of course in the HGC, the free scientology centre. The talk by Anita Warren in the latest FZ conference videos describe how she just gave free auditing to anyone she could get to recieve it, and eventually word of mouth resulted in her getting paying clients. Training would tend to be encouraged by such a stat also, though perhaps a dual stat with student hours delivered a week would be better.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Unless the law is radically different where you are, that sounds like not just "creative" accounting, but illegal accounting.

Nick

The Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) provide for a whole slew of things that ought to be illegal. Enron, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Countrywide are but a hand full of a few recent examples—there are more that didn’t make the news and there’ll be more that do until the people stand up and say, “Enough of this self serving smoke and mirrors flimflam.”

Face

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Having a so-called "standard deduction", which will vary when politics ensue, violates the notion of a flat tax. Otherwise, it won't be a true flat tax.

Seeing as this is what you truly mean, just say it:

"I want the poor & working classes to pay a disproportionate share of taxation as wealth is a privilege accorded to few and is entitled to be indulged."

Taxing everyone at "the same rate" is only "fair" in libertarian fantasies. The reality of life is that costs associated with the basics of living are inflexible at the low end. There are minimal physical requirements which MUST be maintained in order for life, much life an acceptable life, to be maintained. In a civilized nation there are fiscal costs associated with those minimal physical limits. Those costs are disproportionately burdensome on those with limited means, i.e. the poor & working classes.

Nor, do "free markets" provide miraculous means of altering income at will. So called "free markets" are quite useful at distributing existing supplies of products among would be purchasers in a RELATIVELY efficient fashion. However, the relative efficiencies are FAR FROM "perfect" and any number of NON-ECONOMIC factors preclude "free markets" serving as reliable determinants for public policies beneficial to the community as a whole.

[In simple math terms "free markets" can be useful tools for "local optimization" of resource distributions. They aren't good for purposes of "global optimization" generally, especially in the face of non-economic social factors such as are commonly met with in any HUMAN COMMUNITY. Global optimization is a much different problem generally from local optimization. Those who ignore such distinctions make foolish and inappropriate over-simplifications in their assumptions.]

A "pure flat tax" when considered as a genuine policy proposal rather than as a purely theoretical teaching construct is simple evidence of its proponent being wholly divorced from any actual reality.


Mark A. Baker

 

[RogerB]

The Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) provide for a whole slew of things that ought to be illegal. Enron, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Countrywide are but a hand full of a few recent examples—there are more that didn’t make the news and there’ll be more that do until the people stand up and say, “Enough of this self serving smoke and mirrors flimflam.”

Face

Nice, Face . . . as usual!

A good example of this is the current scenario with the US banking system. At the end of 2009 the FASB caved in to the politicians of Washington to set a fraudulent standard of accounting with respect to the valuation of bank assets.

What was going on was a debate on how to value the various "assets" banks held on their books . . . the revised standard that was going to come in would have valued assets at current market value . . . a standard called "mark to market."

Weeeellll, a vast amount of "assets," as in the alphabet soup of derivative instruments held on their books actually had no market value because no one would buy them as no one could trust the junk (we are talking primarily about the collateralized debt obligations based on US home mortgages many of which were the sub-prime type crap, etc., etc.) And the truth is, the mortgagees were defaulting like flies hit with DDT.

So, the political deal was struck at the end of 2009 to allow the banks to place any notional on these crap assets they chose. So, the fact now is that your CitiCorps and Bank of Americas of the world are showing on their books billions of $$$ of assets that are actually often worthless, at worst, or worth orders of magnitude less at best . . . in fact my insider informer types are telling me these big banks are actually insolvent but are only held together by accounting gimmickry.

The "profits" declared for the 1st quarter 2010 were only the result of being able to rewrite the value of the junk they have stuck on their hands. Of course the head honchos paid themselves lovely bonuses based on these profits!!

There's more on this . . . but this will do for now

R

 

[Ted]

Seeing as this is what you truly mean, just say it:

"I want the poor & working classes to pay a disproportionate share of taxation as wealth is a privilege accorded to few and is entitled to be indulged."

Taxing everyone at "the same rate" is only "fair" in libertarian fantasies. The reality of life is that costs associated with the basics of living are inflexible at the low end. There are minimal physical requirements which MUST be maintained in order for life, much life an acceptable life, to be maintained. In a civilized nation there are fiscal costs associated with those minimal physical limits. Those costs are disproportionately burdensome on those with limited means, i.e. the poor & working classes.

Nor, do "free markets" provide miraculous means of altering income at will. So called "free markets" are quite useful at distributing existing supplies of products among would be purchasers in a RELATIVELY efficient fashion. However, the relative efficiencies are FAR FROM "perfect" and any number of NON-ECONOMIC factors preclude "free markets" serving as reliable determinants for public policies beneficial to the community as a whole.

[In simple math terms "free markets" can be useful tools for "local optimization" of resource distributions. They aren't good for purposes of "global optimization" generally, especially in the face of non-economic social factors such as are commonly met with in any HUMAN COMMUNITY. Global optimization is a much different problem generally from local optimization. Those who ignore such distinctions make foolish and inappropriate over-simplifications in their assumptions.]

A "pure flat tax" when considered as a genuine policy proposal rather than as a purely theoretical teaching construct is simple evidence of its proponent being wholly divorced from any actual reality.


Mark A. Baker

I like the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax allows for po' folks needs being covered before they have to pay a tax.

The present system is too easy to be gamed. Crooks pay no tax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfH46DTAkxo&feature=player_embedded

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Lakey,

Look at the history and differences in society between the two times.

America's prosperity was build by builders, dreamers, innovators and doers . . . . it got managed to death my those who did not learn to do, dream, or innovate, but who, subsequent to WW2 got "educated in the theory of things" . . . . the wrong things as it happens, and who, as a result of that erroneous education believed they know how to do.

It is also true that at the time America was developing its prosperity, it had an educational system that actually produced literates who could think in the broader context and it was a society of different "values" than these last 50-75 years.

Actually "the times" is a very important factor, R. Early days of anything there is little "existing infrastructure". Thus "obvious" problems can be addressed with "obvious" solutions. As "mass accumulates" increasingly the BIGGEST and most OBVIOUS problems are those dealing with "coordination" (i.e. management). Thus, focus on management issues becomes increasingly "the name of the game". Ask any tech entrepreneur who lost his company to the predatory manipulations of a guy like Bill Gates.

Additionally, the real strength of the ancient Roman Republic & later the Empire was in there "management technology". The Romans were, for their times and available physical technologies, REALLY GOOD at managing the human, knowledge, & physical resources available to them. MUCH better than surrounding cultures. The proof lies in the number of artifacts of Roman cultural infrastructure which are still in use in the western world.

[And I'd advise you stop using Gates as an example of the "good". He's a shark who made good his business by destroying genuine small technology innovators & startups through his power to enforce a 3rd rate proprietary technology MONOPOLY he had acquired as a result of a business oversight of IBM. Gates is widely despised among open source technologists and for VERY VERY good reasons relating to his business ethics and history of dishonest practices. Only a society which glorifies greed and unethical business practices in pursuit of profit would justify the way in which Gates built his company.

{note; Gates IS brilliant and reputedly knows a great deal about coding in the basic language at machine level. However, his real acumen is SHARP BUSINESS PRACTICE. It developed from his own brilliance from what he learned from his father, a prominent business lawyer. His father taught him what he could, and could not, get away with without actually going to jail.}]


Mark A. Baker

 

[Hatshepsut]

lkbdwlds[/B]
For a Sea Org Recruiter, if you want to end a crush reg cycle in two seconds just mention either a "psych history" or a "drug history". The reaction of the Sea Org recruiter is almost identical to Superman's in the presence of krytonite. The Sea Org recruiter will almost put his arm in front of his face to shield himself from your presence. Quickly your routing form is initialed as signed off and you are odered, not asked, to immediately leave his area! You are regarded as the lowest of the low, equivalent to an "Untouchable" in India or a leper elsewhere.
Lakey

I like this krytonite example.

Hey, Lakey, where's the pictures of your weekend?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I like the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax allows for po' folks needs being covered before they have to pay a tax.

The present system is too easy to be gamed. Crooks pay no tax.

The problem with the Fair Tax is that it is a sales tax. Sales taxes are regressive in that they invariably effect the lower incomes far more than higher incomes. Purchases for working class families are much less "discretionary" being dictated by necessity. Whereas the wealthiest families, "necessary spending" accounts for a much lower level of expenditure and they can easily divert their "discretionary spending" into socially non-productive "financial assets".

Having progressive tendencies, I favor something like a 40% tax with a standard deduction of 30K. Thus, families at or below 30K/annually pay no tax. At 50K/annual, the effective tax is 16%. At 100K/annual the effective tax is 28%. At 200K/annual the effective tax is 34%. And at 500K per annum the effective tax is 37.6%.

Taxes are easy to compute, having only two variables: standard deduction and maximum tax rate. The burden is easily shifted by adjustments to either deduction or tax rate. The taxes are "hyperbolic" in that even the wealthiest, no matter how wealthy, wind up paying something less than the amount determined by whatever has been defined to be the maximum tax rate (40% in the example).

However, taxes are unavoidable. Complex systems innately require the most "overhead". Taxes cover the cost of overhead. As societies & economies become more complex there "overheads" necessarily expand disproportionately. The only way to "restore a simpler model" is to down grade the complexity of the system. In terms of human society that means FEWER humans and/or LOWER LEVELS of technology. Neither is "politically popular" as a general solution, hence the problem.


Mark A. Baker