[barmar]

mike777, on 2011-November-19, 00:20, said:

so in several posts you have stated what the job is not...so what is your definition of the job and the qualifications of who should fill it?

I don't have specifics, but it's basically implementing the duties defined in the Constitution: making the big decisions necessary to run the country. There's nothing in there about partisan bickering, which is what they seem to spend 90% of their time doing, except when they're spending 90% of their time campaigning.

There's always been some politicking, and that's understandable, but lately it seems to have totally drowned out the governing. We didn't hire these people to create congressional gridlock.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2011-November-21, 02:39, said:

I don't have specifics, but it's basically implementing the duties defined in the Constitution: making the big decisions necessary to run the country. There's nothing in there about partisan bickering, which is what they seem to spend 90% of their time doing, except when they're spending 90% of their time campaigning.

There's always been some politicking, and that's understandable, but lately it seems to have totally drowned out the governing. We didn't hire these people to create congressional gridlock.

1) we often vote for congressional gridlock
2) I just wish we really look at history......
3) partisan bickering common around 1776


IUn 2012 we debate:
1) building pipelines
2) taxes
3) drilling
4) etc you add.....

[barmar]

mike777, on 2011-November-21, 02:57, said:

3) partisan bickering common around 1776

Yet they managed to agree on the Declaration of Independence. They didn't all like every bit of it, but they were able to compromise. They made progress. They were able to construct an entire new nation.

I realize that the problems of running a country of 50 states with 300 million people, in a highly connected world, are far different from 13 states, 2.5 million people, and a world where communication and trade with most other nations takes days or weeks. It's not an easy job, but it sometimes seems like they're not even trying. Whatever they're doing, it's NOT running a country.

[Cyberyeti]

gwnn, on 2011-November-17, 03:49, said:

So looks like if a country is in trouble, the best is to have non-politicians make new laws. However, aren't politicians professional lawmakers? It sounds to me a little bit like "if your car is broken, take it to the service, but if it's really broken, don't take it to the service, they are corrupt and will charge you much more and make it worse. take it to someone who does not work for the evil car service companies, for example I know John who is a Harvard graduate in mechanical engineering. maybe he knows something about cars?".

Look at it this way:

My country is in economic crisis, I can:

a) Get somebody who started as a political researcher and has basically been a full time politician all his life

b) Get somebody with a deep understanding of the economy

to get me out of this mess.

a) will do what he needs to do to be popular and get re-elected and spin it well

b) might do what's economically necessary

[barmar]

Exactly. The problem with trying to get (b)'s is that you somehow have to replace many of the (a)'s. But the (a)'s are experts at the art of getting reelected, so they'll thwart you.

It would also be acceptable if the (a)'s hired a bunch of (b)'s and delegated responsibility for fixing the mess to them. But for that to work, the (a)'s have to agree to do what the (b)'s come up with, and they're generally not willing to commit to that. It's likely to conflict with the party's agenda, which could hurt their chances of getting reelected.

We're so screwed.

[y66]

Quote

"The only way to quote resolve any problems in Europe is to have massive debt restructuring...

One of the things we've said in our office recently is you know how screwed up Europe is when you have a German pope and an Italian central banker. We have a scenario today in which debt has grown globally in the last nine years from $80 trillion to $210 trillion. Global credit market debt has grown at 12% a year for the last nine years, while global GDP has grown at 4. We're in a scenario where the PIIGS have sailed into a zone of insolvency. When you sail into the zone of insolvency there is no quote solution for you. The bill is due and you have to pay the bill. What has to happen is it is of our opinion that these debts have to be written down, it's that simple.

Kyle Bass, hedge fund manager in Dallas, Texas in Business Insider

[y66]

When theories diverge from reality, real technocrats re-examine their theories -- paraphrasing my favorite technocrat

[gwnn]

Second part, perhaps already answered above: if it is best to have technocrats run the country when it is in trouble, wouldn't it also be best to have technocrats running it when it is thriving?

[mike777]

gwnn, on 2011-December-22, 16:45, said:

Second part, perhaps already answered above: if it is best to have technocrats run the country when it is in trouble, wouldn't it also be best to have technocrats running it when it is thriving?

again running a country is a political position, you need political skills and leadership skills.

I guess being a technocrat might help if you are a dictator but otherwise not very useful. You will be marginalized.

Having a nobel prize in economics has nothing to do with being a great leader and getting your policies passed and implemented in practice. Those are polical skills.

Having a technocrat in charge would be a disaster as others fight for the real political power.

[barmar]

I don't think he was talking about just the chief executive, but all the people involved in running the country: president, prime minister, legislators, etc. If your opponents are other technocrats, hopefully you should be able to persuade them with logical arguments, rather than having to play politics as much.

[mike777]

Technocracy is a hypothetical form of government in which science would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers and technologists who have knowledge, expertise or skills would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists.[1] In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.


a system where the "most qualified" and those who decide the validity of qualifications are the same people.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Technocracy


This is the world posters want?

[barmar]

As with all forms of government, in practice it would be unlikely to live up to its ideals. The problem is that scientists and engineers are still people, and subject to the same non-technical tendencies and irrational biases that bureaucrats and politicians are (we can see that in cases of scientific fraud). The hope would be that they would more somewhat more swayed by technical arguments than pure politicians are.

[barmar]

As an example of this, last week a technical guy posted an article to his blog titled "Dear Congress, It's No Longer OK To Not Know How The Internet Works", in response to the pending SOPA and PIPA bills to require Internet censorship. In response, someone posted "Dear Internet: It's No Longer OK to Not Know How Congress Works, basically explaining that if you want to teach Congress about your technology, hire lobbyists, don't just expect them to figure it out on their own.

Is this really the world we want, where the guys with the best lobbyists win?

[mike777]

barmar, on 2011-December-22, 21:18, said:

As an example of this, last week a technical guy posted an article to his blog titled "Dear Congress, It's No Longer OK To Not Know How The Internet Works", in response to the pending SOPA and PIPA bills to require Internet censorship. In response, someone posted "Dear Internet: It's No Longer OK to Not Know How Congress Works, basically explaining that if you want to teach Congress about your technology, hire lobbyists, don't just expect them to figure it out on their own.

Is this really the world we want, where the guys with the best lobbyists win?

So you want a world where a small elite rule and appoint other small elites. You want a world where one cannot petition the government.

Of course in your world the best lobbyists should be able to handle some technocrats when it comes to politics.

It is naive in the most to assume successful lobbyists go away in any universe.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps government should keep its nose out of most things altogether.

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2011-December-22, 20:52, said:

Technocracy is a hypothetical form of government in which science would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers and technologists who have knowledge, expertise or skills would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists.[1] In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.


a system where the "most qualified" and those who decide the validity of qualifications are the same people.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Technocracy


This is the world posters want?

I want the best of both worlds, and with reference to the UK's system, this is how I'd achieve it:

The state of things at the moment:

Our first chamber has 650 members closely affiliated to small areas of the country, elected first past the post. People like the geographical link but first past the post means that 45% of the votes can mean 70% of the seats. Also moving boundaries of seats can have an undue effect on this, if the Conservative/Labour shares of the vote had been reversed at the last election, instead of the Conservatives being a few seats short of an overall majority, Labour would have ahd a 50-100 seat majority.

We have an appointed second chamber, this has the disadvantage that bishops and hereditary peers get in, but has the advantage that you can appoint people with expertise in particular areas without them having to go through the bruising election process which many of them wouldn't do.

So - what do we do about it.

My suggestion is as follows:

We enlarge the constituencies so there are only say 450-500 geographically based MPs. The constituency MPs spend most of their time in the constituencies but can e-vote on motions in the house (or e-pair*). They can come to Westminster to speak if they wish. Then we add 300 experts appointed by the parties, with a proportion devised to bring the number of MPs per party closer to the overall share of the vote.

Second chamber smaller and elected by proportional representation. Whether regional or national PR to be decided.

*Pairing is a quaint tradition where MPs from Labour and the Conservatives agree that where one can't get to the house and they would be voting on opposite sides of the motion, then the other doesn't vote either.