Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Hibou Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.usage.english Subject: Re: OT: US administration "yes people" Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 07:03:15 +0000 Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: <10p789f$3unfc$1@dont-email.me> <10p8i8m$1ro00$1@dont-email.me> <10p932h$2147v$2@dont-email.me> <10pa1dv$2d5dl$6@dont-email.me> <10pa6el$2f963$2@dont-email.me> <5PGcnQm5n5eAYiX0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <10pb5r2$2obtv$13@dont-email.me> <4luo8mxm8o.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <10pd71s$3grlr$1@dont-email.me> <1rs7tbh.gpe5481mficwpN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10pgt0i$mdso$7@dont-email.me> <6slv8mxh47.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <1rs9smu.jbxbeu1db40cvN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <1rsbpkc.vc5k1918vdagaN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10pn28v$2pchc$2@dont-email.me> <10po3dn$32pc2$1@dont-email.me> <10ppooa$3l4me$2@dont-email.me> <10pqn7o$3tq4u$1@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net oWRWFRVghQgeFWtGAHZL8AuT4cdyBOhGLoStuaj7AKki8VhoQM Cancel-Lock: sha1:/8vug6jYGNV6gUyc8RZyEqQ2MJ4= sha256:onayFemOb4D41s5tN1gO0fcXOL6RIMbuxDbrwZ7kEEs= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB, fr In-Reply-To: <10pqn7o$3tq4u$1@dont-email.me> Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:83767 alt.usage.english:1140467 Le 23/03/2026 à 06:39, Lawrence D’Oliveiro a écrit : > On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 06:25:22 +0000, Hibou wrote: >> Le 22/03/2026 à 21:59, Lawrence D’Oliveiro a écrit : >>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 07:45:06 +0000, Hibou wrote: >>>> >>>> If this is right, then there's plenty of money. All we need to do is >>>> spend it properly. We do not need migrant workers to fill the gap. >>> >>> What if it’s not? >> >> Now you're just being silly. > > Says the one with the inability to learn from history. > > Look at your own dates: that study you quoted from comes from before > the time of Reaganomics and Thatchernomics and all their imitators > elsewhere around the world. > > What were they all about? Getting rid of Government waste was a key > part of their agenda. > > So now you’re trying to say that that Government waste is still around > and just as bad as though Reagan and Thatcher and the others had never > been? Or that they somehow missed such a big target? > > No, it’s just not credible. No? Point one is that it wasn't a study; it was practice; Chapman actually made his region much more efficient. The key lesson he learned was that efficiency cannot be imposed from above; one must do as he did, and work bottom up¹. As for history, Thatcher et al.… - did privatisation, for example, really make things more efficient from the taxpayers' point of view? Is it cheaper to bail out failing train and water companies than to have British Rail and public water boards? Is HS2 going well? Does the Government succeed with its IT projects?… There is every reason to suppose that government remains inefficient, and that 30% waste is natural (like, say, Parkinson's Law). The only way to confirm this or refute it is to try Chapman's methods again. Further discussion in Usenet is just a waste of - well, not breath, but you know what I mean. ¹Which reminds me of the BBC programme 'Back to the Floor', in which senior executives worked incognito in bottom-level departments. They found out a lot about their operation that they could not learn otherwise.