4 ms·

Let's make this simpler and more accessible. You are the CEO of Google you wake up on March 1, 2020 and realize that a malware worm is spreading across your ser

Let's make this simpler and more accessible. You are the CEO of Google you wake up on March 1, 2020 and realize that a malware worm is spreading across your servers, damaging systems and in some cases even the hardware. The long term impact on the systems that are infected and later recovered is unclear but early evidence already suggests it's not good. Do you: (a) Drop everything and concentrate all your resources on containing and eradicating the worm, using all available internal and external methods. (b) Tell each department head that the worm is their problem and continue to pretend that it's business as usual. The subcontractors will figure this out because it's in their best interest to do so. Free market works. If you choose (b) please show your work.

Consultant32452 6y ago
Do you have any evidence that suggests Pfizer is pretending that it's business as usual or is doing anything short of producing and distributing vaccine as fast as they possibly can?
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  I am making the analogy to the federal government, not Pfizer.
lostapathy 6y ago
The problem with that line of logic is that states are a lot more like contractors than employees - the feds can only exert so much control. And a lot of the states are frankly incapable of taking direction even if they wanted to. These are entities that run DMVs like, well, DMV offices - no amount of oversight/yelling/etc from the feds is going to get new IT systems online at the state level in short order in many states.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  That's just incorrect. This isn't an issue of states' rights. This is an issue of e.g. the federal government directly distributing vaccines/PPE/testing supplies to hospitals: something they can absolutely do. Think about it: a hurricane hits Florida. Can FEMA respond? What do you think "national emergency" means?
  - lostapathy 6y ago
    I didn't say anything about states rights - I was speaking to incompetency in state government. I worked for years in state government IT and with a contractor that worked with state IT in most states. Their ability to make and perpetuate messes is almost incomprehensible to the crowd here - it's that bad.
vorpalhex 6y ago
Imagine if you as the CEO actually started ripping servers out of the data center and erasing them! Of course you're supposed to work with your department heads to allow them to run a response - and your departments with 4000 employees are going to handle that task differently than the departments with 40. Even your example is flawed. The United States is not one giant government - it's a collection of smaller governments. The President does not pass laws in Texas or North Dakota. The Fed has no power on internal state matters.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  Work with, not say "just handle it". The CEO is playing golf. The federal government funds states. States like KY and TN for example are a net negative money-wise for the USA. They take in more money than they produce in tax revenue. States like NY, TX, and CA fund their operations. Moreover, the federal government can use its resources to physically drive the vaccines around, help set up vaccination and testing sites, etc. In your worldview, what is the purpose of the USA as opposed to 50 separate countries?
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    > The federal government funds states. Wrong, try again. States are self funding entities. The fed does give grants for some projects (bridges, rails, etc). Some states do receive more tax/grant benefits than they give, but those funds are earmarked - states can't use that money for any old reason. > Moreover, the federal government can use its resources to physically drive the vaccines around... Correct, the Fed can help make resources available to the states but the states have to request and allow the resource. The fed for instance can have the military perform interstate logistics, or rent out all the frozen delivery trucks and lend them to states. The fed can not force states to take the grants, or perform operations in the state without approval. > In your worldview, what is the purpose of the USA as opposed to 50 separate countries? Alaska isn't overly qualified to run a military, form treaties with foreign powers, regulate interstate commerce or run the FDA. The fed does have a place, but the fed doesn't have the power to control states or boss them around (in theory - in practice federal grants do give a fair amount of power over many states). The fed is limited to interstate (that is, things involving multiple states) actions, and can't dictate the internals of a state.

Consultant32452 6y ago

Do you have any evidence that suggests Pfizer is pretending that it's business as usual or is doing anything short of producing and distributing vaccine as fast as they possibly can?

IgorPartola 6y ago
I am making the analogy to the federal government, not Pfizer.

lostapathy 6y ago

The problem with that line of logic is that states are a lot more like contractors than employees - the feds can only exert so much control. And a lot of the states are frankly incapable of taking direction even if they wanted to. These are entities that run DMVs like, well, DMV offices - no amount of oversight/yelling/etc from the feds is going to get new IT systems online at the state level in short order in many states.

IgorPartola 6y ago
That's just incorrect. This isn't an issue of states' rights. This is an issue of e.g. the federal government directly distributing vaccines/PPE/testing supplies to hospitals: something they can absolutely do. Think about it: a hurricane hits Florida. Can FEMA respond? What do you think "national emergency" means?
- lostapathy 6y ago
  I didn't say anything about states rights - I was speaking to incompetency in state government. I worked for years in state government IT and with a contractor that worked with state IT in most states. Their ability to make and perpetuate messes is almost incomprehensible to the crowd here - it's that bad.

vorpalhex 6y ago

Imagine if you as the CEO actually started ripping servers out of the data center and erasing them! Of course you're supposed to work with your department heads to allow them to run a response - and your departments with 4000 employees are going to handle that task differently than the departments with 40. Even your example is flawed. The United States is not one giant government - it's a collection of smaller governments. The President does not pass laws in Texas or North Dakota. The Fed has no power on internal state matters.

IgorPartola 6y ago
Work with, not say "just handle it". The CEO is playing golf. The federal government funds states. States like KY and TN for example are a net negative money-wise for the USA. They take in more money than they produce in tax revenue. States like NY, TX, and CA fund their operations. Moreover, the federal government can use its resources to physically drive the vaccines around, help set up vaccination and testing sites, etc. In your worldview, what is the purpose of the USA as opposed to 50 separate countries?
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  > The federal government funds states. Wrong, try again. States are self funding entities. The fed does give grants for some projects (bridges, rails, etc). Some states do receive more tax/grant benefits than they give, but those funds are earmarked - states can't use that money for any old reason. > Moreover, the federal government can use its resources to physically drive the vaccines around... Correct, the Fed can help make resources available to the states but the states have to request and allow the resource. The fed for instance can have the military perform interstate logistics, or rent out all the frozen delivery trucks and lend them to states. The fed can not force states to take the grants, or perform operations in the state without approval. > In your worldview, what is the purpose of the USA as opposed to 50 separate countries? Alaska isn't overly qualified to run a military, form treaties with foreign powers, regulate interstate commerce or run the FDA. The fed does have a place, but the fed doesn't have the power to control states or boss them around (in theory - in practice federal grants do give a fair amount of power over many states). The fed is limited to interstate (that is, things involving multiple states) actions, and can't dictate the internals of a state.