3 ms·

Inefficient action being taken is still better than absolutely zero action being taken in addressing a problem. Think, for instance, about how many more people

Inefficient action being taken is still better than absolutely zero action being taken in addressing a problem. Think, for instance, about how many more people might become aware of / interested in the problem, who were previously unaware or uninterested in insider stock trading by members of congress, should a historic bill be passed to initialize the process of stopping the problem.

givemeethekeys 3y ago
People will be more frustrated with no action. That is why politicians (like so many others) do the bare minimum to kick the can down the road some more.
respondo2134 3y ago
This sounds good in principal but is not always true. You have limited resources, including time, public goodwill and attention. If you waste it all on inefficient action you've got nothing left for working on actual solutions. >> should a historic bill be passed Passed? They've never brought even a flawed bill like this to a vote, let alone passed one.
dotnet00 3y ago
Inefficient action is not necessarily better than absolutely no action. Inefficient action is a way for politicians to kick the can down the road so they can still use the issue to buy votes. That's how you get 40+ years of abortion being legal on a technicality, rather than being properly codified into law. It's how you get "student loan forgiveness" instead of any attempt at fixing the student loan racket. It's how you get a NASA where the overall budget is constantly decreasing with the exception of the super expensive rocket no one wants. Sure, in the moment, these were nice decisions and helped while they lasted, but overall they're simply suppressing actual solutions to focus on feelgood promises.
bell-cot 3y ago
> Inefficient action... For actions which are not free (and getting any bill through Congress sure as h*ell isn't), one can write a very simple "break even" formula - relating the cost of action A, the efficiency of action A, and the value of the benefits that a 100%-efficient action would provide. For actions falling short of break-even, it's generally considered wiser to spend the resources on something else. You can spend money re-roofing your house with cotton candy - because shingles were too expensive, or unavailable, or whatever. Yeah, that does scratch the itchy need to "do something!". But longer-term...
mcpackieh 3y ago
"Raising awareness" is for slacktivists, not legislators. They should propose good well thought-out laws or sit the hell down. Presenting half-baked nonsense to "raise awareness" only shows that they aren't good at their job, or worse, have an ulterior motive.

givemeethekeys 3y ago

People will be more frustrated with no action. That is why politicians (like so many others) do the bare minimum to kick the can down the road some more.

respondo2134 3y ago

This sounds good in principal but is not always true. You have limited resources, including time, public goodwill and attention. If you waste it all on inefficient action you've got nothing left for working on actual solutions. >> should a historic bill be passed Passed? They've never brought even a flawed bill like this to a vote, let alone passed one.

dotnet00 3y ago

Inefficient action is not necessarily better than absolutely no action. Inefficient action is a way for politicians to kick the can down the road so they can still use the issue to buy votes. That's how you get 40+ years of abortion being legal on a technicality, rather than being properly codified into law. It's how you get "student loan forgiveness" instead of any attempt at fixing the student loan racket. It's how you get a NASA where the overall budget is constantly decreasing with the exception of the super expensive rocket no one wants. Sure, in the moment, these were nice decisions and helped while they lasted, but overall they're simply suppressing actual solutions to focus on feelgood promises.

bell-cot 3y ago

> Inefficient action... For actions which are not free (and getting any bill through Congress sure as h*ell isn't), one can write a very simple "break even" formula - relating the cost of action A, the efficiency of action A, and the value of the benefits that a 100%-efficient action would provide. For actions falling short of break-even, it's generally considered wiser to spend the resources on something else. You can spend money re-roofing your house with cotton candy - because shingles were too expensive, or unavailable, or whatever. Yeah, that does scratch the itchy need to "do something!". But longer-term...

mcpackieh 3y ago

"Raising awareness" is for slacktivists, not legislators. They should propose good well thought-out laws or sit the hell down. Presenting half-baked nonsense to "raise awareness" only shows that they aren't good at their job, or worse, have an ulterior motive.