4 ms·

Well I hope in the (very near) future we decide we want the executive branch to have less power, so as to protect ourselves from a unitary executive who goes ro

Well I hope in the (very near) future we decide we want the executive branch to have less power, so as to protect ourselves from a unitary executive who goes rogue. Yes it may be less efficient, but more resilient. This drive for uber efficiency can 1) make government more fragile (see toilet paper supply issues during the pandemic) and 2) be a slippery slope to dehumanization (see paper clip maximizing problem).

XorNot 2y ago
Toilet paper supply issues were not an example of an efficiency problem, they were misinformation creating a demand shock. Your average supermarket has limited shelf space and stocks to the level that it will reliably clear shelves before new supply turns up, or things spoil. If a whole much of people just buy one extra pack that week, this can easily empty the shelves... Which then gets posted to social media to imply a supply problem, which then prompts people to increase their buying rate. There's no solution to this other then education: there was no supply issue, and never was. Any "solution" would be concluding that a supermarket should devote an absurd amount of shelf space to toilet paper, just in case misinformation goes viral again.
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  From my understanding, toilet paper is produced for commercial and residential purposes. As people stopped going to the office (and restaurants and malls, etc), people stopped using commercial toilet paper and started using more residential toilet paper. What I read at the time also said that it's very hard for a plant to shift from making commercial to residential toilet paper, that the margins are paper thin (pun intended) and so it would take a lot of time and money to retool.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    That's the explanation for why they couldn't just "order more toilet paper" to refill the store shelves. But that wasn't the cause of the problem: the cause of the problem was people thinking "oh I'm not sure about a shortage, better buy an extra pack" (I know we did) for just one week...and then someone posts an "empty store shelves!!!" image on social media...which in turn prompts another group of people to do the same at another store, and then the idiot-brigade scalpers get involved. There's still no actual shortage though! The amount of toilet paper being produced is the same, the consumption rate is the same, people have just changed their stockpiling preference and the rate at which they do is spreading faster then any conceivable supply chain adjustment. But the actual consumption rate hasn't changed at all. The idiot-brigade scalpers are worth commenting on because IMO there's a second factor which usually turns up: it's kind of fun to "buy out the supermarket" of some good. Like there's a child-like glee of going "I'll totally buy all of it" but most people don't consider that you can do this for any one item in the supermarket for like, $300 on the spot. It's just there's no reason too - partly because it's the most expensive possible way to buy almost anything.
    - amluto 2y ago
      > There's still no actual shortage though! The amount of toilet paper being produced is the same, the consumption rate is the same, people have just changed their stockpiling preference You seem to have entirely missed the point of the comment you’re replying to. The consumption rate of residential toilet paper increased. Have you seen actual commercial toilet paper and considered its texture and, more critically, the size and shape of the rolls? While it’s possible for someone to awkwardly wipe using a monster roll of commercial paper at home, the commercial roll is not really a desirable substitute for residential TP.
- giancarlostoro 2y ago
  I remember seeing a video of a person in a warehouse making fun of the panic, the warehouse was full of more toilet paper than you knew what to do with. TP companies were probably happy, and the smart move is not to send way more supply than a store can contain, because if demand dies, now you have too much just sitting there. It's much cheaper for them to keep it at their warehouses.
bagels 2y ago
After seeing Bush in office, the sensible thing to do would have been to reduce presidential power. Nobody bothered. Then again after Trump. Biden didn't do a damn thing to reduce presidential power, knowing what happened and what could happen. Way too late. The judiciary and congress are now both subservient to the president.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Biden didn't have the power to reduce his own power. Congress would have, but they're not interested in doing that.
  - jimkleiber 2y ago
    Because they see themselves as Democrats and Republicans more than they see themselves as Members of Congress. The identity/loyalty issue seems to be the main problem. If they see themselves first as Members of Congress, then they should try to seek more power for Congress, not for their parties.
    - pseudalopex 2y ago
      219 Democrats and 1 Republican voted to limit presidential power. 0 Democrats and 208 Republicans voted against it.[1] [1] https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021440 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021440
      - jimkleiber 2y ago
        I'll check it out. But the fact that it was mostly split along party lines says to me that they still have more loyalty to their party than branch
      - roshin 2y ago
        Too bad the bill had things unrelated to limiting the presidential power like > requires a candidate for President or Vice President to provide copies of tax returns for the 10 most recent taxable years to the Federal Election Commission. > establishes a program to support states and localities transition to ranked choice voting systems. While things that I support, it frustrates me that congress can't propose bills that are hyper focused on one issue.
kelnos 2y ago
The problem is that we painted ourselves into a this corner long ago. Even if Congress wasn't generally paralyzed by bad-faith partisan fighting, the House and Senate are not equipped to do even a small fraction of what the executive branch does today. If we removed much of the executive branch's power, it wouldn't be "less efficient". The government just wouldn't do anything. Some people (current GOP) seems to think this would be a good thing.
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  Agreed. If government provides fewer services, companies can provide more services at a profit. Why have public (non-profit) education when you can have private (highly profitable) education? Who needs public (non-profit) health insurance when you can have private (highly profitable) health insurance? The list can go on and on.
  - 3D30497420 2y ago
    Exactly. There's probably some theory about power being like the conservation of energy, in that it doesn't get destroyed, just transformed or moved. Take power away from the government and that power doesn't just make people more free, it just goes somewhere else. Clearly the intent is to move that power from the government (which is at least nominally meant to protect citizens) to companies/the rich.
    - jimkleiber 2y ago
      That's how I see it as well. Government in theory should protect the citizens, which I assume often means the consumers and the workers. But maybe capitalism run amok is when capitalists accumulate the power and use it to strong-arm the government into liking the corporate shareholders (capitalists?) more than the citizens.
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        > capitalism run amok is when capitalists accumulate the power and use it to strong-arm the government into liking the corporate shareholders (capitalists?) more than the citizens. This is pretty much the definition of fascism. “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini, famous fascist.
tonymet 2y ago
Have you considered reducing the overall scope of the federal government rather than just the executive branch?
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  And have the scope picked up by state and local governments (or even a global one)? Or just let corporations make the rules? I see the government doing at least two things: setting rules and providing services. Do you want fewer rules or fewer services? Or something else?
  - tonymet 2y ago
    In the USA the general scope for federal & state has expanded, with Federal having the most growth since about 16th Amendment. US code & regulations has expanded 1000x , cost per capita is 15000x I only make the point that there is a broad spectrum of functional scopes for the government, and rather than looking at shifting the scope around, another possibility would be to revert the scope to sustainable levels
  - biohcacker84 2y ago
    Yes, state and local should pick up. The closer to the people a government is, the better it is. I want the fewest rules that create the most fair economy. And I know very few service better in the hands of government. And that includes bridges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millau_Viaduct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millau_Viaduct
onetimeusename 2y ago
What about protecting ourselves from a biased bureaucracy who use their power for their own political ends? There is a history of this happening now like the IRS scandal and I am surprised how quiet people are about the mass migration event into the country from 2020-2024. It's to the point where people actually say it's just a conspiracy theory and disinformation despite it being a primary concern of most voters according to polls. It's hard to argue that DHS and other bureaucracies were completely innocent. At best they were negligent and incompetent but I think most people know they took steps to make illegal immigration and asylum claims easier to do and help fund immigration routes. This wasn't a platform Biden ran on. He did not win a democratic mandate to open up asylum claims to basically anyone who arrived and grant temporary protected status somewhat arbitrarily. I am surprised no one is concerned about un-elected people being able to do all this and escaping any responsibility.
dkkergoog 2y ago
[dead]
afpx 2y ago
I thought that was their strategy, though? Dismantle the executive branch to the point where the president has little power.
biohcacker84 2y ago
I guess it took Trump to make Liberals want a smaller executive government.
trod1234 2y ago
How would we protect ourselves when the rule of law is non-functional? This definition is quite literally the only check to balance power available to the average person, at least when it worked. There is no longer equality under the law which is dependent on the other components which have also degraded. Congress is non-responsive to their constituencies. We are stuck in a positive feedback loop, eventually when the abuses are great society will fall back to the natural state prior to the social contract. These will not be peaceful times.

XorNot 2y ago

Toilet paper supply issues were not an example of an efficiency problem, they were misinformation creating a demand shock. Your average supermarket has limited shelf space and stocks to the level that it will reliably clear shelves before new supply turns up, or things spoil. If a whole much of people just buy one extra pack that week, this can easily empty the shelves... Which then gets posted to social media to imply a supply problem, which then prompts people to increase their buying rate. There's no solution to this other then education: there was no supply issue, and never was. Any "solution" would be concluding that a supermarket should devote an absurd amount of shelf space to toilet paper, just in case misinformation goes viral again.

jimkleiber 2y ago
From my understanding, toilet paper is produced for commercial and residential purposes. As people stopped going to the office (and restaurants and malls, etc), people stopped using commercial toilet paper and started using more residential toilet paper. What I read at the time also said that it's very hard for a plant to shift from making commercial to residential toilet paper, that the margins are paper thin (pun intended) and so it would take a lot of time and money to retool.
- XorNot 2y ago
  That's the explanation for why they couldn't just "order more toilet paper" to refill the store shelves. But that wasn't the cause of the problem: the cause of the problem was people thinking "oh I'm not sure about a shortage, better buy an extra pack" (I know we did) for just one week...and then someone posts an "empty store shelves!!!" image on social media...which in turn prompts another group of people to do the same at another store, and then the idiot-brigade scalpers get involved. There's still no actual shortage though! The amount of toilet paper being produced is the same, the consumption rate is the same, people have just changed their stockpiling preference and the rate at which they do is spreading faster then any conceivable supply chain adjustment. But the actual consumption rate hasn't changed at all. The idiot-brigade scalpers are worth commenting on because IMO there's a second factor which usually turns up: it's kind of fun to "buy out the supermarket" of some good. Like there's a child-like glee of going "I'll totally buy all of it" but most people don't consider that you can do this for any one item in the supermarket for like, $300 on the spot. It's just there's no reason too - partly because it's the most expensive possible way to buy almost anything.
  - amluto 2y ago
    > There's still no actual shortage though! The amount of toilet paper being produced is the same, the consumption rate is the same, people have just changed their stockpiling preference You seem to have entirely missed the point of the comment you’re replying to. The consumption rate of residential toilet paper increased. Have you seen actual commercial toilet paper and considered its texture and, more critically, the size and shape of the rolls? While it’s possible for someone to awkwardly wipe using a monster roll of commercial paper at home, the commercial roll is not really a desirable substitute for residential TP.
giancarlostoro 2y ago
I remember seeing a video of a person in a warehouse making fun of the panic, the warehouse was full of more toilet paper than you knew what to do with. TP companies were probably happy, and the smart move is not to send way more supply than a store can contain, because if demand dies, now you have too much just sitting there. It's much cheaper for them to keep it at their warehouses.

bagels 2y ago

After seeing Bush in office, the sensible thing to do would have been to reduce presidential power. Nobody bothered. Then again after Trump. Biden didn't do a damn thing to reduce presidential power, knowing what happened and what could happen. Way too late. The judiciary and congress are now both subservient to the president.

kelnos 2y ago
Biden didn't have the power to reduce his own power. Congress would have, but they're not interested in doing that.
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  Because they see themselves as Democrats and Republicans more than they see themselves as Members of Congress. The identity/loyalty issue seems to be the main problem. If they see themselves first as Members of Congress, then they should try to seek more power for Congress, not for their parties.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    219 Democrats and 1 Republican voted to limit presidential power. 0 Democrats and 208 Republicans voted against it.[1] [1] https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021440 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021440
    - jimkleiber 2y ago
      I'll check it out. But the fact that it was mostly split along party lines says to me that they still have more loyalty to their party than branch
    - roshin 2y ago
      Too bad the bill had things unrelated to limiting the presidential power like > requires a candidate for President or Vice President to provide copies of tax returns for the 10 most recent taxable years to the Federal Election Commission. > establishes a program to support states and localities transition to ranked choice voting systems. While things that I support, it frustrates me that congress can't propose bills that are hyper focused on one issue.

kelnos 2y ago

The problem is that we painted ourselves into a this corner long ago. Even if Congress wasn't generally paralyzed by bad-faith partisan fighting, the House and Senate are not equipped to do even a small fraction of what the executive branch does today. If we removed much of the executive branch's power, it wouldn't be "less efficient". The government just wouldn't do anything. Some people (current GOP) seems to think this would be a good thing.

jimkleiber 2y ago
Agreed. If government provides fewer services, companies can provide more services at a profit. Why have public (non-profit) education when you can have private (highly profitable) education? Who needs public (non-profit) health insurance when you can have private (highly profitable) health insurance? The list can go on and on.
- 3D30497420 2y ago
  Exactly. There's probably some theory about power being like the conservation of energy, in that it doesn't get destroyed, just transformed or moved. Take power away from the government and that power doesn't just make people more free, it just goes somewhere else. Clearly the intent is to move that power from the government (which is at least nominally meant to protect citizens) to companies/the rich.
  - jimkleiber 2y ago
    That's how I see it as well. Government in theory should protect the citizens, which I assume often means the consumers and the workers. But maybe capitalism run amok is when capitalists accumulate the power and use it to strong-arm the government into liking the corporate shareholders (capitalists?) more than the citizens.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      > capitalism run amok is when capitalists accumulate the power and use it to strong-arm the government into liking the corporate shareholders (capitalists?) more than the citizens. This is pretty much the definition of fascism. “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini, famous fascist.

tonymet 2y ago

Have you considered reducing the overall scope of the federal government rather than just the executive branch?

jimkleiber 2y ago
And have the scope picked up by state and local governments (or even a global one)? Or just let corporations make the rules? I see the government doing at least two things: setting rules and providing services. Do you want fewer rules or fewer services? Or something else?
- tonymet 2y ago
  In the USA the general scope for federal & state has expanded, with Federal having the most growth since about 16th Amendment. US code & regulations has expanded 1000x , cost per capita is 15000x I only make the point that there is a broad spectrum of functional scopes for the government, and rather than looking at shifting the scope around, another possibility would be to revert the scope to sustainable levels
- biohcacker84 2y ago
  Yes, state and local should pick up. The closer to the people a government is, the better it is. I want the fewest rules that create the most fair economy. And I know very few service better in the hands of government. And that includes bridges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millau_Viaduct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millau_Viaduct

onetimeusename 2y ago

What about protecting ourselves from a biased bureaucracy who use their power for their own political ends? There is a history of this happening now like the IRS scandal and I am surprised how quiet people are about the mass migration event into the country from 2020-2024. It's to the point where people actually say it's just a conspiracy theory and disinformation despite it being a primary concern of most voters according to polls. It's hard to argue that DHS and other bureaucracies were completely innocent. At best they were negligent and incompetent but I think most people know they took steps to make illegal immigration and asylum claims easier to do and help fund immigration routes. This wasn't a platform Biden ran on. He did not win a democratic mandate to open up asylum claims to basically anyone who arrived and grant temporary protected status somewhat arbitrarily. I am surprised no one is concerned about un-elected people being able to do all this and escaping any responsibility.

dkkergoog 2y ago

[dead]

afpx 2y ago

I thought that was their strategy, though? Dismantle the executive branch to the point where the president has little power.

biohcacker84 2y ago

I guess it took Trump to make Liberals want a smaller executive government.

trod1234 2y ago

How would we protect ourselves when the rule of law is non-functional? This definition is quite literally the only check to balance power available to the average person, at least when it worked. There is no longer equality under the law which is dependent on the other components which have also degraded. Congress is non-responsive to their constituencies. We are stuck in a positive feedback loop, eventually when the abuses are great society will fall back to the natural state prior to the social contract. These will not be peaceful times.