3 ms·
https://bookofbadarguments.com/ https://bookofbadarguments.com/ What you're doing is called equivocation, and it's bad. He was talking about efficiency relativ
by tormeh 12y ago
https://bookofbadarguments.com/ https://bookofbadarguments.com/
What you're doing is called equivocation, and it's bad. He was talking about efficiency relative to a theoretical maximum where everything is as efficient as absolutely possible. You're either not reading the article or you're consciously trying to alter the meaning of the words in the debate so that you're right. Please stop.
- stlee 12y agoI suspect the confusion is due to the term "efficient", which has two meanings: 1. (technical) creating minimum waste 2. (common) effective. In the real world, firms are undeniably effective compared to most/all real organization schemes. This article is simply saying that there are things that firms do which generate waste (meaning they are not "efficient"). This is a little silly in a way. Unicorns are also better than dogs (and all other real pets).