|
| |
 |
November 22, 2024 Efficiency is determined by deciders at the top of everything. You can guess what incompetent power mongers assume about efficiency. It means more force and violence to them. That's because they are extractors; so they assume extracting more is how to solve their problems. They keep increasing their problems doing that. What actual efficiency is is found in the world of misfits trying to get incompetent power mongers out of the process. Nothing is going to work right with force and violence enhancing corruption as the solution to problems. Efficiency is almost never discussed now days; it used to be discussed many decades ago. That's because there are layers of waste, fraud and abuse covering over real constructivity. It's waste, fraud and abuse that made power mongers what they are. So it's unrealistic to take up the subject of how to do things better. But efficiency needs to be mentioned for theoretical reasons including the truth needed to diminish the influence of corruption upon human existence. Efficiency starts with how to do things right, which is otherwise known as constructivity. That means some knowledge about a process beyond how to rip everyone off pretending to do the impossible with no explanations of how. Knowledge and experience are the starting points for doing things right. Then efficiency is solving some of the problems to make things work better. That means working better for everyone, not just the rip-off schemers. It means respect for employees instead of destroying them to get more out of them. Corrupters have a bunch of slogans they operate by such as the concept that you need to beat people up to get more out of them. It looks like it works for slave labor; but it doesn't produce modern technology. Modern complexities are exploited by screwing everything up as totally as possible. That means, once you sign up for something, someone else runs your life. To prevent you from running your own life, everything has to be screwed up as totally as possible. Corrupters do that because it works. It rips people off. What they miss is that they create a nonfunctional society in ripping everyone off. Then they expect to win their wars through overwhelming power. Screwing everything up to rip everyone off doesn't create overwhelming power. The Bigger-As-Better Fraud Corrupters aren't very bright; but they can see the advantage of bigger-as-better in promoting their corruptions. Bigger means more force and violence and less efficiency. So of course, propaganda says bigger is more efficient in loving the kids and pets. Scale does influence cost; but scale is not the same thing as efficiency. Efficiency always diminishes in direct proportion to size. Scale is not directly related to cost. It's that a certain quantity is required for an economic activity. Enough products must be produced and sold to justify an effort. But after the required amount, bigger doesn't even lower costs, because it lowers efficiency. An example would be K-Mart going under and being replaced by Wal-Mart. K-Mart was large enough and meeting needs well. But it had a regimentation problem in not getting things done properly in the stores. So Sam Walton focussed on that task and eliminated all regimentation by defining the activities of each employee. Eliminating regimentation as management chain of duties was a method of improving efficiency. The larger the operation, the more problematic the chain of duties, which is an efficiency problem with all large operations. Owner-operators leave other businesses in the dust wherever they can function. Owner-operators include a lot of equipment operators and small farmers. They stay on top of things to get it done right including maintenance, where large businesses are disconnected from conditions and get everything screwed up. Therefore, large businesses sometimes find it more practical to hire owner operators when available than to do the same thing themselves. So the Reaganites decided, along with throwing out critical laws to get government off their back, they would go for bigger being better. They bankrupted thirty percent of the farmers claiming that it would be the small operators going under and would improve agriculture. Instead, the largest operators were the first to go under. The methodology of the Reaganites was to dribble stored grain onto markets pushing prices down. In 1952, wheat sold for $1.25 per bushel. In 1983, wheat sold for $1.25 per bushel. That's literal dollars, not adjusted for inflation. All agriculture prices were depressed, because most farmers are versatile and switch from one product to another. Besides taking down the corporations in agriculture, it took out the young farmers, because they had loans to pay off. The old timers had their loans paid and could wait out the bad times. Of course, the corporations reformed afterwards, often from different sources. Iowa is still trying to talk East Europeans into going into agriculture in Iowa due to the shortage of farmers. Reaganites did something similar with grocery stores promoting bigger as better. Now there only a few giant grocers, almost no small grocers; and product options disintegrated. (Reaganites And Grocery Store Size) The reason why bigger is less efficient is because it removes details from management. There are contradictions in the details which cannot be resolved, when largeness of scale overwhelms the process. There is no economic advantage in small things compared to large things. So the small things get wiped out. It is not just a reduction in options that bigness destroys. In fact, specialization reduces production options in creating efficiency in global markets. It's the rounding off that lowers efficiency with scale. Rounding off means a lot of things going wrong. It also means no one understanding the details that screw things up. In agriculture, large operators function from offices in town and don't have a clue what is happening on the ground. Small farmers are involved in everything and adapt to conditions, which are always changing. Smallness creates adaptability; largeness erases adaptability. There is such a thing as being too small; but required size varies with circumstances. Family famers pick the size they can manage effectively. A lot of farmers want to get forever larger; and monoculture corn and soybeans allowed doubling in size by replacing tillage with spraying. That's a circumstance that dictates optimum size. Why then do small operators get wiped out by large ones? Because of force and violence, not efficiency. Efficiency of scale only gets relevant at end-points, not starting points. Efficiency of scale is used as the pretext for wiping out competitors through force and violence, while everything deteriorates as a result. Fraud Is Needed To Monger Power Getting Force And Violence Wrong Corruption As A Higher Standard
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 | ||
 | ||||
 |
 |
 |
||
