Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[unclevlad]

5 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Marketplace just discussed gthe business impact of the indictments against the Trump business group. Noted that all Trump's debt just became even riskier; which means that's worth less. IE, if a bank that holds, say, $100 million of Trump's debt but decides to sell the debt and get the money now... they won't be able to sell it for $100 million. A buyer will insist on a discount, based on their estimate of the odds that Trump doesn't pay at all. And those odds just became worse.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Unfortunately, it also gives Trump himself a venue to continue his martyrial narrative and invective.

 

For me, I think the bigger risk is that this could lead to an even more in-depth exploration, outside New York.  And that might lead to tax evasion against Trump.

[Cygnia]

Trump Team's New Social Media Site Is Now Overrun With Hentai

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Cygnia said:

Trump Team's New Social Media Site Is Now Overrun With Hentai

 

Of course it is.

 

I read Atlas Shrugged back in high school.  Tail end of it, after things totally fall apart and one of the characters is writing the new Constitution based on Rand's Objectivist notions, one of the core lines is "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade."  Does this mean that my store's scales can read 10% heavy?  Or I can engage in collusion and price fixing?  Can I take apart a company's hot new product and duplicate the design?

 

There are few, if any, real-world, human interactions and behaviors where a blanket "anything goes" policy can work.  

[assault]

On 7/2/2021 at 4:02 AM, Pariah said:

Well, if buying senators and representatives isn't enough to get your point across, I suppose you can buy the National Guard, too.

 

GOP donor funds South Dakota National Guard troops in Texas

 

Dumb question from an Australian: is immigration policy a state or federal issue in the US?

I get that law enforcement is fragmented in the US, but surely in this case, the laws being enforced are federal laws?

 

Then again, Australia has no equivalent to the National Guard. The closest our state and territory governments can come to that is the recruitment of "special constables" (under police control) in an emergency. (That came close to being a military force in New South Wales in a dispute with the federal government in the 1930s.)

[csyphrett]

1 hour ago, assault said:

 

Dumb question from an Australian: is immigration policy a state or federal issue in the US?

I get that law enforcement is fragmented in the US, but surely in this case, the laws being enforced are federal laws?

 

Then again, Australia has no equivalent to the National Guard. The closest our state and territory governments can come to that is the recruitment of "special constables" (under police control) in an emergency. (That came close to being a military force in New South Wales in a dispute with the federal government in the 1930s.)

It's both on different levels. on the local level, immigration pulls on the infrastructure of the state where the immigrants come in. So states along the border have to deal with people smuggling to go along with the regular smuggling, murders and accidental deaths from people walking into the wrong thing at night, local corruption and bigotry, and other things.

 

Immigration policy itself on who can come in, get visas, how many refugees the country can take in a year, anything like that is set by federal law and held up by ICE and parts of Homeland Security. (as an aside, did Steve Miller get the boot? He helped start this wall boondoogle and he should be deported)

 

The main thing in my mind is how did the governor of South Dakota justify sending his Guard to Texas who have their own National Guard.

CES       

[DShomshak]

13 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Of course it is.

 

I read Atlas Shrugged back in high school.  Tail end of it, after things totally fall apart and one of the characters is writing the new Constitution based on Rand's Objectivist notions, one of the core lines is "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade."  Does this mean that my store's scales can read 10% heavy?  Or I can engage in collusion and price fixing?  Can I take apart a company's hot new product and duplicate the design?

 

There are few, if any, real-world, human interactions and behaviors where a blanket "anything goes" policy can work.  

One of the people I used to game with was a Libertarian (though he claimed he wasn't a Rand Cult Objectivist) and the rest of us brought up questions like this. As one of my friends put it, "Surely there must at least be a law that if the label says 'steak,' the package can't contain Play-Doh." And Mister Libertarian said, "No, there mustn't." If businesses start pulling shenanigans like this, that ceates a markt for private rating agencies that consumers can check to see whether a company that proclaims to produce steak is in fact selling steak. It took the rest of us all of one second to suggest how that would fail: Fake rating services, or fake reviews by paid reviewers, but Mister Libertarian still insisted it would work.

 

I know there are varieties and degrees of libertarianism, that many (or at least some) insist they don't want anarchy, just a more skeptical eye to what needs legislation. It's not hard to find instances of laws and state actions that are foolish, frivolous, or blatant attempts to privilege one business or segment of society. That doesn't mean that law and government are the problem. We *know* what happens when the State will not or cannot assert itself, and the result isn't political liberty or a free market: it's state capture or outright gangsterism.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lectryk]

14 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Of course it is.

 

I read Atlas Shrugged back in high school.  Tail end of it, after things totally fall apart and one of the characters is writing the new Constitution based on Rand's Objectivist notions, one of the core lines is "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade."  Does this mean that my store's scales can read 10% heavy?  Or I can engage in collusion and price fixing?  Can I take apart a company's hot new product and duplicate the design?

 

There are few, if any, real-world, human interactions and behaviors where a blanket "anything goes" policy can work.  

 

There are reasons you see articles talking about the 'objectivist hell' places turn into, when anything close to Randism is practised.

 

[Lectryk]

18 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

 "Surely there must at least be a law that if the label says 'steak,' the package can't contain Play-Doh." And Mister Libertarian said, "No, there mustn't." If businesses start pulling shenanigans like this, that ceates a markt for private rating agencies that consumers can check to see whether a company that proclaims to produce steak is in fact selling steak. It took the rest of us all of one second to suggest how that would fail: Fake rating services, or fake reviews by paid reviewers, but Mister Libertarian still insisted it would work.

 How did he explain (if it was asked) that it didn't work historically?  That companies would forsake the profit motivation out of the altruistic, public minded civic spirit that they all hold dearest?

[unclevlad]

33 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

One of the people I used to game with was a Libertarian (though he claimed he wasn't a Rand Cult Objectivist) and the rest of us brought up questions like this. As one of my friends put it, "Surely there must at least be a law that if the label says 'steak,' the package can't contain Play-Doh." And Mister Libertarian said, "No, there mustn't." If businesses start pulling shenanigans like this, that ceates a markt for private rating agencies that consumers can check to see whether a company that proclaims to produce steak is in fact selling steak. It took the rest of us all of one second to suggest how that would fail: Fake rating services, or fake reviews by paid reviewers, but Mister Libertarian still insisted it would work.

 

To borrow from the X Files, the truth is out there.  Fake ratings *abound*.  Businesses have been destroyed by them at times.  We're talking severe, deliberately false accusations.  Arguably, they were SO ridiculous that anyone with an ounce of sense should question the legitimacy.  But...hey, many people won't.  And the Internet has an obscenely long memory;  these reports promulgate for a very long time.

 

Or, the flip side...tons of glowing reviews are equally fake.  They're promotions masquerading as reviews.  That's EXTREMELY common.

 

In between, there's a separate, basic aspect:  one needs to consider the reviewer, if possible. 

 

Now, ok, one can learn to read reviews and ratings, but it IS a skill, and not everyone will have it.  One can also learn to read scam email, and most people, I think, can do that now.  BUT, it's by no means everyone, and the penalty for falling for these scams can be brutal.  AND, we *all* pay the price, because security measures have to be put in place.

 

1 hour ago, Lectryk said:

There are reasons you see articles talking about the 'objectivist hell' places turn into, when anything close to Randism is practised.

 

Objectivism would be fine in a utopia.  Know of any we can travel to?  PHYSICALLY, you goof, mot in our imaginations!!!

[unclevlad]

CNN is reporting that the Arizona Republic has published an article detailing that Trump et al pressured Maricopa County election officials, a la his Georgia actions.  CNN played 3 calls to election officials, 2 from the Court Jester and one from Kelli Ward, the Trump sycophant who is the chairman of the Arizona Republican Party.  They're pretty bad.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/02/politics/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-calls-maricopa-county-election-supervisors/index.html

 

Can't link to the original article;  it's for Arizona Republic subscribers only.  

[TrickstaPriest]

2 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

CNN is reporting that the Arizona Republic has published an article detailing that Trump et al pressured Maricopa County election officials, a la his Georgia actions.  CNN played 3 calls to election officials, 2 from the Court Jester and one from Kelli Ward, the Trump sycophant who is the chairman of the Arizona Republican Party.  They're pretty bad.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/02/politics/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-calls-maricopa-county-election-supervisors/index.html

 

Can't link to the original article;  it's for Arizona Republic subscribers only.  

 

When the Georgia call came out, I kind of figured.  The only way they'd swing this is to do this everywhere.

[pinecone]

6 hours ago, DShomshak said:

One of the people I used to game with was a Libertarian (though he claimed he wasn't a Rand Cult Objectivist) and the rest of us brought up questions like this. As one of my friends put it, "Surely there must at least be a law that if the label says 'steak,' the package can't contain Play-Doh." And Mister Libertarian said, "No, there mustn't." If businesses start pulling shenanigans like this, that ceates a markt for private rating agencies that consumers can check to see whether a company that proclaims to produce steak is in fact selling steak. It took the rest of us all of one second to suggest how that would fail: Fake rating services, or fake reviews by paid reviewers, but Mister Libertarian still insisted it would work.

 

I know there are varieties and degrees of libertarianism, that many (or at least some) insist they don't want anarchy, just a more skeptical eye to what needs legislation. It's not hard to find instances of laws and state actions that are foolish, frivolous, or blatant attempts to privilege one business or segment of society. That doesn't mean that law and government are the problem. We *know* what happens when the State will not or cannot assert itself, and the result isn't political liberty or a free market: it's state capture or outright gangsterism.

 

Dean Shomshak

My take from my own reading was they want "Ethical gangsterism" more or less. If the Black swallow mob sells bad meat, the "Blue Dahlia" Mob can make a move....

[TrickstaPriest]

56 minutes ago, pinecone said:

My take from my own reading was they want "Ethical gangsterism" more or less. If the Black swallow mob sells bad meat, the "Blue Dahlia" Mob can make a move....

 

Why would the 'Blue Dahlia Mob' care?  I mean, profit is always higher when you deliver a subpar product across the market.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

[pinecone]

But market forces apply. Bumpy Johnson could supply better Heroin than others, so he created a "brand" and took control of most of the market (in New York anyways) Sub par grade goods require a captive market. And that requires monopolies, or cartels. That happens After somebody "wins" the market, and can close out competitors. Through diplomacy, or other means. Even purity laws are a barrier to free trade, we use them because they benefit society as a whole. There was a time when they did not exist. After it became a problem, government stepped in.

[pinecone]

The same applies to Cartels and Monopolies, once apon a time, That was legal, but it caused "problems" so society took action. After all a Cartel restricts free trade.....etc. The only open cartel/monopoly that seems to operate openly is Diamonds, and they have to use moralistic advertising to prevent people from buying "blood diamonds".

[TrickstaPriest]

The problem is I can't take "market forces apply" at it's word.  It's just a general statement if there isn't research and evidence provided.

 

As an avid environmentalist, the idea that "society eventually does something about it a century too late" is cold comfort to our collective demise.

 

Then again, I'm just not interested in arguing markets right now.

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, pinecone said:

But market forces apply. Bumpy Johnson could supply better Heroin than others, so he created a "brand" and took control of most of the market (in New York anyways) Sub par grade goods require a captive market. And that requires monopolies, or cartels. That happens After somebody "wins" the market, and can close out competitors. Through diplomacy, or other means. 

 

"Market forces" can frequently take a very, very long time to adjust a market, and are themselves subject to manipulation.  5 of us agree to sell a mediocre product at an inflated price.  Our cost is pretty consistently $10 per unit;  we sell for $30.  You come by;  you can make the same quality for $8, and you'll charge $16.  We agree to drop the price to $15, in a rolling manner while passing subsidies back and forth between us so our overall profit doesn't get particularly hurt...until you're so financially crippled that we buy you out.

 

Microsoft cut sweetheart deals to have Windows pre-installed;  that killed OS/2, which was its only potential rival in the business market.  They leveraged that to kickstart Office.  Between them, they *dominated* their markets.  In terms of full-function desktop machines, they still have no competition.  No, neither Android nor Chrome counts, in my book, as a full-function desktop OS.  (Neither does IOS.)  They've made it, IMO, functionally impossible for a true competitor to arise.  An alternative, yes...macOS, desktop Linux...but they put you into completely different software universes.  The OS isn't critical;  the apps are.  And Windows' apps library is the elephant to Linux' or Mac's gerbil.

 

IBM had a similar position into the 80's...and they got gutted.  So you can say it's possible this could happen to Microsoft.  But IBM didn't lose its market share;  it lost its market.  The PC created a paradigm shift, and thereby a complete redefinition, of the market space.  Phones, tablets, and small notebooks created a *partial* shift and redefinition, but their human-interface limitations are such that they can't function as complete replacements.  The redefinition allowed Android and iOS;  the notion that many people don't *need* a full-function desktop, but something more like a tablet...made Chromebook practical.

 

In other industries, utilities being a major example, the fundamental barrier is the initial infrastructure investment.  If more than one company tries to work its way into an entire, larger market (say the greater El Paso area) then each is having to amortize their infrastructure costs over only a fraction of the populace...which means probably both higher prices to consumers and slower rollout.  Whether it's one or several companies...as the rollout does happen, the window for another company narrows.  Their chance to create an alternative...they'd have to build yet another backbone structure, and their potential customer base has been reduced...shrinks rapidly.

 

3 hours ago, pinecone said:

Even purity laws are a barrier to free trade, we use them because they benefit society as a whole. There was a time when they did not exist. After it became a problem, government stepped in.

 

Not quite sure what you mean by purity laws;  there's a few things I think that could mean.

But...labeling laws didn't exist.  Why were they developed?
--Societal needs were recognized...allergen information, for example.

--Correct abuses.  "Low sodium!!"...the regular version has 400 mg, the "low sodium" has 350.  Hardly noticeable.  The potential consumer is swayed by the unjustified qualifier.  If there is no labeling requirement, the smart consumer can't tell anything...and it's utopian to assert that with optional labeling, that only a very small minority *won't* be swayed by just the misdescriptive label. 

--Eliminate ambiguity.  What does it mean to label something "organic"?  Organic, non-GMO...pesticides go back millenia, but the recognition of their hazards came about in the 50's and 60's.  GMOs date back only to 1973;  selective breeding is something completely different.  So what exactly is necessary to be considered organic?

 

More generally...new problems will always be recognized.  Some of them can be managed within the existing framework;  others disrupt it.  Precedents get built up under a set of social and technological conditions;  they fly apart at times similarly.

 

BTW:  the diamond cartel controls the market by colluding to not pay anything CLOSE to wholesale for pre-worn stones, thereby ensuring the demand for new stones.  The "blood diamonds" marketing is something completely separate.

[TrickstaPriest]

46 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

In other industries, utilities being a major example, the fundamental barrier is the initial infrastructure investment.  If more than one company tries to work its way into an entire, larger market (say the greater El Paso area) then each is having to amortize their infrastructure costs over only a fraction of the populace...which means probably both higher prices to consumers and slower rollout.  Whether it's one or several companies...as the rollout does happen, the window for another company narrows.  Their chance to create an alternative...they'd have to build yet another backbone structure, and their potential customer base has been reduced...shrinks rapidly.

 

 

The more I think about this the more it drives me crazy.

 

Literally the only way the lightbulb market (that was self restricting lightbulbs to 1000 hrs of lifespan, deliberately creating an inferior product) was 'disrupted' was by inventing an entirely new technology - LED bulbs.  Windows - it's only being replaced because the entire desktop machine is being replaced... by the phone market.

 

Phone market.  We are seeing the smartphone market eliminate the ability to replace batteries in their phones across the board.  I had to buy a new phone and almost none of them allow you to replace batteries anymore.  The remaining marketshare is too small, obscure, and of questionable quality, incentivizing/forcing the average consumer to buy new phones twice as often instead of replacing old batteries.

 

Internet.  Not even Google has been able to disrupt that market with new and superior technology... it exists across town from me, but I literally cannot get those lines from where I am.  It only exists across town because there was no houses there...  I may never be able to get those lines this decade without moving where I live.

 

Hospitals you don't generally choose, that gets chosen for you.  Friends of mine literally had to do research to figure out which hospital nearby is covered by their insurance - it wasn't the closest one!  ...Plus the health infrastructure itself is insane.  When I asked my doctor to run some bloodwork another person requested, no one told me (or probably knew) that the insurance company wouldn't cover it.  I had to pay $800 out of pocket for bloodwork done out of the same lab by the same people I always get my bloodwork done, literally at the same time I got other bloodwork done that -was- covered by my insurance.

 

Tractor companies have literally fought to prevent repairs to their own products, forcing farmers to hack the tractor software to conduct repairs on the tractors they owned.  If they didn't do this, they'd be waiting for weeks to get a tractor repair done, which is the same as shutting down their income for weeks.

 

We haven't even included entertainment - does Star Wardz count as a market substitute to Star Wars?  If you can only get Star Wars on Disney+, then you can only ever get Star Wars from Disney... do market substitutes apply to entertainment products?

 

Companies are actively incentivized to play obstructionist and bury complaints, buy and scrap competitors, bribe governors, and that's them being nice.  Big companies buy literal death squads, arbitrarily deny energy to drive up electricity prices, or just take things like water.  How does rigging the tax code factor into the market? 

It's a long rant, but this is what I mean (in general, not to anyone in particular) when I say I need to see the research.  I just literally don't believe what people say "about the market" anymore.  I've literally seen too much abuse.  It's all illegal, but it's only illegal because we say so.  We can just as arbitrarily say "it'll get handled eventually", and I just don't believe that any more.

 

edit: Definitely as pinecone says, the government is a necessity at some times to tackle issues with the market, but i wonder how much our 'wisdom about the free market' is just bunk?

 

And what other examples can we collate of this blatant kind of abuse of corporate power?  I'm interested in things beyond what I already know, beyond Enron, Coca Cola, and lightbulbs.

I honestly wouldn't mind hearing more about economics and what can be said about the market in general - I use incidents to inform me about a subject, but that doesn't teach anything positive in this subject.

 

I've heard from others saying something to the effect of:

 

"The market" requires a fast turn around time on a definable take-home product in a non-critical situation. 

 

It doesn't apply to a number of situations I think:

• life-or-death products (my mother flew off a highway, her car tumbled.  insurance claims it was human error, but one of the new Firestone tires exploded)
• any services (handymen, doctors, dentists, car repair)
• a company controlling a platform environment (Windows dominating PCs, Amazon dominating shipping)
• nor does it apply if you would find out about a problem a decade later (see all the issues with contamination - plus I have problems taking supplements because they don't list their actual real ingredients)
• Plus long-term products - you can't really complain much about cars until you become an expert in them, or have multiple bad experiences with the same type of vehicle... which could take 20-30 years to actually pass.  It could take ~100 years to 'adjust the market', where everyone responsible for the initial issues is literally dead and buried.
• And of course deliberate market collusion to make inferior products.  like the lightbulb example I had posted

 

 

I think it generally takes multiple "generations of product abuse from a definable abuser" for enough purchasers to create enough pressure to change the market to begin with.  But a lot of the time it's hard to say "how bad is my doctor, really?", "I need a new electrician but I don't know any of these guys", "my new tires should be fine, they won't explode or anything", and "well I guess I am stuck with an X phone because I really don't have the time to learn how to use these weird 'other software' phones".

 

What kind of soft factors weigh against the power of the market to rectify a problem?

[Lord Liaden]

There is, or is supposed to be, a fundamental difference between markets, which in our society are driven by capitalist priorities, and governments driven by representative democratic priorities. Markets are always under pressure to maximize profits for those who own or have invested in the businesses involved. That's how their success is measured. To do this they'll usually curtail aspects of their business which are not sufficiently profitable, even if those aspects benefit their consumers. The more unscrupulous ones will attempt to deceive or manipulate their consumers, or engage in other predatory practices highlighted in previous posts.

 

Representative governments are obliged to deliver necessary services to all their citizens, and to protect them from harm, and to be accountable to their citizens if they fail to do so. In principle, profitability is not a factor, beyond assuring that incoming revenue balances expenditures. The goal of democratic government is supposed to be the greatest practical beneficence to the greatest number of people, "practical" of course being subject to much interpretation.

 

Each system has its inherent flaws, but IMO those flaws are multiplied when the two priorities are conflated; when those who profit from the markets gain excessive influence over those who govern, and when those who govern place their own profit above their obligation to their citizens.

[wcw43921]

A Symbol Of Unity That May No Longer Unite

 

How about it, all you US HEROes?  Do any of you fly the US Flag?

[Hugh Neilson]

As my intro economics prof many years back was fond of pointing out, in economics the real world is often a special case.  Economic theory assumes no power imbalance.  For example, so many employers, all small, that each individual has full bargaining power, and no barriers to entry like huge capital investment requirements.

 

No regulations?  So, no protection for unions, then.  Management can send in the strikebreakers, right?  You want to work, you work for the wages offered, not some government-mandated minimum wage.  You don't like that all employers in the region got together to set the wage they'll pay?  Tough.  Market forces will prevail - someone else will start a business that pays more and wipe out the current employers, right?  And we can employ 8-year olds in the textiles plant, of course. 

 

"St. Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go.  I owe my soul to the company store."

 

No government funding for those who can't, won't or don't work.  Market forces dictate we let the excess labour force starve.  That's what puts economic power back in check.  When the Black Plague killed off a huge portion of the European labour force, employers had to offer better deals to attract the remaining workers.  Supply and demand above all!

 

The big grocery store chain can keep its eye on any competitors opening, and drop their prices at locations in that area.  Their price-gouging locations outside that shopping area can fund them long enough to squeeze out that upstart competitor, and then they can raise prices back up to where they were. 

 

Oh, and you can't regulate product either.  Stop squelching those young entrepreneurs marketing their cannabis, cocaine and heroin!  The market will dictate what does, and does not, sell.

[Starlord]

4 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

A Symbol Of Unity That May No Longer Unite

 

How about it, all you US HEROes?  Do any of you fly the US Flag?

 

I do...but symbols mean different things to different people.  

[TrickstaPriest]

9 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Representative governments are obliged to deliver necessary services to all their citizens, and to protect them from harm, and to be accountable to their citizens if they fail to do so. In principle, profitability is not a factor, beyond assuring that incoming revenue balances expenditures. The goal of democratic government is supposed to be the greatest practical beneficence to the greatest number of people, "practical" of course being subject to much interpretation.

 

 

I wonder if that's what representative governments are actually incentivized to do.  The fact that our government does not illustrates some of the problems with this assumption, and to even talk about it I guess we have to understand what would incentivize a government to function 'properly' to begin with.

[Lord Liaden]

Very valid questions. Accountability to the electorate is supposed to be one part of that incentive. So are checks and balances like those within the American system, which are intended to prevent any individual or group from gaining so much power that they can work for their own benefit and against the interests of the state.

 

Of course as we've all seen, for those to work they require the majority of government officials to not be purely motivated by selfishness, and the majority of the electorate to be reasonably informed, critical, and responsible. That can no longer be assumed.

[Lectryk]

1 hour ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I wonder if that's what representative governments are actually incentivized to do.  The fact that our government does not illustrates some of the problems with this assumption, and to even talk about it I guess we have to understand what would incentivize a government to function 'properly' to begin with.

 

How is it not incentivized by the people?  We just had an election, and changed government.  I'd say the former administration didn't do a proper job, and the people made their choice and lack of happiness clear - they fired the group they weren't happy with.  If Trump wasn't incentivized by the upcoming election, why did he do everything he did to curry favor with his voters?  If our system doesn't incentivize politicans in general, why do they work so hard and boast so much about everything they do for their constituency?  Why do they do so many non-explicitly job related activities to get re-elected?  Why do administrations try for big wins on initiatives/laws/whatever?   Why is there so much pork doled out to states and districts if there's no incentive?  The reward (incentive, if you will) for politicans here would be re-election and being able to continue running/leading the government. 

 

What do you see as our Federal Government not functioning "properly"?  What is your definition of "properly", I guess that's where we should start, because the government I see (at all levels) provide a hell of a lot of regulatory, safety, and legal potections; at the State and Federal level military protections are afforded as well.  I have been involved in a few of those things.  For not working properly, they certainly seemed to be effective at meeting the goals (and paying my salary) that were set for them by the government in response to citizens demands for service.