On Mar 17, 10:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
All this hub-bub about a few million dollars of bonus money to
employees that seem to have such a good contract.

Time for a visit from Vido to AIG.

Vido would explain to each and every one receiving a large bonus that
he has a hunch that someone who files a tax return for such a large
sum of income probably has a pretty good chance that the IRS would
want to perform a very complete review these tax returns to insure
there were no errors.

Vido usually has pretty good hunches.

The complaint about bonuses is merely an attempt to apply government
methodology to the commercial environment. Governments don't (or shouldn't)
award incentives for jobs well done - governments cannot survive if they
foster initative and efficiency because each implies some form of dissent
from the received wisdom. Members of the guardian mindset must conform for
the sake of the task - there can be no reward for straying off the
reservation. This is the way members of the ruling sect must think.

Conversely, the commercial mindset works best when members dissent for the
sake of the task. Bonuses are merely a way of encouraging such
outside-the-box thoughts and actions.

Since time immemorial, governments have experimented with the encouragement
of initiative. Such experiments almost always fail, sometimes to the
destruction of the entire country. As such, there is a strong reluctance on
the part of government to put a toe in that water. In fact, as we see here,
there is a strong incentive to impose that principle outside the usual
realm.

Business, on the other hand, has had its most wrenching problems when
employees are deprived of the opportunity to experiment and innovate.

Bottom line: Governments suffer - and even collapse entirely - when they
attempt commercial solutions to guardian problems. Likewise, businesses
suffer when they attempt to operate like a government.*

In the instant case, the AIG people who DON'T get their bonuses will soon
say "Screw this, I'm outta here," and they'll go to work for a less
governmental-minded enterprise. Their places will be filled by bureacrats
who know which rubber-stamp to use.

Although not germane to this topic, do not EVER vote for a candidate who
says his experience in running a business will serve the public well and
especially if he says he wants to apply business techniques to your city's
government!

----------
* There is at least one exception to this rule: The Mafia. The Mafia
exhibits parts of both rationales.

Well put, and it is not often we get to read properly executed
linguistic endeavours such as this. Seriously.

Public service and running a business are not compatible... unless
you're Haliburton. G

ONE reason Mitt Romney should never be allowed near the White House.
(That is just one reason. Any man who makes his woman dress up in
funny PJ's to have sex with her is a sick person. Unless it is a clown
suit... of course.)

Government is there to manage and look after our interests, not to
screw us out of our money, right?