G-Men for Life

[bigmack]

What is the private sector experience of 432 Cabinet Appointments in the current administration? 7%. About 30. :confused:

http://blog.american.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/obamacabinet.jpg

When one considers that public sector employment has ranged since the 1950s at between 15 percent and 19 percent of the population, the makeup of the current cabinet—over 90 percent of its prior experience was in the public sector—is remarkable.

[Boris]

A's hire A's. B's hire C's.

[cj's dad]

A's hire A's. B's hire C's.

OK so the dumb Dems (the B's) hire the C ( BO ) - does that mean that BHO's appointees are D's ???, as in dopes ??

[kenwoodallpromos]

What qualifies as experience? What is the failure rate or stock price loss for the various admins?

[bigmack]

What qualifies as experience? What is the failure rate or stock price loss for the various admins?
(anncr. with stadium echo effect)

In center field, Hack Wilson.

In right, Elmer Flick.

And coming from way out in left field, Ken Wood (all)

[ddog]

remarkable ......
reeeaaalllllyyyy now......

If gvt was seen as a bad place to be, would it not stand to reason that any of sound mind in private biz(a hoot if ever one was posted) would refuse to serve?

Maybe it shows that the country suffers a lack of duty toward the nation as a whole?


Maybe it shows that after Bush the gvt has such a bad ped that none of value want anything to do with it?

Maybe it shows that biz doesn't need to serve in but just around gvt to reap their benefits from it.


Maybe it shows that theone wants to appoint only those he understands, just as thebush did. Maybe they understand different groups.
Maybe the source and underlying stats are pure b.s.

????
remarkable???? -only to the perpetually surprised.

[bigmack]

Maybe the source and underlying stats are pure b.s.

Run with that one. What is the source & show us the level of its bs.

[rastajenk]

It's nice that Da Dog comes down from his Holy Mountain once in a while and sprinkles some Wisdom over and among us. Pity that so little of it ever sticks, though, and we continue to walk around dazed, confused, and stupid, same as it ever was. :D

[skate]

A's hire A's. B's hire C's.

I missed the point

[skate]

(anncr. with stadium echo effect)

In center field, Hack Wilson.

In right, Elmer Flick.

And coming from way out in left field, Ken Wood (all)



Happens to be my position, please:cool:

[skate]

kinda shows what IT shows:eek: huh?

I've never seen a more Precise chart:cool:

[mostpost]

I missed the point
The point is that strong leaders are confident in their own abilities and hire the best people in order to form the best organization. Weak leaders lack confidence and feel threatened by their superiors, therefore they hire inferior people, resulting in a weak organization. Do I have that right, Boris?
NOW HERE IS WHERE I DISAGREE WITH BORIS AND THE THEME OF THIS THREAD!
Having an excess of appointees from the public sector is not an indication of weakness. During the last administration many of those regulationg an industry were people who had previously worked in the industry. They had a knowledge of the industry, but they also had a bias in favor of the industry. They may have had friends who were still powerful in the industry.
As a result necessary regulation was frequently ignored, and many regulations were rescinded. Also, people who are steeped in the values of a particular portion of the economy, are more likely to ignore other parts in making their judgements; to the detriment of the whole.

[Tom]

The actions of this administration clearly show that you cannot govern what you do not understand. That is why we have losing jobs - no one in BOs government ever held one, so no one knows what one is or what it does.
They all come from GI-Jobs. That is why we have so many new G-Fools and so few working people.

[bigmack]

They all come from GI-Jobs. That is why we have so many new G-Fools and so few working people.
So what you're saying is that if we needed a new Postmaster General we'd be better off hiring someone from the business sector like:

Marvin Travis Runyon Runyon was appointed United States Postmaster General 1992-1998 after a long career as an executive with Ford Motor Company, at a time when the postal service was struggling with high costs and a poor reputation for service.
Runyon's first goal was to treat the United States Postal Service as a business geared toward making money and pleasing customers. He was a cost control expert and instituted cost measurement systems copied from his years with Ford—he even sent senior post office officials to Ford to review their systems. He eliminated 23,000 management jobs, hired more letter carriers and counter employees and emphasized automation to speed mail delivery.
Runyon, during his time at the U.S.P.S., often decided to distance himself from management when he traveled. He normally made it a high priority to visit Postal Service craft employees (letter carriers, window clerks, mailhandlers, etc.) in their work areas. It was not uncommon for him to sit alone in the coach section of an airplane, reading fiction.

Instead of the bureaucrats they've hired from within ever since?

[mostpost]

What qualifies as experience? What is the failure rate or stock price loss for the various admins?
Your question assumes that stock price is the ultimate arbiter of an administration's success or failure. Even in an economic sense, it is not. Also to be considered are unemployment/employment, wages, quality of life benefits, etc.
But the answer to your question can be found here.
http://www.econstats.com/eqty/eqea_mi_3.htm
Column five shows the annual change.

[Boris]

The point is that strong leaders are confident in their own abilities and hire the best people in order to form the best organization. Weak leaders lack confidence and feel threatened by their superiors, therefore they hire inferior people, resulting in a weak organization. Do I have that right, Boris?
NOW HERE IS WHERE I DISAGREE WITH BORIS AND THE THEME OF THIS THREAD!
Having an excess of appointees from the public sector is not an indication of weakness. During the last administration many of those regulationg an industry were people who had previously worked in the industry. They had a knowledge of the industry, but they also had a bias in favor of the industry. They may have had friends who were still powerful in the industry.
As a result necessary regulation was frequently ignored, and many regulations were rescinded. Also, people who are steeped in the values of a particular portion of the economy, are more likely to ignore other parts in making their judgements; to the detriment of the whole.

I’ll accept your summary with the exception of the word “superiors”. Not sure of the context you mean. Intellect or org chart? B’s don’t hire people that will “show them up”. It’s a job security thing and extends deep into the private sector. A store with poor customer service is not run by an A.

And you can't disagree with it when used, as I did, as a statement. It's simply a fact. (Bonus question - Who was I quoting?) :lol:

Interesting that knowledge of an industry is a negative to you. No wonder you supported this president as he clearly has no knowledge of any industry. Some how being a neophyte is the same as impartial in your world. Also interesting that your default position is that people in power are bias to their friends. Can you share some examples of this in the current administration?

[riskman]

What has taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most incredible about faces in our history. The economy is the key, jobs, jobs, jobs. He packed all of the key economic positions in the administration with the same people who caused the financial crisis in the first place. These fat ass bankers and ex government vultures with Obamas approval then proceeded to sell out the American people with a massive bailout and gutting regulatory reform from inside the White House. Without a doubt, Obama is a just a rookie in the political big leagues hoodwinked by the beltway elites. Obama is a vacillating, ineffectual lackey of the bankers interests. We as the taxpayers are the welfare provider for the financial services and part of the auto industry.

Obama should start over and fire that jerk Geithner who is the water boy on virtually all the giveaways in the reform legislation. This creep is a living symbol of an infested boil on the rear end of this horrific administration. This bagman has to go. Obama and his cohorts pulled a bait and switch on the American people. This guy is a disaster as are most of the people surrounding him. Obama has allowed his presidency to be hijacked by a bunch of low life shit heads and we are going to pay a big price for this. This supposedly once in a generation political savior who talked a good game during the election wont be slaying any dragons anytime soon more likely eating crow.

[Boris]

Obama should start over and fire that jerk Geithner who is the water boy on virtually all the giveaways in the reform legislation. This creep is a living symbol of an infested boil on the rear end of this horrific administration. This bagman has to go. Obama and his cohorts pulled a bait and switch on the American people. This guy is a disaster as are most of the people surrounding him. Obama has allowed his presidency to be hijacked by a bunch of low life shit heads and we are going to pay a big price for this. This supposedly once in a generation political savior who talked a good game during the election wont be slaying any dragons anytime soon more likely eating crow.
Timothy "Beavis" Geithner

[mostpost]

I’ll accept your summary with the exception of the word “superiors”. Not sure of the context you mean. Intellect or org chart? B’s don’t hire people that will “show them up”. It’s a job security thing and extends deep into the private sector. A store with poor customer service is not run by an A.

And you can't disagree with it when used, as I did, as a statement. It's simply a fact. (Bonus question - Who was I quoting?) :lol:

Interesting that knowledge of an industry is a negative to you. No wonder you supported this president as he clearly has no knowledge of any industry. Some how being a neophyte is the same as impartial in your world. Also interesting that your default position is that people in power are bias to their friends. Can you share some examples of this in the current administration?
re: your first paragraph, maybe "superiors" was a bad choice of words. I was referring to intellect and/or ability. Your summary was right on.

Bonus question: No clue.
Knowledge of an industry is a positive. Intimacy with an industry is a negative.
One example; during the Bush Administration the man in charge of regulating the coal industry was a former coal company exective. There were a number of cases where miners were trapped and killed due to lax safety regulations and the failure to follow up on inspections.
Any regulatory body needs to have employees who are familiar with the industry they are regulating, but the people in charge are supposed to be working for us, not the industry they are supposed to be regulating.

[bigmack]

Bonus question: No clue.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/10/05/stevejobs_narrowweb__300x348,0.jpg

http://openambition.com/2009/04/28/a-players-higher-a-players-b-players-hire-c-players/

[Tom]

Timothy "Beavis" Geithner


Good one! :lol:

[ddog]

Run with that one. What is the source & show us the level of its bs.



Here ya go bigbrainiac , to you and the other non thinkers, this from the GUY that did the frakin 'study",
even HE admits he didn't know what the hell he was talking about ....

"Cembalest said he has "written 250,000 words in research over the last decade, and every single thing I've ever done -- except this one chart -- was empirically based on data from the Federal Reserve" or another official source. "This is the one time I stepped out into making judgment calls, and I assure you I won't do it again. ... The frightening thing about the Internet is that people copy one chart from what you write and then it goes viral. So I've learned a lesson here that these kinds of issues are best left addressed by the people who practice them day in and day out.""


Doesn't stop you "dazed and confused" ;) types from running with the crap though.


What a rube you are rasta fool.

From the chief of dazed and confused as shown over and over.... more priceless muck and mire from the gutter.....
"It's nice that Da Dog comes down from his Holy Mountain once in a while and sprinkles some Wisdom over and among us. Pity that so little of it ever sticks, though, and we continue to walk around dazed, confused, and stupid, same as it ever was."

Thanks for the lesson in BEING dazed and confused. You and some others here do have a corner on that market.

As for descinding from the mtn top, no it's just the bunch in the gutter that makes it seem that way. :D






All the back and forth over a "chart" taken from a dude at JPM research who says he didn't have data to back up and that what he did use was subjective in the extreme.

Priceless......................


:D

[bigmack]

Clinton comes from the private sector from her law experience. :lol:

As pointed out, much of this is subjective. If you worked at a Dairy Queen in HS I guess that means you have private sector experience.

As he says:

Cembalest said that he did discount the corporate experience of the three lawyers we identified -- Clinton, Vilsack and Locke -- and added that he awarded nothing for Donovan, Chu or Salazar, even though we found they had a fair amount private sector experience. Cembalest acknowledged fault in missing Salazar's business background, saying he would have given him a full point if he had it to do over again. But he added that the kind of private-sector experiences Chu and Donovan had (managing scientific research and handling community development lending, respectively) did not represent the kind of private-sector business experience he was looking for when doing his study.

Push comes to shove, if you A/B the private sector experience of this cabinet with those of other administrations they're bureaucrats first.

[rastajenk]

I contest your definition of a rube, Mr. Dog. I may not be as enlightened, wise, and cerebral as yourself, but making light of your infinite wisdom and your odd way of conveying it does not make me a rube; more like a skeptic.

[skate]

Having an excess of appointees from the public sector is not an indication of weakness.[QUOTE]

skate:
Welp, if it's "excess", then we don't need them all. But i agree "not weakness".



Quote
During the last administration many of those regulationg an industry were people who had previously worked in the industry.

skate:
can we call this experience?


Quote
They had a knowledge of the industry, but they also had a bias in favor of the industry.

skate:
So then, the coach is no good because he/she has experience and bias?




Quote
As a result necessary regulation was frequently ignored, and many regulations were rescinded.

skate:
very good (mostpost), i just wanted to add, which previous admin. we are talking about.
Since Carter ('77) signed into law, the CRA (comm reinv act), which came about from the red-lining complaints.
The law didn't have much teeth until FishbellyBill ('95) Forced banks to make loans without any regards to credit.

the rest is history.

[Show Me the Wire]

The actions of this administration clearly show that you cannot govern what you do not understand.............................


:ThmbUp: Nail hit on the head.