Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[HmH]

It occurred to me today that the old practice of governments selling sinecures isn't very different from the modern system of public finance through government securities (besides the obvious difference in ostentation and the security's lifespan). To modern eyes one seems obviously corrupt, while the other is viewed as being essentially a beneficial public service. This isn't a serious comment on policy, I just think it's funny.

*HmH gestures!*
Rise, ye old post, I have questions to ask.

Well, more like one question. I just don't get the analogy you made.
Sinecures are corrupt not because they sell political power and the gains that come thereof, but because after a few decades or centuries of sinecure inflation, they end up implicitly encouraging the buyer to engage in corruption: if they do their job by the book, they will simply never make the investment back.
Whereas government securities... well, they give you the same amount of returns regardless of your actions(unless you manipulate the markets using your power as an official, which, unlike corruption, is the sort of crime that would make Mr. Chrysoprase powerful people very upset with you), so they don't really increase the amount of government corruption all that much.

Granted, I only know about govenrment securities from what little I've read, so maybe there's some kind of a catch in this practice that I have no idea about. Am I missing something?

[WealthyRadish]

It occurred to me today that the old practice of governments selling sinecures isn't very different from the modern system of public finance through government securities (besides the obvious difference in ostentation and the security's lifespan). To modern eyes one seems obviously corrupt, while the other is viewed as being essentially a beneficial public service. This isn't a serious comment on policy, I just think it's funny.

*HmH gestures!*
Rise, ye old post, I have questions to ask.

Well, more like one question. I just don't get the analogy you made.
Sinecures are corrupt not because they sell political power and the gains that come thereof, but because after a few decades or centuries of sinecure inflation, they end up implicitly encouraging the buyer to engage in corruption: if they do their job by the book, they will simply never make the investment back.
Whereas government securities... well, they give you the same amount of returns regardless of your actions(unless you manipulate the markets using your power as an official, which, unlike corruption, is the sort of crime that would make Mr. Chrysoprase powerful people very upset with you), so they don't really increase the amount of government corruption all that much.

Granted, I only know about govenrment securities from what little I've read, so maybe there's some kind of a catch in this practice that I have no idea about. Am I missing something?

When I think of sinecures, I imagine a salaried official position that has no duties attached at all (and therefore presumably no power attached either). Things like being administrator of a district that doesn't exist, colonel of a disbanded regiment, priest of a parish that was merged with another one but kept on the books, etc. At least in this narrower sense, selling them is basically just a debt instrument roughly equivalent to a government bond with an indefinite term. After thinking more on it I would agree it is still more corrupt, although I'd argue this is due to the way it obfuscates government budgeting and retains the potential to be used as a granted reward rather than sold.

I think the inflation effect is something separate, like when bureaucratic salaries with real responsibility and potential for corruption are fixed to a nominal rate by a decaying legal code (but I don't think it would make a difference if the office is sold or not, since if the salary is fixed then the price probably is too).

[Ulfarr]

I've been reading about the various prehistoric tools and technologies when it just dawned on me, before the development of heavy duty stone axe-like tools (adzes, celts) humans had no way to cut down (big) trees.

They might have been able to unearth them (deer antler picks have been found in some flint mines and shovels could have been made from fallen branches) or burn them near the roots to bring them down but they couldn't just cut them down which is probably more efficient in terms of time, energy and wasted material (at least compared to the burning down method). There is also the somewhat disputed method of "ringing" the tree (removing some of its outer layers and wait for it to die so you can bring it down easier) but regardless of whether it was used or not (or how effective it was) it would definitely mean you can' just use it right when the need for lumber arises.

Now all these don't sound that important by themselves but when you consider the amount of lumber that any sort of sedentary community needs (large scale constructions, fuel, tool production) then it's probable that without the "axe" humans would have never grown beyond the hunter-gatherer state.

[scourge728]

Is it weird that whenever I read "very good sir" I read it in some specific old person British accent, no idea what the source for it was, but it's very specific in my brain

[KittyTac]

Is it weird that whenever I read "very good sir" I read it in some specific old person British accent, no idea what the source for it was, but it's very specific in my brain

This one, maybe?

[scourge728]

Perhaps, I'm pretty sure, knowing my tastes, it was from some movie or cartoon somewhere as a butler of some sort

[KittyTac]

I noticed we have 4 users whose name can be shortened to "Max". MaxTheFox, Max^tm, Maximum Spin, Maximum Zero.

[scriver]

Quick, somebody change their name to MaximumMax

[HmH]

It just came to my head that if future archeologists get their hands on a partially destroyed backup of the Internet, basic statistical analysis will show them that cats are the sacred animals of our civilization.
Just like we think they were to Ancient Egyptians.

I mean, as far as I know, the only reason we have for believing cats were sacred to early Egyptians are the retellings of Greek legends about Egyptians, which may have been composed after someone looked at the art from some of the looted tombs, and all those images they have of cats.

[Iduno]

Maybe if you organised your local population to form groups to patrol the neighbourhood, keeping an eye out (much like Melbourne's PSOs do in small areas) and trying to keep this sort of thing from happening, but really it hurts just as much to read of a rape and/or murder occurring whether it took place next door or the next state over.     

I suppose every city could form its own li'l militia to wander around forestalling such crimes, but... I dunno, I'm pretty baked. *shrug*   

I have heard rumors that the pigs are supposed to do stuff like this instead of just beating up gays and murdering people with the wrong skin color.

Edit: June and July aren't the same word?

[scriver]

When you want to be edgy so bad you respond to a month old post

[HmH]

Maybe if you organised your local population to form groups to patrol the neighbourhood, keeping an eye out (much like Melbourne's PSOs do in small areas) and trying to keep this sort of thing from happening, but really it hurts just as much to read of a rape and/or murder occurring whether it took place next door or the next state over.     

I suppose every city could form its own li'l militia to wander around forestalling such crimes, but... I dunno, I'm pretty baked. *shrug*   

I have heard rumors that the pigs are supposed to do stuff like this instead of just beating up gays and murdering people with the wrong skin color.

Careful now, you are talking to a guy called Yoink.

[Yoink]

Wait, what does that even mean?! Is it because my name has "oink" in it?



Edit: agh, crap, accidentally started a new page and yet I cannot remember any of my interesting random thoughts. Seriously, I had a frustrating moment recently when I realised I couldn't remember the thing I'd been thinking of posting in such a thread as this.
I'll get back to you if I come up with anything. Sorry.

[HmH]

Wait, what does that even mean?! Is it because my name has "oink" in it?

Well, yeah. Isn't Homer's catchprase a reference to the sound pigs are hypothetically, theoretically supposed to make?

[scriver]

Doh?