Wes Burt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about a "Simple Solution", and
as far as I can tell the substantive content of his message was
this single sentence.
> It is impossible to compute, or execute, an optimum dispatch of
> productive assets, capital or human, in a corporation or
> commonwealth until the fixed or sunk costs of acquiring the assets
> are separated from the variable costs of production, and the fixed
> or sunk costs are managed by the next higher level of organization.
If that's the "Simple Solution" it's not quite simple enough for me,
and is not formulated as a solution, either, so I've tried to digest
it a bit.
It is formulated as a law or universal truth, but I'm not comfortable
with sentences beginning "It is impossible to", unless mathematics or
theoretical physics is under discussion, so I'll skip that part and
break out the next one, which seems to be a problem statement:
PROBLEM: to compute, or execute, an optimum dispatch of productive
assets, capital or human, in a corporation or commonwealth
That's two problems really, but what I'm really concerned with is that
phrase "optimum dispatch". It seems an odd use of 'dispatch' to me,
but I imagine that is a technical term in the business world. Yes,
I just looked it up in the Dictionary of Business and Finance, and
it means:
The amount paid by a cargo ship's operator to a charterer if
loading or unloading is completed in less time than stipulated in
the charter party.
Not too helpful. Perhaps Mr.Burt could provide some explanation here.
Now what about the word 'optimum'? The meaning of 'optimum' is
usually given by the precise statement of goal, criterion, or target.
Is there some standard criterion being assumed here? Since this
clause was originally found in a statement ment of what sounded like
a law or universal truth, I wonder if it's meant to apply to any
goal, or any in some obvious range of goals. Perhaps Mr.Burt can
help with this one, too.
One more quick question "corporation or commonwealth" presumably
covers incorporated businesses, and perhaps states like the
"Commonwealth of Virginia". What about countries?
Anyway, the next part is what must be the solution:
SOLUTION: Separate the fixed or sunk costs of acquiring the assets
from the variable costs of production, and have them
managed by the next higher level of organization.
What is the next higher level of organization for an incorporated
business? The government? Surely you don't want the government
managing the fixed or sunk costs of assets from all the businesses
in the country. I don't think the Commonwealth of Virginia would
like that either. So I presume you only mean this to apply within
a corporation or commonwealth. Or do you? Mr.Burt?
Anyway, I think I can more or less grasp this idea as a way in which
nested units within an organization could function. Rather like the
use of variables in a language like Pascal which supports nested
procedure definitions. But why is this such a good solution?
Because it is simple? What exactly is simple about it? Does it have
any other advantages besides being simple?
I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse here. Everything Mr.Burt writes
suggests he knows something we don't, and from the length of his
messages I'm sure he must have something to say, but I just haven't
been able to grasp it yet.
dpw
Douglas P. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/index.html
http://www.SocialTechnology.org/index.html
