Is Economic Efficiency Replacing Economic Resilience?

[Cookdata]

A country that relies solely on taxes is not a country at all, but rather a bureaucracy that parasitizes its own people. It’s not that there are no such countries in the world—even those with vast natural resources and abundant energy sources are still unable to stand on their own two feet.
Cuts to several key budget items—such as education, as you mentioned—under the pretext of efficiency mark the beginning of the officials’ deviation from their duties. There is nothing left to hope for except to wait for it all to end or to remove them from office before their term is up.

I don't agree with this, the democracy survived on taxes and that's what grow an economy. What you you should have said is heavy taxes and I don't even think Bureauracy is the right word to use unless you are referring to another context that is entirely different from the subject of discussion. I mean look at developing countries that takes taxes from people, the money is given back to the economy, this makes it expand and grow bigger to generate even more.

No functioning society can economy without taxes for long term but it most be in a bracket that is going to be affordable for everyone in the long run. Why do you think presidential candidates convince people to give them their vote during the election and they are going to reduce the average man taxes, they never promised remove taxes and promised to tax the rich people even more, this is because they know the economy need tax to survive and it's not easy for average man that's why they reduce them but will never cancel it.

[boyptc]

Domino impact is normal in an economic change.

If there will be changes for the supply chains and countries or businesses which relies on it are heavily impact by a factor through logistics, it adds up to the cost of it and that's why there's an increase mostly if there are challenges of the transport of these products.

So there's the caveat to it, little change or big change, the consumers is always affected to it which are the biggest part of an economy.

We choose, more expensive but stable supplies because of strong demand. Yet, cheaper cost, quality decreases and supply is lesser.

There's always those conditions that we have to consider and the government has to step and help in it since they're the driver of economies.

[Fortify]

Over the last few years, we have seen how things change. A pandemic, trade restriction or even shipping delay can disrupt businesses looked perfectly efficient on paper. For years companies focus on cutting cost, keeping very little inventory and relying on suppliers from all over the world. It worked well until something unexpected happend.

Now I’m starting to wonder if businesses have focused too much on efficiency and not enough resilience. Would it make more sense to accept slightly higher cost in exchange of stronger supply chain and fewer disruption or would that only make goods more expensive for everyone?

Where do you think the right balance is?

These two things are intertwined and in many cases indistinguishable. The most resilient companies are those that manage their resources in the most efficient ways. That can mean proper future planning, buying in bulk, always looking for alternative suppliers for different components and retaining enough funds in the business so it stays adaptable. It is not the case that you are simply one or the other because those businesses would not last very long. The most effective businesses have strong leadership who are always reviewing if they are operating in the most effective way and potentially moving into new fields that are complimentary to their existing lines.

[M47AK16]

Over the last few years, we have seen how things change. A pandemic, trade restriction or even shipping delay can disrupt businesses looked perfectly efficient on paper. For years companies focus on cutting cost, keeping very little inventory and relying on suppliers from all over the world. It worked well until something unexpected happend.

Now I’m starting to wonder if businesses have focused too much on efficiency and not enough resilience. Would it make more sense to accept slightly higher cost in exchange of stronger supply chain and fewer disruption or would that only make goods more expensive for everyone?

Where do you think the right balance is?

These two things are intertwined and in many cases indistinguishable. The most resilient companies are those that manage their resources in the most efficient ways. That can mean proper future planning, buying in bulk, always looking for alternative suppliers for different components and retaining enough funds in the business so it stays adaptable. It is not the case that you are simply one or the other because those businesses would not last very long. The most effective businesses have strong leadership who are always reviewing if they are operating in the most effective way and potentially moving into new fields that are complimentary to their existing lines.

I disagree; there are some businesses that have absolutely zero efficiency, and yet they are resilient because they are rich. For example, a roof company has no efficiency; you have absolutely one job: go up, do the roof, tile it up, get back down, you are done. There is no optimisation there; there is no efficiency going around.

You are not going to suddenly make it cheaper or faster by yourself. Items could change; maybe that can help you, but you are still you. And yet, if there is a roof to be made, you are going to keep staying in business. A burger joint is a burger joint; sure, McDonald's made it efficient, but ever since they did, they are all the exact same type, and yet, if you have a thousand locations, it's hard to crash. So not all efficiency could be resilience; not all resilience is efficiency. Surely some are; there are many overlaps, but it is not 100%, I would say more like 80% or 90%.