Efficiency and Effectiveness

Today, I was thinking that is the push for efficiency the only thing and the only thing that is important. This means that we do everything, cheaper, better and faster. There is a pertinent difference between effectiveness and efficiency- we can be cheaper, better and faster but we are not necessarily "better-off".

Let us at this particular context of efficiency. Efficiency is a "given" good simply because consumers and all vested stakeholders want more things, better things and for a bigger bang for the buck- but is it necessarily good for the "consumer" per se. We can give a better iPhone to the consumer at a cheaper price but how then does it benefit the consumer which maybe have say an extra $40 in the pocket.

Efficiency in this particular context is an expected given simply because "monopoly" is a "dirty word". In fact efficiency is the weapon that is used against the big, bad corporation just like how social equity is used against authoritarian regimes. Since the market wants cheaper and better products faster, hence we should reward all market players which achieve this particular goal- sounds very familiar right, think democracy. Since we are all equal, therefore we all should have an equal say in everything.

This wave of cheaper, better and faster is simply the result of anything that even resembles anything that is considered "establishment". This means that I am an individual, "I am cheaper, better and faster" hence I should be rewarded, hence we should screw the jobs of the older folks who slower and not as quick to learn as us and not able to pick up technology as fast as us. I really don't care about their livelihood and whether they have maybe have some medical bills to foot. Democracy is not like that isn't it, that is your capitalist attitude writ large right- what then is the difference between the "big bad corporation" and "you". Since you are the "small" player in the market hence you are entitled to be ruthless compared with the big boys whom are obligated to implement pension plans, medical entitlements and other form of corporate responsibility.

Let us say then, you indeed create a product that is better, faster, and cheaper- but then you did it because you don't have the burden of these organizations. When you become big, you will collapse because your previous ethos will kill you.

You see the market argument is so persuasive simply because it ties in so nicely with the democratization of the market place. This means that if you are good, you should be rewarded. 100 years ago, the people who owe the sweat shops also said the same thing- I am better educated hence you should work for me. What then is the difference between these early capitalist and today's: "innovate or die" approach.

Personally, I have the same experience: you see during my time in uni days, only 1 in 10 of us carry a laptops to school to copy notes. Most of us write on notepads. Now, the moment I enter the class, the first thing, anyone do is to open up the laptop. It took me a longer time to pick up excel simply because my previous jobs and education did not require me to do so and then the younger students whom were given laptops by the school- suddenly played counterstrike while completing their excel spreadsheets. Of course, those courses that require excel, they would do it better and faster than me and of course, their powerpoint presentation will be more sleek than mine. But I caught up eventually of course. That is not the point. The point is that if they were doing this in class, they will carry the same attitude outside.

This means that they believe that better, faster and cheaper is always better than simply better or "better off". That is the difference between effectiveness and efficiency. They were probably infinitely efficient than me or anyone, but a computer is infinitely faster and cheaper than any human- the difference between a computer and a human, is that the former will have to input rules into the computer in order to crunch the data and even this new thing called "self-learning" computers. But the human acts on his own agency.

Let us just put this "cheaper, better and faster" argument that is better off for everyone forward, this means that with the extra cash or value in the market, they can buy some other things to fulfil some other needs. My question is that, if a computer or 1 person can do 10 persons job, of what efficiency is of any use, if 9 people cannot participate in the market place. You make things cheaper for that one person, while making 9 others impossible to participate in it. So what if you are cheaper, better and faster.

Do not confuse the market argument with social equity arguments. Democracy is good if there is a sharing of power, isn't the above, a concentration of power instead. Hence the idea of an efficient market is a normative value and not as a given. This means, we can be most efficient organization or person in the world, but we are not necessarily the most well-off one.

The market rewards more or less, "cheaper, better and faster" but it does not necessarily means that it is what everyone wants. Of what use is that, if no one can afford it.