On 04/05/98 06:04:19, Katabront <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>In a message dated 05/04/98 09:51:38 GMT, Jon Rogers wrote:
>
><< Thus those that reduce their "overspend" will be rewarded, as are those
> that "underspend". >>
I have been thinking about this one for a while and still can't get my
tender brain round it.
1. If there are 'overspenders', that means the overall budget is in
the red.
2. If you do nothing, you are a) in trouble, and, b) can't reward
anybody
3. if the pverspenders reduce their costs, that makes the overall
budget *less* in the red, nevertheless, still in the red; and item 2
still applies
4. If the overspenders cut their spending so that they are 'budget-neutral',
you are in the black by the amount the underspenders 'saved'
5. It is only now that you might consider rewarding the overspenders
and the underspenders
6. But that amount would be small....
7. And, if I were an underspender, I would want to reward my fellow
savers and certainly not subsidise rewards for those who just managed to
be neutral (at best) or cut their deficit but still in the red (at
worst)!
8. can you give one good reason why I should do that?
>This is the key. If we are allowed to build in realistic incentives then we
>can make it work. If you don't bring any flour you can't eat any cake.
Equally, if you don't bring in the right amount or the right kind of
flour, you can't expect the same size piece of cake, yes?
Ahmad
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Ahmad Risk
http://www.cybermedic.org
Chairman British Healthcare Internet Association <http://www.bhia.org>
Director Internet Healthcare Coalition - USA <http://www.ihc.net>
Home: +44 1273 724866/748198
Work: +44(1737)240022 Fax: +44 1737 244660
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|