It's just business

[Bronzeage]

"This is the business we are in, and this is the way we do business."--Don Corleone.

I keep hearing from my conservative friends, they want a businessman to run our country like a business.

I wonder how many people in this country ever got to work in the morning, looked at everything around them and said, "I wish this country was run like this business." Where is this mythical business that is a shining example of management excellence?"

I'm sure most of the people on this forum are gainfully employed, or were at some time. At some point in our lives, we've worked for someone else, as a small part of a big operation. Has anyone ever actually worked for a company that could be the template for a Federal administration?

If so, please share the experience.

 

[untermensche]

The profit motive is to give as little as possible for as much as possible.

In good government you are not looking for this.

Unfortunately too many entities the government works with operate on the profit motive.

 

[ZiprHead]

My wife is an accountant that's worked for many small and medium sized businesses. It's amazing how many fuck ups and cheating that goes on and they continue to be successful.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The profit motive is to give as little as possible for as much as possible.

In good government you are not looking for this.

Unfortunately too many entities the government works with operate on the profit motive.

That's the description of government.

But government shouldn't be run like a business either. It's only real goal is to be neutral in party disputes.

 

[KeepTalking]

The profit motive is to give as little as possible for as much as possible.

In good government you are not looking for this.

Unfortunately too many entities the government works with operate on the profit motive.

That's the description of government.

No, it's the exact opposite. The motive of government should be to give as much as possible for as little as possible.

But government shouldn't be run like a business either. It's only real goal is to be neutral in party disputes.

Wrong again, that's only a small part of what government should do. Government should also provide for the welfare and security of it's citizens, among a host of other things.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That's the description of government.

No, it's the exact opposite. The motive of government should be to give as much as possible for as little as possible.

But government shouldn't be run like a business either. It's only real goal is to be neutral in party disputes.

Wrong again, that's only a small part of what government should do. Government should also provide for the welfare and security of it's citizens, among a host of other things.

A businesses goal is to give as much as possible with the least cost. If it doesn't it goes out of business. A government has no competitive pressures to do it so it doesn't have to do things better at a lower cost. A government doesn't have to improve anything because a person can't go somewhere else if it's bad.

 

[Horatio Parker]

National govts can create money. The only business that can do that is a bank, and this country is already being run that way. At any rate, to judge by the amount of debt.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, it's the exact opposite. The motive of government should be to give as much as possible for as little as possible.

But government shouldn't be run like a business either. It's only real goal is to be neutral in party disputes.

Wrong again, that's only a small part of what government should do. Government should also provide for the welfare and security of it's citizens, among a host of other things.

A businesses goal is to give as much as possible with the least cost.

You couldn't be more wrong. As untermensche pointed out, in a post you seemed to agree with:

The profit motive is to give as little as possible for as much as possible.

Business operates on a profit motive. Governments should not.

A government has no competitive pressures to do it so it doesn't have to do things better at a lower cost. A government doesn't have to improve anything because a person can't go somewhere else if it's bad.

A government has no competitive pressure, but it has plenty of pressure from the governed. It does have to improve, or it's representatives get kicked to the curb, and eventually revolution ensues.

 

[Sarpedon]

The problem is that people who say that government should be run like a business are probably not thinking of their business, but instead some of the most successful and well promoted businesses, which they are seeing only from the outside.

There is also the problem of pay and talent. The President of the United States is paid 400,000 dollars a year (plus some fairly impressive perks) CEOs of large or even mid sized companies get paid far, far more. Also, board members of large companies get paid far, far more than congressmen. So, I ask if the people who want government run like a (successful) business are willing to pay competitive rates to gain the most talented of individuals? Could we stomach a Congress of 538 people who are all being paid 1-2 million dollars or more a year? (staff not included)

 

[whichphilosophy]

The profit motive is to give as little as possible for as much as possible.

In good government you are not looking for this.

Unfortunately too many entities the government works with operate on the profit motive.

A government is not a profit making entity but it should be able to control its finances without cutting corners on services. This will require good accounting and skilled management.

- - - Updated - - -

The profit motive is to give as little as possible for as much as possible.

In good government you are not looking for this.

Unfortunately too many entities the government works with operate on the profit motive.

A government is not a profit making entity but it should be able to control its finances without cutting corners on services. This will require good accounting and skilled management.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, it's the exact opposite. The motive of government should be to give as much as possible for as little as possible.

But government shouldn't be run like a business either. It's only real goal is to be neutral in party disputes.

Wrong again, that's only a small part of what government should do. Government should also provide for the welfare and security of it's citizens, among a host of other things.

A businesses goal is to give as much as possible with the least cost.

You couldn't be more wrong. As untermensche pointed out, in a post you seemed to agree with:

The profit motive is to give as little as possible for as much as possible.

Business operates on a profit motive. Governments should not.

A government has no competitive pressures to do it so it doesn't have to do things better at a lower cost. A government doesn't have to improve anything because a person can't go somewhere else if it's bad.

A government has no competitive pressure, but it has plenty of pressure from the governed. It does have to improve, or it's representatives get kicked to the curb, and eventually revolution ensues.

And at the same time unter will also complain about how the government only caters to the 1%. It's the theme for this election and others

But the point of the profit motive is to drive efficiency, to do more with less.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, it's the exact opposite. The motive of government should be to give as much as possible for as little as possible.

But government shouldn't be run like a business either. It's only real goal is to be neutral in party disputes.

Wrong again, that's only a small part of what government should do. Government should also provide for the welfare and security of it's citizens, among a host of other things.

A businesses goal is to give as much as possible with the least cost.

You couldn't be more wrong. As untermensche pointed out, in a post you seemed to agree with:

The profit motive is to give as little as possible for as much as possible.

Business operates on a profit motive. Governments should not.

A government has no competitive pressures to do it so it doesn't have to do things better at a lower cost. A government doesn't have to improve anything because a person can't go somewhere else if it's bad.

A government has no competitive pressure, but it has plenty of pressure from the governed. It does have to improve, or it's representatives get kicked to the curb, and eventually revolution ensues.

And at the same time unter will also complain about how the government only caters to the 1%. It's the theme for this election and others

Why should I care? I can agree with unter on what a profit motive is, and the fact that business operates on a profit motive, without subscribing to every viewpoint that he espouses.

But the point of the profit motive is to drive efficiency, to do more with less.

Not necessarily. The point is to increase profit, which can be done in myriad ways. Production efficiency is one of those things, but far more often they are trying to maximize profit by selling as little as they can to the consumer for as much as they can squeeze out of the consumer, just as unter described, and to which you initially agreed. Government should be trying to do the exact opposite, providing as much as it can to the citizenry at as little cost as possible to the citizenry.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

"This is the business we are in, and this is the way we do business."--Don Corleone.

I keep hearing from my conservative friends, they want a businessman to run our country like a business.

Yes, yet another contradiction in the vast ocean of conservative hypocrisy. The great majority of businesses and corporations are very much centrally organized and run - something conservatives would abhor in their government.

aa

 

[coloradoatheist]

So let's take a simple example. If tomorrow the government decided it could offer the same level of education at half the cost but it meant laying off a lot of workers, would it do it?

 

[Jayjay]

No, it's the exact opposite. The motive of government should be to give as much as possible for as little as possible.

But government shouldn't be run like a business either. It's only real goal is to be neutral in party disputes.

Wrong again, that's only a small part of what government should do. Government should also provide for the welfare and security of it's citizens, among a host of other things.

A businesses goal is to give as much as possible with the least cost.

You couldn't be more wrong. As untermensche pointed out, in a post you seemed to agree with:

The profit motive is to give as little as possible for as much as possible.

Business operates on a profit motive. Governments should not.

A government has no competitive pressures to do it so it doesn't have to do things better at a lower cost. A government doesn't have to improve anything because a person can't go somewhere else if it's bad.

A government has no competitive pressure, but it has plenty of pressure from the governed. It does have to improve, or it's representatives get kicked to the curb, and eventually revolution ensues.

And at the same time unter will also complain about how the government only caters to the 1%. It's the theme for this election and others

Why should I care? I can agree with unter on what a profit motive is, and the fact that business operates on a profit motive, without subscribing to every viewpoint that he espouses.

But the point of the profit motive is to drive efficiency, to do more with less.

Not necessarily. The point is to increase profit, which can be done in myriad ways. Production efficiency is one of those things, but far more often they are trying to maximize profit by selling as little as they can to the consumer for as much as they can squeeze out of the consumer, just as unter described, and to which you initially agreed. Government should be trying to do the exact opposite, providing as much as it can to the citizenry at as little cost as possible to the citizenry.

The difference appears to be that government doesn't have "shareholders" that expect to be paid dividends for their investment. It's more like a mandatory consumer cooperative.

 

[KeepTalking]

So let's take a simple example. If tomorrow the government decided it could offer the same level of education at half the cost but it meant laying off a lot of workers, would it do it?

Would? That's going to depend on the government, and who is controlling it. I think the question you really want to ask is: should it?

To adequately decide the answer, however, we are going to need more data. Remember, one of the things a government should do is care for the welfare of the citizenry. If the government is doing a great job at that, through universal basic income, or some other measure that lessens the impact of that massive layoff, then yes, it should take the cost saving, and cut the jobs. On the other hand, if laying off all of those workers is going to have a significant impact on the welfare of the workers, than it should not cut the jobs until it can otherwise provide for the welfare of the workers who are now out of a job.

Contrast this with a business operating on a pure profit motive. That business is going to cut the jobs, thereby reducing their cost, but continue charging the consumer the same price.

 

[Bronzeage]

We need to remember, the purpose of government, in a democratic society, is to deliver services to its citizens, which contribute to the common good and promote the general welfare, but can't be economically accomplished through ordinary economic exchange.

Simply put, it would be very inefficient if every citizen had to be solely responsible for putting out a fire on his property. Thus, we all contribute a small amount of money and a fire department protects everyone's property. The same idea applies to road, bridges, schools, police, etc.

If any of this is valid, it means there are many ways a government cannot be run like a business.

 

[braces_for_impact]

"This is the business we are in, and this is the way we do business."--Don Corleone.

I keep hearing from my conservative friends, they want a businessman to run our country like a business.

I wonder how many people in this country ever got to work in the morning, looked at everything around them and said, "I wish this country was run like this business." Where is this mythical business that is a shining example of management excellence?"

I'm sure most of the people on this forum are gainfully employed, or were at some time. At some point in our lives, we've worked for someone else, as a small part of a big operation. Has anyone ever actually worked for a company that could be the template for a Federal administration?

If so, please share the experience.

I've made this point time and time again.

 

[Trausti]

I've understood the argument that government should be run as a business to mean that government should be efficient and avoid waste. I support that view. But, on the other hand, government should not be like a business. The goal of a business is to maximize profits. The goal of government should not be to maximize taxes. Etc.

 

[rousseau]

Well the company I just worked for forced the majority of their work-force into being contractors that were likely going to be laid off within a few years to cycle in new employees so they could maximise their own strength and minimize their legal binding to assisting people in their lives.

I'd think government should be the complete opposite of that: it should focus on helping it's community, especially it's weakest members, as has been the case for the entirety of human history.