It's just business

[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.

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.

That's the government we are getting too often because the profit motive corrupts everything. Not some general description of government.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Bussiness seeks to take as much value from people as possible and give them back as little value in return as they can get away with. The goal is to rip people off without them realizing they have been had. That is the exact opposite of what government should be doing. Government should seek to give its "customers" as much value as possible, while taking the least value from them to accomplish that. At a superficially vague level, both systems strive for efficiency, but the goals mean that the methods used to achieve that are the opposite. With business, the top level decision makers who get the profits from the efficiency are the only people whose welfare matters. Efficiency that harms both the customers and the lower level workers is perfectly acceptable. With government the welfare of the customers is paramount, and since the lower level workers are also the customers, their welfare is also central. The benefits to the upper level decision makers is the least important factor that should impact decisions.

The above applies to the role of government in advancing the common good. The other role of government in being neutral in applying stable principles in resolving disputes is also the opposite of what successful companies do. Profitable companies are as biased as possible in favor of profits, lying, cheating, and violating whatever principles needed to maximize their profits.

 

[jonatha]

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?

Kansas is on your eastern border. Why not check with them.....

 

[rousseau]

Even at the most basic level it's easy to see that corporations and governments are fundamentally different things. Governments are the brain-centre of a super-tribe, corporations are members of the tribe. It's the job of government to facilitate an effective economy and thriving community of people, the role of a business is to make money. So even at face stating government should be run like a business makes no sense.

 

[SimpleDon]

"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 can't help you with our question, I basically only worked for the US Navy and one German company in my thirty five year career. Neither provided a model of how government should operate.

The genius of capitalism is that the profit motive is so easy to understand and provides incentive that it is so strong that it has to have constraints put on it to control it. But it is such a simplistic mechanism that there are many different endeavors that it isn't suitable for. The majority of these are handled by government and by the little appreciated professionalism, the establishment of a duty beyond making a profits, e.g., healthcare run by doctors, engineers responsible to build safe, effective installations, lawyer's responsibility to the law, etc.

So the simple things are handled by the profit motive and business and the more complex things are handled by government and professionalism.

What does this tell us about trying to run the government like a business?

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

The goal of business is to make a profit, not to give as much as possible for the least cost. Only the disciple of the market can convert the pursuit of profits into the lowest possible cost. And your beloved neoliberalism has intentionally increased profits at the cost of wages. This removes a whole lot of the market discipline needed to guarantee the lowest cost. All that your policies guarantee are high profits and low wages. Why do you support them?

Wales 3-1 over Belgium, I love this game.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Exactly. When you don't have competition you have waste and abuse. The checks and balances that usually keep business working don't apply to government.

 

[Ford]

"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

This.

A business is not a democracy, or even a representative republic. A few months ago our CEO announced that he intended to sell the division of the company I work for. Neither I nor any other employee or shareholder have a say in this decision.

 

[braces_for_impact]

As Trump is making painfully obvious, you can't run a government like a business.

 

[Will Wiley]

"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.

.

Is it possible to look at an instance of someone saying this in context...or does this just tend to happen in private conversations? I can believe that people might make such a comment off the cuff, if they were frustrated about something or other, but I'm curious if anyone went into it in any depth.
If these are your friends saying this, then in what context are they saying it?

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

That's the government we are getting too often because the profit motive corrupts everything. Not some general description of government.

If you are talking about a state run industry such as a rail service, then it would try to provide cheap and efficient enough fares to the public while at the same time, accumulating sufficient funds for maintenance, repairs and replacement of track, rolling stock and stations, insurance, plus amounts for further expansion and modernization. In certain cases the rail industry could borrow funds for projects and then pay them back once the newly built of modernized rail network is running.

It should also build up reserves in case of a disaster, though it will be insured. The difference is no trade surplus would go to individual investors. Another idea which has not been tried out, (apart from shops and worker organisations) would be a rail cooperative. This is where the customers who purchase tickets would accumulate a small amount over an above costs which would act as dividends. In the UK we have Cooperative Society shops, which were once the leading retailers in the 1970's and again experiencing a resurgence. Then in Italy on a different aspect I have dealt with worker cooperatives. This is where all the workers are shareholders, for generally small size manufacturing companies. The success rates of these are variable.

In general working in a business or a state run organisation should still be working towards cost effectiveness for goods and services. Sometimes one has to pay more for competent managers and staff, for as they say in China. For instance a design engineer who is inexperienced and has to change his design to allow for a wider station to accommodate the traffic flow of people (which he missed off) then the cost for that could run int hundreds of thousands of pounds.

 

[untermensche]

That's the government we are getting too often because the profit motive corrupts everything. Not some general description of government.

If you are talking about a state run industry such as a rail service, then it would try to provide cheap and efficient enough fares to the public while at the same time, accumulating sufficient funds for maintenance, repairs and replacement of track, rolling stock and stations, insurance, plus amounts for further expansion and modernization. In certain cases the rail industry could borrow funds for projects and then pay them back once the newly built of modernized rail network is running.

It should also build up reserves in case of a disaster, though it will be insured. The difference is no trade surplus would go to individual investors. Another idea which has not been tried out, (apart from shops and worker organisations) would be a rail cooperative. This is where the customers who purchase tickets would accumulate a small amount over an above costs which would act as dividends. In the UK we have Cooperative Society shops, which were once the leading retailers in the 1970's and again experiencing a resurgence. Then in Italy on a different aspect I have dealt with worker cooperatives. This is where all the workers are shareholders, for generally small size manufacturing companies. The success rates of these are variable.

In general working in a business or a state run organisation should still be working towards cost effectiveness for goods and services. Sometimes one has to pay more for competent managers and staff, for as they say in China. For instance a design engineer who is inexperienced and has to change his design to allow for a wider station to accommodate the traffic flow of people (which he missed off) then the cost for that could run int hundreds of thousands of pounds.

It all depends on the government people demand.

Right now some fraction of the population claims the government is the problem and they work to undermine the government to prove it is the problem.

But government could work to provide state of the art infrastructure at the lowest cost to the people using it.

But the people would have to demand the government do this.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If you are talking about a state run industry such as a rail service, then it would try to provide cheap and efficient enough fares to the public while at the same time, accumulating sufficient funds for maintenance, repairs and replacement of track, rolling stock and stations, insurance, plus amounts for further expansion and modernization. In certain cases the rail industry could borrow funds for projects and then pay them back once the newly built of modernized rail network is running.

It should also build up reserves in case of a disaster, though it will be insured. The difference is no trade surplus would go to individual investors. Another idea which has not been tried out, (apart from shops and worker organisations) would be a rail cooperative. This is where the customers who purchase tickets would accumulate a small amount over an above costs which would act as dividends. In the UK we have Cooperative Society shops, which were once the leading retailers in the 1970's and again experiencing a resurgence. Then in Italy on a different aspect I have dealt with worker cooperatives. This is where all the workers are shareholders, for generally small size manufacturing companies. The success rates of these are variable.

In general working in a business or a state run organisation should still be working towards cost effectiveness for goods and services. Sometimes one has to pay more for competent managers and staff, for as they say in China. For instance a design engineer who is inexperienced and has to change his design to allow for a wider station to accommodate the traffic flow of people (which he missed off) then the cost for that could run int hundreds of thousands of pounds.

It all depends on the government people demand.

Right now some fraction of the population claims the government is the problem and they work to undermine the government to prove it is the problem.

But government could work to provide state of the art infrastructure at the lowest cost to the people using it.

But the people would have to demand the government do this.

I would say cost effective. Expenditure for quality, safety, maintenance repairs and operating costs are unavoidable. Waste can occur when cutting corners on these requirements. The emphasis should be on affordable transport.

I travelled in Italy for a few years on state run transport. The old trains cost almost nothing to travel on. 30 km costs about 3 Euros (say about US$4.00). There is always space except on peak rush hours. The trains are clean if old in some cases. Slowly it is replacing them with new trains still costing the same.

The express trains will cost more per kilometre. The Italian commuter can travel 300 km on a slow old train and pay a little or pay more for a more comfortable one. They travel on the same line but at different times of course.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

The kind of psychology that it takes to be a very successful and wealthy CEO is most likely the kind of psychology that will produce a Stalin, Hitler, similar immoral sociopath as a political leader.

coloradoatheist,
Are you going to respond to this highly valid point? To summarize, a business has a singular goal of maximizing profits for benefit of the top execs/shareholders, no matter how much it might harm the welfare of everyone else (which is often a great deal). Being secretive and dishonest with its workers and its customers is often critical to this myopic goal, because the more ignorant and irrational the decisions of these people, the more profit the company can make off them. The more pathologically unempathic and selfish the more profit they can make.

A valid government must balance countless competing goals of maximizing welfare (and minimizing harm) of everyone impacted by its decisions, while being completely transparent and honest with its workers and customers. The top decision makers should almost never be considering what is best for themselves personally.
The mentality is the polar opposite in both the cognitive and emotional/ethical aspects of the decision making and reasoning processes.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

The kind of psychology that it takes to be a very successful and wealthy CEO is most likely the kind of psychology that will produce a Stalin, Hitler, similar immoral sociopath as a political leader.

coloradoatheist,
Are you going to respond to this highly valid point? To summarize, a business has a singular goal of maximizing profits for benefit of the top execs/shareholders, no matter how much it might harm the welfare of everyone else (which is often a great deal). Being secretive and dishonest with its workers and its customers is often critical to this myopic goal, because the more ignorant and irrational the decisions of these people, the more profit the company can make off them. The more pathologically unempathic and selfish the more profit they can make.

A valid government must balance countless competing goals of maximizing welfare (and minimizing harm) of everyone impacted by its decisions, while being completely transparent and honest with its workers and customers. The top decision makers should almost never be considering what is best for themselves personally.
The mentality is the polar opposite in both the cognitive and emotional/ethical aspects of the decision making and reasoning processes.

There are a couple of point there.

1) A business can do what you say, but if it fails its number one duty of providing for its customers, it will die. Even behemoths of the past that people thought were kings fall and new ones take its place. Who knows how long Wal-Mart will be around.

2) A government shouldn't employ people just to employ people. If it can be more productive with less people it should. And in the case of government it means less expenditures which is less taxes now and or the future.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

The kind of psychology that it takes to be a very successful and wealthy CEO is most likely the kind of psychology that will produce a Stalin, Hitler, similar immoral sociopath as a political leader.

coloradoatheist,
Are you going to respond to this highly valid point? To summarize, a business has a singular goal of maximizing profits for benefit of the top execs/shareholders, no matter how much it might harm the welfare of everyone else (which is often a great deal). Being secretive and dishonest with its workers and its customers is often critical to this myopic goal, because the more ignorant and irrational the decisions of these people, the more profit the company can make off them. The more pathologically unempathic and selfish the more profit they can make.

A valid government must balance countless competing goals of maximizing welfare (and minimizing harm) of everyone impacted by its decisions, while being completely transparent and honest with its workers and customers. The top decision makers should almost never be considering what is best for themselves personally.
The mentality is the polar opposite in both the cognitive and emotional/ethical aspects of the decision making and reasoning processes.

A carefully constructed strawman is still a strawman.

 

[ronburgundy]

coloradoatheist,
Are you going to respond to this highly valid point? To summarize, a business has a singular goal of maximizing profits for benefit of the top execs/shareholders, no matter how much it might harm the welfare of everyone else (which is often a great deal). Being secretive and dishonest with its workers and its customers is often critical to this myopic goal, because the more ignorant and irrational the decisions of these people, the more profit the company can make off them. The more pathologically unempathic and selfish the more profit they can make.

A valid government must balance countless competing goals of maximizing welfare (and minimizing harm) of everyone impacted by its decisions, while being completely transparent and honest with its workers and customers. The top decision makers should almost never be considering what is best for themselves personally.
The mentality is the polar opposite in both the cognitive and emotional/ethical aspects of the decision making and reasoning processes.

There are a couple of point there.

1) A business can do what you say, but if it fails its number one duty of providing for its customers, it will die.

Complete bullshit. All that matters to the success of a company is if the customers are both aware of whether the customer believes their needs/wants are being provided. Such belief are often inaccurate and the most successful companies go to great lengths to ensure their customers are not able to form accurate beliefs. In fact, the primary function of most advertising is to ensure that customers form highly irrational and inaccurate beliefs about the product. In addition, companies go to lengths to manufacture desires for a product, even when the product cause real and serious harm to customers. Government should be doing none of that.

Even behemoths of the past that people thought were kings fall and new ones take its place. Who knows how long Wal-Mart will be around.

Whoever takes their place will do so likely by being even more dishonest, manipulative, unethical, and without concern for the well-being of their employees and customers than Wal-mart has.

2) A government shouldn't employ people just to employ people. If it can be more productive with less people it should. And in the case of government it means less expenditures which is less taxes now and or the future.

Yes, but it should only cut labor costs when doing so is to the combined net benefit of the public, which includes the harm done to the public when people are laid off without warning, or when people are not paid living wages, etc.. And, 100% of reduced labor costs should go towards reduced price paid by the customers (taxes). Their are inherent harms to their customers when government employees are paid poverty level wages, and when and how they are fired. That makes these things of central concern in constraining what the government does and how they do it, which has no application to businesses whose sole concern of profits are not harmed and often helped, the more harm is done to the public (especially since the same corporation oftens sells the public the "remedy" for the harm that their other products or company actions cause).

 

[ronburgundy]

coloradoatheist,
Are you going to respond to this highly valid point? To summarize, a business has a singular goal of maximizing profits for benefit of the top execs/shareholders, no matter how much it might harm the welfare of everyone else (which is often a great deal). Being secretive and dishonest with its workers and its customers is often critical to this myopic goal, because the more ignorant and irrational the decisions of these people, the more profit the company can make off them. The more pathologically unempathic and selfish the more profit they can make.

A valid government must balance countless competing goals of maximizing welfare (and minimizing harm) of everyone impacted by its decisions, while being completely transparent and honest with its workers and customers. The top decision makers should almost never be considering what is best for themselves personally.
The mentality is the polar opposite in both the cognitive and emotional/ethical aspects of the decision making and reasoning processes.

A carefully constructed strawman is still a strawman.

Nothing stawman about it. It is the most basic factual principle of capitalist economics.

 

[Bronzeage]

A carefully constructed strawman is still a strawman.

Nothing stawman about it. It is the most basic factual principle of capitalist economics.

I'm a businessman, and I care how much harm my business does. You have created an image of a businessman of which no one could approve, and use it as the premise of your argument.

It's a strawman.

 

[Will Wiley]

Is there any evidence that anyone ever wanted government to be run as or like a company?