It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why you should NEVER vote for anyone who promises "to run government like a business."

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
What do they really mean by that?

Consider these facts:

1. Businesses are run as dictatorships, not democracies or republics.

2. Most businesses view employees as social inferiors from whom they extract the maximum effort for the smallest wage they can get away with.

3. Most businesses view training, safety, and maintenance as expensive annoyances to be trimmed as much as possible.

4. Nearly all businessmen want the maximum personal profit while avoiding personal responsibility.

5. Most believe that the wisest way to invest is to use other people's money, taking the profits while transferring risk.

6. Most businesses try to maximize the profits for the fewest number of people possible.

7. Most businesses strive to avoid paying for the public infrastructure (roads, courts, police, etc) they use more than anyone else.

8. In business, everything's for sale, including the business.

9. In business, overworking employees to burnout stage, then dumping them for fresh ones is considered an effective practice.

10. In business, the only rules are cutthroat competition where all's fair so long as your opponent is crushed in a profitable manner.

11. In business, lying about the quality and/or effectiveness of your product falls under "caveat emptor".

12. Businessmen have no time or inclination to broaden themselves intellectually.

13. Businesses focus on short-term problems, mostly...long term ones, well, they usually sell the business before thay have to deal with them.

14. Businesses detest and resent demands to be open and forthcoming about the books.

Now, what in that list qualifies a businessperson to be an effective legislator?

We've had decades of sheeple voting in con artists who promised "to run government like a business", and kept their word.

Which is why we are in the mess we are now.

Government isn't a business and shouldn't be run like one....it should be run like a, dare I say it?...government.

Business people want to run everything, government, schools, hospitals like businesses because they that's the only paradigm they know, and they are unwilling to learn anything else or incapable of doing it. And they want no backtalk from the employees...uhhh, make that citizens.

So please, the next time someone tells you he or she wants to run it like a business, make them define exactly what they mean by that.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I am going to quit voting, it only encourages them.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Exactly right. Running a business is all about EFFICIENCY. Running a government is about EQUITY.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
So please, the next time someone tells you he or she wants to run it like a business, make them define exactly what they mean by that.


Unfortunately, they'll probably just start spewing platitudes about "efficiency", "cutting waste", yada yada, and stay willfully ignorant of the self-serving, greedy nature of business. If they read your post their heads would probably explode in utter denial... or bewilderment.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I dispute that all of those are facts; particularly the notion that businessmen have no inclination to broaden themselves intellectually, that they consider their workers as social inferiors and that they focus on short term problems.

Whenever I’ve heard someone talk about running a government as a business they’ve been talking about the latter’s ability to drive efficiency. There are certainly ways, most glaringly in procurement, in which government emulating business would be a very positive thing.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
While there is little to be said about the downfalls of efficiency; that in and of itself isn't really problematic.

The problem is that when you mix public service with business you elevate "political expedience' above equity and all other concerns.

The devil is in expediency... not efficiency.

But other than that point, I applaud you for saying what I've been complaining about for years and years...

Businesses "consume" human resources..... that is counter to what any good government should be about... unless of course the government condones and supports slavery (the wet dream of all business models)

Considering that the cornerstone of the problem lies in commercial codes, and largely in corporate privilege, I suspect the 'fix' will be nothing less than utterly revolutionary.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I disgaree completely, on many different levels.

For the most part, not all businesses treat their employees as you describe and not all companies cut corners and ignore safety.

Many more line items to counter here but overall, running a government like a business makes more sense than what we are experiencing now.
Of course I'm referring to trying to run a country based on intellectual theory, intentions may be good but extremely unrealistic.

Sorry but experience from the school of hard knocks beats outs academic idealogy any day.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Governments shouldn't be run like they are sitting on top of a bottomless pit of money.

That is also a bad idea.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Soooo, OP. What you're saying is that the prospect of Donald Trump running for president scares the living daylights out of you?

Hmmmmmmmm



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


The exceptions prove the rule.

Please note that I said most.

What businesses don't understand well is the notion of "competing efficiencies", i.e., the fact that what is efficient for a business is not necessarily efficient for the nation.

For instance, it is justifiably more efficient to use the least number of employees possible while paying the lowest wages and pay the lowest price for raw materials possible to extract the maximum profits possible for the investors. However, that efficiency paradigm bumps into the larger societal efficency paradigm that says keep the maximum number of citizens working and self-supporting so they don't have to resort to a choice of crime or welfare.

Business people by their nature view the government as their enemy due to the regulation that prevents them from attaining theoretical maximums. They view their fellow citizens with suspicion because their major experience of them is as people they exploit in one way or another, not as equals with equal rights. Just try getting your boss or the business owner to invite you to dinner as an equal, but brush up your resume first.

No, their worldview doesn't properly equip them to think in the manner that good government demands.

Their worldview is what we've been operating under for the past thirty or forty years, and is the direct cause of the sorry state of the economy and country. It was more efficient (for them) to ship the jobs and manufacturing out of the country than to keep the jobs and tools here to keep the country and economy strong.

When faced with competing efficiencies they have consistently chosen the smaller efficiency that favored themselves rather than the nation.
edit on 2-2-2011 by apacheman because: sp



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

No republic has long outlived the discovery by a majority of its people that they could vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
Alexander Tytler


How does one run a government? Looking at the current model of the American government would be a *what not to do* if you wish to have a successful government that abides by the explicit rules set forth for said government. (Also known as the Constitution and Bill of Rights)

Personal responsibility is something no longer required of citizens...unless they don't pay their "fair share" to keep the pool of funds available for those in control to maintain their control.

It is now common practice to pilfer funds from the largess generated by taxes and distribute it as deemed fair by those who understand the way to do so and maximize control. Hence why democracy as a form of government was DESPISED by the founders.


Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
George Washington


When a government has been specifically set up by the people to protect the inalienable rights of the people and said government becomes the oppressor of said people, the remedy is not to vote for the lesser of two evils. The remedy is to start over as is defined in the Declaration of Independence.

I would be interested to see how many people fear the IRS more than they fear Al CIAda (or whatever the boogey man du jour happens to be called).

We currently have the largest group of terrorists to the American people working for the government. IRS, DHS, TSA, EPA, BATFE and the list goes on and on and on. (Then there is the Federal Reserve which is quite literally the monster that can be given the gold star for fomenting the destruction of this or any other republic.)

These entities are means for control of the people and are precisely what a dictatorial *businessman* would do to maintain control of said business. Considering that We the People ARE the employer, the irony of the slide to serfdom we have not only allowed but also seem to be encouraging shows just what poor business owners we are. We have allowed our employees to take control and run things as they see fit while milking us dry in the process.

Until the masses realize that proper government is instituted to protect the rights of its citizens, the slide towards tyranny will continue until ultimately some will say...enough is enough. History has a remarkable tendency to repeat itself.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Oh, really?

Any business that pays minimum wage or below fits my description: they are being efficient on the backs of fellow citizens. Any business that doesn't pay a local living wage is actually taking a subsidy from the government in the form of the food stamps, medical care, etc. their employees require to survive.

Then they complain about it.

If they would simply pay a living wage, not many would need food stamps and such, the tax base would be broader and deeper, so the actual taxes could be smaller per capita.

It is more efficient for a society to have everyone working and self-supporting, even if that means there are fewer biilionaires.

But their worldview blocks them from seeing it.




Many more line items to counter here but overall, running a government like a business makes more sense than what we are experiencing now.


Uhh..."running a government like a business" is exactly what we are experiencing now.
edit on 2-2-2011 by apacheman because: add quote



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I am compelled to add more.... (thanks everyone for a good dialog)

Note, that on another point, from my perspective, something must be said.

As I think many agree, no one "runs" the government. The government is to be served. The government IS the people. If this were an autocratic monarchy, perhaps some might be inclined to believe a person can 'run' the government. But it is a stretch of imagination to think that any one elected individual has the legal authority to mandate all government conduct. At least that seems a valid theory.

At some point, power must be delegated to be effective. To "decide" how things are going to be, one has to assume that all points below that level of authority acquiesce, and never labor to subvert the power to their own ends. This is obviously not the case.

Businesses are not people, corporations are not people, and so, it is not the business that is the problem, it is THE BUSINESS MODEL that is the problem. The first and foremost offense of the business doctrine is that the business is IMMORTAL; and thus any contract with it becomes a binding burden in perpetuity. The next offense is the paradigm that profit GROWTH should be infinite (i.e. "greed is good"). "Make a killing, not a living" seems to be the overriding goal behind all commerce. The last is that business have no binding loyalty to any government.

We have as a species been lulled into believing that middlemen are necessary to conduct business. That is where the profit bloodletting always takes place. ALWAYS.

Businessmen in politics seem to conduct themselves in a manner that would indicate that "business opportunity" is a reasonable tool in politics. Contracts are currency, and when the unscrupulous are involved they are the means of subversion and economic terrorism. Unnecessary services, unenforceable contracts, zero-consequence zero-risk enterprise are the candy used to attract 'politically expedient' supporters.

Maybe there are principles of logistic management that can and should be applied at the level of government, but the idea of creating 'externalities' to divest oneself of liability while maintaining positive control in posterity is not in alignment with public service as I was taught it should be.

Sadly, this is all academic. The law has been corrupted already, personal sovereignty is scoffed at by the government whose approach is to 'rule' over you, to control you, not to serve you, or enable your pursuit of prosperity or sustainability.

Every 'business-like' initiative of the government since a century ago has NOT served the public interest MORE than a specific set of private interests. And while business people, like any other people you care to define, are just as apt to be good and well-meaning, the process and doctrine of business is not to serve people, but the business itself.

Some of our past leaders have shown they were sensitive to this conflict. Some willingly, and unhappily sacrificed some principles to ensure 'expediency' was served. Others brazenly used the opportunity for their own purposes, mostly self-serving. Some suffered shell-shock when they learned how powerless they were to change the reality as it has been engineered.

Let's see; the law was made to enable the creation of a slave-like 'persons' who are 'immortal' and 'have no legal loyalty requirements; and by definition, relays almost no liabilities to its masters.... is it any wonder we are so thoroughly 'used' by most of them?

Thank you for reading.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
In framing the government, which is to be administered by men over men, you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control it self.
So with the governed, during the days of the founding fathers, their assumptions of the differences of people, they knew that the colonies had to write constitutions, which we see today as " States Constitutions". If any check were needed upon government, it would come from the people themselves. This being assumed that the people would be willing to carry out this duty.

Now fast forward to the current days we are living, with the massive influx of lobbyists, back door deals, and the lack of the " peoples efforts " to carry out our duty, has allowed those higher and upper echelons of power to manipulate what was suppose to be law.

We have seen what not to do in government, we have personally witnessed this for the past 30 years, and end some. So with that, wouldn't it suggest, running the government like a business not only be a different approach, but wouldn't that suggest that the governed, actually be held accountable?

There are those who would disagree, running the country as a business. But as Ross Perot once stated:



“Something in human nature causes us to start slacking off at our moment of greatest accomplishment. As you become successful, you will need a great deal of self-discipline not to lose your sense of balance, humility, and commitment.”



Never before, is our " commitment " to ourselves, and to the generations to come, been so important.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

The exceptions prove the rule.


No they don’t.

I just don’t see the justification for these claims; can you demonstrate that “businessmen have ... no inclination to better themselves intellectually”?



For instance, it is justifiably more efficient to use the least number of employees possible while paying the lowest wages and pay the lowest price for raw materials possible to extract the maximum profits possible for the investors. However, that efficiency paradigm bumps into the larger societal efficency paradigm that says keep the maximum number of citizens working and self-supporting so they don't have to resort to a choice of crime or welfare.


I’m not sure what you mean here, are you suggesting that a government run as a business will promote business practices in the private sector that see businesses hire the fewest people and pay the lowest prices?

Or are you saying that a government run as a business will itself hire fewer people, pay the lowest cost etc?

If the former then trying to stop this would only destroy any incentive to invest and lead to an uncompetitive economy.

If the latter then you are not considering goals; a business will hire the fewest people and pay the lowest possible prices because their goal is producing a product at the lowest cost. If a government has the goal of reducing crime and state dependence then it will hire whatever number is required to fulfil this goal. Both are efficient.


Business people by their nature view the government as their enemy due to the regulation that prevents them from attaining theoretical maximums. They view their fellow citizens with suspicion because their major experience of them is as people they exploit in one way or another, not as equals with equal rights. Just try getting your boss or the business owner to invite you to dinner as an equal, but brush up your resume first.

No, their worldview doesn't properly equip them to think in the manner that good government demands.


To be honest I just see that as unsupported prejudice. How can you prove that businessmen view fellow citizens with suspicion?

Your facts are conjecture and are easily turned around, for example number 2 could equally be stated “employees see businesses as cash cows from whom they extract the maximum pay for the smallest amount of work they can get away with.”


When faced with competing efficiencies they have consistently chosen the smaller efficiency that favored themselves rather than the nation.


See the above paragraph on goals.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Wow. Im impressed. An intelligent human being.

Absolutely you should not want your politicians running your country like a corporation or business. They have totally different ends and goals and are not even close to being the same animal. What gets me is even after CEO's run their companies into the ground and crash our economy and have to be bailed out by taxpayers, Americans still seem to think they should have input into how to run our country. Obama meets with them to solicit their input.

Amazing. But thanks for showing some intelligence. Its encouraging to see now and again.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Dont forget too, that while businesses seek to escape regulation themselves, they often are for greater regulation of their competition, both other businesses, and "labor" which is most of us. They have no problem with regulations that prevent labor from organizing, or regulations that break unions, or government intervention on their behalf.

They are all for various types of property laws that protect them, but like eminent domain laws that allow property they want to be seized from citizens.

Many of the problems you see in our nation already are the result of corporatism, and the "golden rule." (He who has the gold makes the rules) We already have too much corporate control of our politics, and have had for 40-50 years. Its one of the reasons we are in debt and jobless right now, as a nation.


Max Mars. You make some very good points as well. I have long argued that corporate personhood is ridiculous. But, again, its evidence of how little control we have over our government.

One area I disagree with you is that the government is of the people here in the US. It isnt. Not anymore. Television has changed that. Corporations control the government via control of the media. He who controls the flow of information controls the democracy. You need information about candidates to vote for them. You need information about issues to form opinions about your own self interest.

It was no accident that they used corporate personhood to gain the right pump as much money as they want into our electoral process. It was a huge coup for them, and the death kicks of our democracy.
edit on 2-2-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Out of curiosity, during your rant, I noticed that you tried to solidify your argument with opinion. Do you by chance have any relevant evidence that substantiate your claims?

A rant solely based off of emotion does nothing to support your arguments.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 





I just don’t see the justification for these claims; can you demonstrate that “businessmen have ... no inclination to better themselves intellectually”?



Here's a summer reading list for CEOs:

money.cnn.com... .fortune/index.htm

Most of what little they say read was, with few exceptions, directly business-related, not exactly braod. I tend to read that many books in a week, over a summer I might read 20-30 books covering science, medecine, history, politics, fiction, biography. But then, I read fast and have pretty eclectic tastes.

And one for "smart" CEOs:

www.inc.com...

Again, not much breadth.

More of the same:

www.artifacting.com...




I’m not sure what you mean here, are you suggesting that a government run as a business will promote business practices in the private sector that see businesses hire the fewest people and pay the lowest prices?


What I mean is that businesspeople will tend to view government simply as another form of business which should be run to maximize profits for the major shareholders, i.e., themselves, rather than the citizens. That is they will try to create a "favorable business environment", which translates into lower taxes and less responsibility for themselves. When you dissect the corporate rhetoric, things like enforcing safety laws creates an "unfavorable" business environment, as do laws preventing them from marketing untested or unsafe products.




If the latter then you are not considering goals; a business will hire the fewest people and pay the lowest possible prices because their goal is producing a product at the lowest cost.


Actually, I am considering broader goals. That over-simple goal is an example of competing efficiency. If you stop your thought process there, it may seem efficient in the short term, but destructive in the long run, because it reduces societal efficiencies regarding teaching, raising children, and stress-induced medical/social problems.

Societies need an employed excess for many reasons. You need human backups as well as hardware. If a business employs only exactly as many people as it has determined necessary to produce x frids in y time, all is well until one person gets ill, drops dead, or quits, then you lose most of what's been saved by being "efficient": there is no reserve. One of the problems with a small volunteer military is that if major losses are suffered, they can't be made up quickly enough to save the nation. In the name of business efficiency, we have only two shipbuilding centers left, one on each coast, not enough to keep the skills alive in a broad enough and young enough base population.

Much of the financial crisis and its aftermath can be traced to too many companies being too lean to survive any major upset; too "lean" in both manpower and cash reserves.




To be honest I just see that as unsupported prejudice. How can you prove that businessmen view fellow citizens with suspicion?


By the laws they pass against us, and those they pass to protect themselves and information about themselves from us. Haven't you listened to any of the businessmen politicians? They mostly present a view of their fellow citizens as lazy druggies, thieving moochers who don't want to work.




Your facts are conjecture and are easily turned around, for example number 2 could equally be stated “employees see businesses as cash cows from whom they extract the maximum pay for the smallest amount of work they can get away with.”


Except that it wouldn't be true, unless you think minimum wage is far too much, and a forty hour work is a sign of laziness. Americans work harder and longer for less than in pretty much any other first-world country.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Yes, i agree and never ever vote for an individual that promises change without a clear outline of what the change is suppose to be-or about



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join