I watched the California governor's race closely, because I hate meg whitman, and I felt step by excruciating step what that witch did with ebay. Her motto was 'it's time to run california like a business', and I felt like with her at the helm, everyone would get screwed at every turn. Now, I'm not in to big government, because all the gov is supposed to do is to enforce freedom as per the Constitution, not make handouts for every vapid request. But I know what whitman would have meant for anyplace she presides over. Her type is that as long as a company has a good stock price, then they must be doing good. People like her would buy monsanto even if it meant buying cancer, just so long as the price goes up and away.

I heard whitman lost the election, and she spent tons of her money trying to buy the position.

Originally posted by Mike_A
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.

I wonder how many of them actually recognize the state of affairs this country is in or are they in denial. Nevertheless, in one aspect I do hope SHTF just for the simple fact so that they will be put in a situation where all those years of screwing people over and taking their money does them absolutely no good at all. So for that reason alone, is why I want the economy to crash. I want to sit back and watch them struggle and have to fend for themselves when all that money is worthless.

Originally posted by Grumble
Exactly right. Running a business is all about EFFICIENCY. Running a government is about EQUITY.

The Third Reich was into efficiency.

Donald Trump is an egomaniacal Roman Emperor wannabe. Can you spell robber barons?

Aaahhh (adjusts focus), I begin to see where we differ, I think.

You are apparently thinking of running government like a theoretical best-case business model, while I am referring to the twisted corporate model that actually exists.

My point is that no matter what is taught in the schools, or debated by economics professors, the reality is different, especially at high levels. People will bring the mindset they have cultivated for success in the environments they found themselves to whatever endeavour they undertake.

The business world at its upper tier has a population of several hundred thousand in this country, wouldn't you agree?

In a population that large, it is a statistical certainty that there are a few sociopathic people, a few psychopathic, a bunch of dummies, a large number of quirky people, a few very brilliant, and a few saints, agreed? A standard cross-section of humanity with a few interesting variations due to their class position.

Probably what is most germane to our discussion lies at the socio/psychopathic end. Here we are mostly talking about highly successful socio/psychopaths. They are smart, charming, wealthy, powerful, and utterly unscrupulous. They function as I've outlined in the OP, and because they do, they set the tone of the competition in the business world, influencing it far beyond what their raw numbers might suggest. In order to compete, even the good businessmen must adopt some of the characteristics of the sociopaths, and find themselves doing and supporting things that trouble their hearts. The business world by its nature attracts, supports, and allows the flourishment of such types to an extraordinary degree: after a certain degree of success, layers of protection and invisibility are easier to buy and maintain.

How do you identify the sociopath? He or she is usually the one who favors deregulation for him- or herself while advocating strict rules for others. The one who's burned you six times in a row and asks you to trust him again, and you DO.

Anyway, governments are not businesses and, when run like one will end up corrupted and dysfunctional, because businessmen-politicians will be unable to think outside the competitive businessworld mindset they bring, something too narrow for successful governance without some outside influences. Some government agencies can and should be run under a proper business model, but not all. Do you really want to run the military and Coast Guard on a strict business model? If so, which one?

As things stand now we've had decades of the reality of government run as a business, and like the vast majority of businesses, it's been run into the dirt, and those responsible refuse to change their approach.

Personally, I've had enough of that Kool-aid.

Government IS ran like a business, but it serves a select few.

Your Federal Government has cracked down on doctors to get them to cease giving pain medications to citizens with spine injuries, cancer, and other disabling conditions.

They want those citizens to suffer extreme pain from their cancer/spine injury so their kidneys/livers fail and they can be put into the ground quickly. There are +70 million baby boomers now wanting Social Security and Medicare.

5th Amendment to our Constitution: ""nor be deprived of life""

National Security Policy now is depriving Americans of their lives...so we can afford to give free $$$ to +70 million Baby Boomers.

sick isn't it?

In view of recent developments, I thought this worth a bump.

We've had enough of running "government like a business", especially ones like Goldman-Sachs and the rest of the Wall Street banksters, which seems to be where most of our financial business models for government seem to be emanating from.