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: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


You know of any businesses that are run as democracies or republics, wherein the employees vote on pay scales, product development, and safety?

There are a few, but they are usually employee-owned. The vast majority are dictatorships.

A show of hands, please:

How many employees here feel that their employer view them as social equals?

How many employers socialize (real socializing, the Xmas office party isn't socializing) with their employees?

For the most part, when we speak of business in the US, we aren't talking "mom&pop" microbusinesses, although many model themselves on the big boys and cop the same attitudes. If you want to blow your mind go look at how business-politicians define "small business":

www.sba.gov...

I can't offer you statistics on subjects they don't collect data about, some things must be inferred from behavior. It's up to you to look around and see where what I've said matches with your reality. I submit that what I've presented is more in accord with US reality than not.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 



I know exactly how you feel...one sight I'd enjoy is the look on a financier/ceo/corporatist supporter's face when they attempted to trade their gold for my food and drink. Especially when they realized they had no backup plan.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Especially when I take a stack of their 100 dollar bills and start my fire with them.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


S&F, Couldn't agree more! Corporations are NOT people and therefore, should NOT be governing people. If we truly had a government that was "Of, By & For The People," corporations would not even have the right to lobby congress, period. The right of a person to redress his government is just that, "the right of a person."



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

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?
edit on 2-2-2011 by simone50m because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


The first link shows thirteen people; that is not a representative sample. The second link is a recommended reading list for business people so it will naturally include lots of business orientated books. The third link again shows just fifteen people including a number that appeared on the first list.

This is not evidence of your assertion.


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.


So? As long as government itself doesn’t take that view then there is no problem.

Business will always try to maximise their profits as that is their purpose but government does not have to facilitate this at the expense of society whether it is run like a business or not.


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.


I want government to create a favourable business environment, without one jobs go down, the economy stagnates and standards of living drop.

However I disagree with your dissection, it is not in a business’ favour to have untested or unsafe products or unsafe conditions.


Actually, I am considering broader goals. …


I think you misunderstand me, if I have understood you correctly your argument is that a government run like a business would have a negative effect on society because such a government would create an environment biased in favour of business to the detriment of the people. However this seems to be based on the assumption that this government would see its goal as maximising the profits of business; I am saying that you are failing to consider the possibility of a government having a different goal.

It has nothing to do with competing efficiencies. Your second paragraph from the quote is not an example of why government should not be run as a business it’s an example of bad government. A business that is run efficiently does not have to forego strategic reserves of material and labour nor does it have to neglect skills; so to with a government run like a business.


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.


I have no idea where you get that from.


Except that it wouldn't be true


Of course it’s true. When you are looking for a job do you pick the first one that comes along regardless of the pay/workload ratio? Or do you choose the job that pays the most for the least amount of work? You’d be insane not to try to maximise your income.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
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.
edit on 3-2-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2011 by apacheman because: format error,sp

edit on 3-2-2011 by apacheman because: clarity



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 



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.


No I’m just objecting to your view that business necessarily means a “twisted” model.

Business and businessmen run right through the social strata from a small family owned grocery to a multinational; you seem to be focusing solely on the very top and considering only its negatives.

When a politician says they want to run government as a business they are naturally talking about the best case business model. I get the impression that your think that it means running government as a carbon copy of the business world.


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...


I don’t buy that argument as it ignores external factors; in a totally free system then yes business practices would tend to reflect the most ruthless but not in a system affected by everything from national/international legislation, the media and public perceptions.

But even if it were true I don’t think this has an impact on whether government should be run along the lines of business. In your argument the way a business practices is dictated by the practices of their most successful competitors who you characterise as psychopaths; however in most areas governments run an effective monopoly so there is no need to descend to the level of competitors. Even where there is competition for services a government has no real need to compete because government’s goal is not profit, rather the supply of the service is an end in itself. This is why I see considering goals as so important.

Where I think your argument would hold sway is when the competition comes from foreign sources; however I disagree that it is a bad thing that governments play the competition at their own game, or rather I think that it’s not good but it is a necessity.


Some government agencies can and should be run under a proper business model, but not all.


I think this is something everyone accepts, even the politicians who say that government should be run as a business.

The problem, I think, is that you see this phrase to mean taking an entire business model and trying to force government operations into it, whereas I see it as being far more flexible.

However going back to the OP, I still fundamentally disagree that much of what you presented were facts.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Are you trying to say that most American businesses are run on the theoretical model?

Where have you been since Reagan started deregulation?

For a lot of industries, mining, drilling, finance spring to mind, there is no effective regulation at all. And if you can't see that most companies in those industries are run by sociopaths, you might want to rethink a bit.

Successful sociopaths are folks like Rupert Murdoch and Dick Cheney, while successful psychopaths are folks like Heriberto Lazcano, the leader of the criminal cartel Zetas. Both types dictate the business environments within which they and their competitors operate, and cultivate mindsets in their underlings that effectively reflect theirs.

Why do you think that every time dewy-eyed freshmen Representatives, eager to right the wrongs of government, so soon become twisted themselves? Why do you think corruption is so persistent? The proof is in the pudding...ever since Reagan, the mantra of "like a business" has gotten countless politicians elected. And they did as promised...they ran the government like the businesses they knew using the mindsets they brought with them. Very few, if any, state and federal level politicians are representative of "mom&pop" businesses...most are from the corporate world, with corporate values. The results are obvious to all and were utterly predictable.

Why don't we try an experiment and elect more middle-class nurses, teachers, scientists, retail clerks, and artists and fewer millionaire businessmen and lawyers and see what happens then?

Couldn't screw it up worse than the business types have already.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 



Are you trying to say that most American businesses are run on the theoretical model?


I don’t think there is one model, theoretical or not; I think most business attempt to use the most perfect model that suites their needs, though obviously that’s unlikely to be achievable; and I think any politician looking to business for inspiration is looking to reproduce the best practices.


For a lot of industries, mining, drilling, finance spring to mind, there is no effective regulation at all.


That’s not related to whether government should use business practices as a basis for some government activities.


And if you can't see that most companies in those industries are run by sociopaths, you might want to rethink a bit.


I don’t think you can prove that; I can’t prove the contrary so this area is probably a bit of a dead end. However it doesn’t really matter, in my view, because of the argument in my last post; i.e. the goals and the competition a government faces are different to those of commercial business.


Successful sociopaths are folks like Rupert Murdoch and Dick Cheney



Very few, if any, state and federal level politicians are representative of "mom&pop" businesses...most are from the corporate world


It sounds like your problem is with the people not the fact that they come from business. It’s not that they are bringing with them negative business practices it’s that these people will tend towards ruthlessness regardless (not that I’m saying that is necessarily the case).



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
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?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


You are talking about the mechanics of business, while I am focussing upon the mindsets.

The reason I refer to the Murdochs and Cheneys and their ilk is that they are the people who decide who gets to run for office on the federal and state levels in this country. Anyone can run for office, and the occasional dark horse wins, but by and large, those who rule the corporate world rule our politics. As long as business people get elected that will continue.

What's so great about business models or businesses, anyway?

The failure rate of business in general is huge. And it really doesn't matter which model they use, more businesses fail than succeed.

Why would I want to elect someone to run my government so it fails most of the time?

And in this country, a lot of the right-wing business types who run for office do so expressing the belief that government doesn't and can't work: built-in excuse for failure and a self-fulfilling prophecy. The left-wing business types aren't that much better. It is the business mindset that is at fault: too egocentric, too dedicated to expediency, and too narrow, even with the best of intentions.

Again, we've already done this experiment for at least the last thirty years, and look where it got us: very few ultra-wealthy sociopaths, a few mega-wealthy, a few more moderately wealthy, and everyone else struggling to stay afloat. Our infrastructure is crumbling, the pension fund is looted, the workers (citizens) all laid off, all the valuable movable stuff has been removed, i.e., the factory production; the only thing left is to torch the place and collect on the insurance, and the business model will be complete.

Our country has been and is being run like a business, and I'm sick of it.
edit on 4-2-2011 by apacheman because: expansion of thought



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Well I’m not American so the nitty gritty of candidate selection etc is not something I’m massively knowledgeable about.

I am only arguing against the statement that one should not vote for a politician who says that they would run a government like a business.

That statement, I think, depends much more on the mechanics of business than of the mindset of a small minority. You appear to be arguing about certain types of businesspeople joining government which I think is a totally separate issue.

At the very basic there are many business practices that can be adapted to government so a politician (not a businessman) saying they would run government like a business is not necessarily a bad thing. The failure rate of businesses is a red herring in my opinion, businesses fail for a myriad of reasons beyond just the particulars of their model; but even so this fact does not stop politicians looking at and adapting the most successful and appropriate practices.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


So, what you're basically saying is, we shouldn't consider voting for someone who promises to "run government like a corrupt, inefficient, short-sighted business".

What if it's someone who has had experience and great success in the private sector, who has a history of profitability, strong employment with high employee satisfaction numbers, and long term viability?

There are crappy businesses and good businesses. Good and evil businessmen and politicians.

If I was giving advice, I'd say don't vote for anyone who promises ANYTHING who can't provide a detailed plan and strategy AND tactics for getting there. Goals first. Then strategy, then tactics. If it involves a lot of hollow, flowery prose with assorted hand waving and misty eyed pain feeling and no specificity, run the other way.

Or - Hope and change, baby. Just trust me.

Yeah, right.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


Actually, I agree with you.

Problem is, that most who run on that premise aren't exactly the most ethical and efficient of businessmen, and most businesses wouldn't meet that standard.

What they mean by the phrase, as evidenced from the majority of results obtaining from those who use it, is "I want to run government for my personal profit and interests, and those of my cronies, without anyone telling me what to do or how to do it, just like I run my business."



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Jon Huntsman.

Just sayin'.




new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join