Governing
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/12/9-reasons-why-business-people-are-terrible-at-governing/

Quote :

"1. Companies are in business for one reason and one reason only…to make money. They are not in business to serve their employees or even their customers. A corporation is legally obligated to put profit above all else. This philosophy typically boils down to making the cheapest product the market will allow (or offering the least amount of service) and selling it at the highest price the market will allow. It’s one thing if your cell phone has a built in life span of six months to two years. It’s quite another for the electrical power grid. 2. Businesses do not care about their customers. I know. That statement is a little cold. They spend billions in advertising convincing us that they care about us. They truly want us to have clean clothes. They want us to have a clean environment. They want your children to frolic in fields. They sell you that toy just so your child can see you as the hero you are. They want you to be happy. Actually, no where in the corporate charter does it talk about customer happiness or even customer satisfaction. Sure, if a competitor is making their customers happy, there might be some incentive to go in that direction, but ultimately, it’s about the shareholders and only the shareholders. It’s easier and cheaper to improve the marketing than it is to improve the product or service. In other words, it’s fine to sell defective products, as long as they can manipulate a certain percentage of the people into believing they are buying a good product at a good price, their shareholders are happy. If the marketing campaign is really good, they will convince their customers that product defects are normal (as with many electronics) and that they should pay to replace their defective product with the next generation of the very same defective product. 3. The government is not in the business of turning a profit. Let’s use the post office as an example. Granted, the post office isn’t doing that great right now, but the reason for that is pretty simple. They aren’t charging enough and they were forced to fund their retirement pensions for far longer than any other organization, public or private. But let’s say they were doing well. Let’s say they were profitable. Customers would be screaming. We would want that money back in the form of cheaper postage stamps. In fact, wasn’t that the entire premise behind the Bush tax cuts? The government had a surplus of funds. Bush and the Republicans felt it should go back to the taxpayers. 4. The government is not in the business of creating demand. By and large, government services are services deemed necessary for our society to function. Businesses spring up every day by creating new demands for new products. Pharmaceutical companies invent illnesses. Clothing manufacturers convince us that we are somehow inferior if we are caught wearing last year’s styles. Governments pick up trash, teach children and put out fires. They have no incentive to have us create more trash, make dumber children or start fires. On the other hand, if those same services were run by business, the more trash they picked up, the more money they would earn. The more work they had to put into educating our children, the more money they would earn. The more fires they had to put out, the more money they would earn. 5. The cost cutting measures taken by businesses can backfire on the government. Since the age of free trade agreements, one of the most common cost cutting measures has been to outsource jobs. In fact, Mitt Romney’s company taught businesses how to save money by outsourcing. Personally, I’m a little uncomfortable with foreign nationals running the CIA. Say what you will about government employees, at least they pay American payroll taxes. 6. The government is directly accountable to us. Post-Citizens United, this might sound somewhat naive, but we do still hold elections and only the people are eligible to vote. A corporate CEO, on the other hand, is controlled by a small group of people known as the board of directors. If we, the customers, wish to fire our President or Congressperson, all we have to do is show up at the polls (something Americans are notoriously bad at). If we, the customers, wish to fire the CEO of a multinational corporation, well, good luck. 7. Business people tend to do a very bad job at governing. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both came from business backgrounds. They left the country in the worst financial shape since the Great Depression. Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts was 47th out of the 50 states for job creation. 8. Business is by definition, amoral. Morality is not part of the corporate charter. The US Constitution is a moral (not to be confused with religious) document. It is a code of conduct for all government officials. It states that government officials must answer to We the People. If We the People don’t like the Constitution, we can change it. Business people have no such codes of conduct, unless it is to instruct them to not embarrass the corporation and its board of directors. We the Customers have absolutely no input into any such code of conduct. 9. Finally, businesses can, and do do something that would be unacceptable for the US Government…they go bankrupt. In all fairness, government runs best when represented by a variety of backgrounds. Business people do have a place in government as do trash collectors, artists and even community organizers. It runs best with a variety of perspectives. It runs best when it is run by We the People."

5/17/2012 11:16:17 PM

Quite right. what idiot would put a businessman in charge of governing? That said, what idiot would put a politician in charge of governing?

The government which governs least governs best simply because the very act of governing means putting someone in charge of governing, and all humans are terrible at governing.

5/17/2012 11:35:29 PM

Pretty much everything in that list is horseshit. I'm bored and will explain.

1) Companies are in the business of making money, but that is far from synonymous with providing shoddy products and services. There is a market for those things. There is also a market for high-quality stuff. That is why we have tiers of company that people routinely differentiate between. Food Lion is the crappy grocery store. Harris Teeter is medium. Whole Foods is high quality (well, I assume it is, I can't afford to buy shit there). And the bit about cell phones having a "built-in life span" is a cheap shot, given the rapid development of technology in general and with regards to cells in particular.

2) It might be wise to remember that shareholders are people, too -- just like customers! Also, customer happiness/satisfaction is frequently a central tenet to company charters, philosophies, and instructions. I currently work for a company whose overriding goal is to become "the #1 customer service company in the world." It turns out that doing right by customers is a solid way of generating revenue and thereby pleasing shareholders.

It's also important to point out that shareholders and voters are similar in the very meaningful sense that you have to please both or else you're out of a job.

3) I don't even know what the point of this one is. Why would we want the government to turn a profit? Or, from the other side of the question, why would running an organization with no profit motive be more difficult than running an organization that had to do all the same things and make money?

4) Governments have plenty of incentive to create demand. That's central to the idea of a "military-industrial complex." You create an external threat to build up the military, both because a powerful military is popular and because it enables you to get juicy defense contracts for your district, which creates jobs. It doesn't matter that the USSR is down to eating shoe leather, you keep buying tanks because there's 500 people back home who work in the tank factory and will be none too pleased if you kill their jobs.

It's also a little disingenuous, the extent to which the list plays up "creating demand" by businesses. No corporation is holding a gun to our heads. We want things because we want them. Education might help (the government has done a bang-up job on that), as might competition -- but of course, that would require more businesses.

5) The CIA bit has moved beyond "red herring" and into the territory of "what the fuck are you even talking about."

6) Businesses are also directly accountable to us. If we don't like them, we stop buying their shit. You're upset because there are companies that you personally don't like, but other people still do -- at least, enough to keep buying their shit. You can get away with this because it is acceptable for rabid liberals to hate on people for their economic choices, but less to to hate them for their voting behavior.

7) What has worked out better than business people? Lawyers like Richard Nixon? Educators like notorious racist and international moron Woodrow Wilson? Your job before politics does not make you an idiot, though often "politics" does.

8) I am not convinced that the constitution is a moral document. It is a legal one. It establishes the powers of government. Large corporations do the same with their governing bodies. The Constitution has frequently been immoral (slavery, women's rights) and contradictory (prohibition/repealment), and is subject to the same incompetent whims as every other human construct. I'd argue that right now the Constitution, by and large, enshrines rules that are morally appropriate, but that does not make it "moral."

9) People go bankrupt, too. I suppose we should denigrate their ability to exercise public office as well.

5/18/2012 2:30:25 AM

pryderi, plz don't repost from AddictingInfo again, it makes our side look bad with its terrible writing and poorly researched articles.

5/18/2012 5:24:58 AM

well why do you think it resonates with him?

5/18/2012 9:23:19 AM

Quote :

"Companies are in business for one reason and one reason only…to make money. They are not in business to serve their employees or even their customers."

If you don't serve your customers well, your company will not make a lot of money in the long-term.

5/18/2012 10:19:38 AM

Grumpy did a decent job of picking that apart, but there's plenty of room to add on. That has to be one of the single stupidest things I've ever read. I almost had a stroke just from reading it.

5/18/2012 10:38:03 AM

5/18/2012 10:53:25 AM

Quote :

"If you don't serve your customers well, your company will not make a lot of money in the long-term."

You aren't trying to make the company money, you're trying to make yourself money. A company is just a tool, discardable like any other.

5/18/2012 3:35:17 PM

i read the first few trying to understand the article's point...then i started getting into the ones bashing republicans and i said to myself..."hmmm, i bet pryderi posted this," and I don't even post in Soap Box hardly.

5/18/2012 4:59:47 PM

Quote :

"Businesses do not care about their customers."

LMAO. That is the biggest load of shit. I stopped reading from that point onward. True, you might have some businesses that don't, but to say all businesses don't care about their customers is complete nonsense.

5/19/2012 12:35:56 AM

Quote :

"You aren't trying to make the company money, you're trying to make yourself money. A company is just a tool, discardable like any other."

True but unhelpful. You run the company into the ground, and odds are you lose your job and have trouble finding a new one on the same level. Thus making yourself money = making the company money. Even this is taking only the most base economic self-interest into account; there are plenty of people in business (as in other fields) who seek success for social reasons like prestige.

Also unhelpful in this context because the same reasoning applies to governments. They are tools, not ends unto themselves. When the tool stops working, you throw it out. This is why countries have elections or coups or revolutions, depending on the system. George III wasn't working too well for us, so we discarded the tool.

5/19/2012 2:24:34 AM

hahaha. 9 Reasons Why Business People are Terrible at Governing:
7) They suck at governing.
hahahahahahahahahahaha

Quote :

"Business is by definition, amoral."

even better. thanks for the laugh, pryderi

5/19/2012 8:21:43 PM

5/19/2012 8:36:42 PM

Reasons this guy sux.
#1. Cause he sux!

5/19/2012 10:17:45 PM

I wish corporate America gave a damn about their customers like the DMV did. that's just world class service right there.

5/20/2012 6:22:58 AM

A business cant take your money against your will. Then throw you in jail should you resist your new "contribution rate".

Also if you dislike/object to how a business is run, what they spending money on, what they stand for, or dislike their logo....you can elect to stop giving them money. No one will show up with guns and throw you in jail if you choose to do so.

5/20/2012 8:34:30 AM

Private business, by design, is not obliged to do anything but seek profit. Customer service, philanthropy, advertising, employee benefits, community engagement, quality control, etc - the absolute purpose of all corporate behavior is raising their profit margin. Remember that scene in fight club?

"Take the number of vehicles in the field, 'a,' multiply it by the probable rate of failure, 'b,' then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement, 'c.' a times b times c equals 'x.' If x is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

This is almost exactly the way it is done in the real world. As an internal auditor, I've had to listen to a lot of executives justify their financial decisions. It is their job to improve the company's bottom line, regardless of what department they lead. This can cause good people to make decisions that might ultimately screw over a small portion of customers when the cost of not screwing over those customers is greater than the revenue they create. "Customer satisfaction", "Safety", "Quality", these are all numbers inside of a "net revenue" equation. When reducing these numbers ends up with a better net revenue figure, those numbers are indeed reduced. Sometimes, reducing those numbers is the primary means by which a company grows. So much work goes into figuring out how to make a product seem better than it is. More often than not, making the product SEEM better produces higher profits than actually improving the quality of the product.

If the numbers work, anything is justified; not only justified - required. Otherwise, management is seen as ineffective; Otherwise, a company fails to be competitive.

Government is, by definition, obliged to work towards the greater good. The absolute purpose of all government behavior is to improve people's lives. I'm not saying they're doing a good job of that right now. Not at all. However, judging by how easily people are swayed to vote for a crappy candidate, and by how easily people are fooled into thinking they're paying a good price...they wouldn't elect good businesses.

[Edited on May 20, 2012 at 11:49 AM. Reason : gremmers]

5/20/2012 11:48:21 AM

Quote :

"Government is, by definition, obliged to work towards the greater good."

No it's really not. You're assuming an awful lot. Monarchies are about what the monarch wants, democracies are about what the majority wants, oligarchies are about what the oligarchs want, etc. The greater good doesn't get a lot of play and is not at all the primary motive for government action.

5/20/2012 1:29:59 PM

^^A very distorted view on business and government.

Quote :

"Private business, by design, is not obliged to do anything but seek profit. Customer service, philanthropy, advertising, employee benefits, community engagement, quality control, etc - the absolute purpose of all corporate behavior is raising their profit margin. Remember that scene in fight club?"

Stating it doesn't make it so. There are businesses out there that make a profit, but the people doing the work find reward in offering tangible, demonstrable benefits to customers. You have to make a profit with business, otherwise the doors close. Business doesn't get to hold a gun to people's head if revenue isn't high enough. They have to offer a good (or cheap) enough service to where people willingly buy from them.

So, for you to paint government like this:

Quote :

"Government is, by definition, obliged to work towards the greater good."

Is pretty outlandish. You can't just say "by definition" and expect to convince anyone. Government is, by definition, the people controlling it. If those people were altruistic, it would probably still be inefficient and corrupt (outsiders would find ways to "trick" the altruistic leaders), but as it turns out, they never are altruistic. The bureaucrats themselves are often stupid or lazy (the best government workers are the ones least qualified - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law - work will expand to fill the allotted time), but our actual rulers almost always demonstrate that they are incapable of making unbiased decisions.

Government is rife with conflict of interest. So is business. The difference is force. If business is hemorrhaging profits due to corrupt business practices, they will fail. If government is pissing away money, murdering people, throwing people in jail for victimless crimes, no one can stop them. It does not matter that the majority of people think marijuana should be decriminalized, for instance. The police/prison industry lobbies to keep the laws the way they are, the politicians want to save face, and the courts are basically useless because any attempt to do their job is labelled "judicial activism".

[Edited on May 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2012 1:42:00 PM

Quote :

"well why do you think it resonates with him?"

Quote :

"Grumpy did a decent job of picking that apart, but there's plenty of room to add on. That has to be one of the single stupidest things I've ever read."

Yep.

5/20/2012 1:50:16 PM

Quote :

"Stating it doesn't make it so. There are businesses out there that make a profit, but the people doing the work find reward in offering tangible, demonstrable benefits to customers. You have to make a profit with business, otherwise the doors close. Business doesn't get to hold a gun to people's head if revenue isn't high enough. They have to offer a good (or cheap) enough service to where people willingly buy from them."

I don't get it. Is that supposed to be a rebuttal? You're not saying anything that isn't reconcilable with what I said.

Quote :

"Is pretty outlandish. You can't just say "by definition" and expect to convince anyone. Government is, by definition, the people controlling it. "

Ok for the sake of semantics, let me revise my statement. The conceptual purpose of government is to work towards the greater good. Am I still being OUTLANDISH?

5/20/2012 4:43:34 PM

Yes, because that isn't the conceptual purpose of government.

5/20/2012 4:59:34 PM

Enlighten me then

5/20/2012 7:02:01 PM

Government is the body which is authorized to use force to control citizens. Generally this is an agreed upon set up like a democracy, sometimes it is not like in an absolute dictatorship.

Would you classify the government of Syria as working towards the greater good? How about the government of China? What about our own federal government?

Government is simply a system of rule, it is not inherently working towards anything, nor is it inherently good or evil. It depends very much on execution and the people who make up a particular government.

5/20/2012 7:46:32 PM

^^ Allow us to introduce you to something called "Special Interests"

5/20/2012 10:30:17 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

same ole BS. Milton kills it.

5/20/2012 11:20:04 PM

does the thread you clicked feature copious amounts of liberal propoganda garbage, or pictures of penises? if you answered yes to either of these, you are most likely viewing a pryderi thread.

5/21/2012 9:30:14 AM

You guys are confusing the terms "conceptual purpose" and "real effect".

5/21/2012 5:21:14 PM

Quote :

"We have had 20 presidents in the modern era (i.e., since 1900). Five of those had significant business careers before entering politics. Unfortunately for Romney, the results are not good for the businessmen. None of the great or near-great presidents—Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or Woodrow Wilson—was a businessman. Truman was a failed businessman (a haberdasher) before entering politics, but that hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement of Romney's claim for private sector ascendency. For that matter, none of the better-than-average presidents was a businessman either. In this category think of Presidents John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/02/17/sorry-mitt-romney-good-businessmen-rarely-make-good-presidents

6/4/2012 11:04:14 PM

Quote :

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A same ole BS. Milton kills it."

NASA.

6/4/2012 11:06:27 PM

I'm leery of anybody who puts first-class bigot and world war flip-flopper Woodrow Wilson into the category of "great or near-great."

But more to the point, my problem with the article (and everything else in this thread) is that you could use it to make a perfectly reasonable, accurate, and possibly even helpful point: that Mitt Romney is talking out of his ass when he says that his business experience will necessarily make him a better president.

But you don't use it to make that point, you use it to make a claim that is as dumb as Romney's and for the same reasons: that business experience will necessarily make him a worse president. Neither end of this thinking has any basis in evidence or common sense. We have had presidents from similar backgrounds turn out to be good and bad. From the rank of general we got Washington and Eisenhower, two excellent and popular leaders. We also got some morons like Grant, Pierce, and Hayes. Lawyers gave us a little more than half our presidents and they run the gambit from incompetent asshole Millard Fillmore all the way up to Abraham Lincoln.

So maybe we can stop reading so much -- anything at all, really -- into the occupational category held by presidents? The only real information we need on the subject of "prior experience" when vetting candidates is:

1) Did they do their previous jobs well or with any insight?
2) Did anything they do during the course of their job indicate any traits that might make for a good (or bad) president?

Beyond that, we shouldn't give a shit. By itself, it doesn't matter if the guy's last job was "chief dog catcher in Gainesville, Florida." If he did a really spectacularly good job at catching dogs, that's sufficient for me to look on to the more important matters of what he says he's gonna do and how he says he's gonna do it.

6/4/2012 11:55:38 PM

I'm sure you're already aware, but I'm feeling obnoxious.

They run the gamut, not the gambit.

6/5/2012 5:36:46 AM

Quote :

"But more to the point, my problem with the article (and everything else in this thread) is that you could use it to make a perfectly reasonable, accurate, and possibly even helpful point: that Mitt Romney is talking out of his ass when he says that his business experience will necessarily make him a better president."

That's what I was trying to say and I did it poorly.

6/5/2012 1:45:02 PM

Quote :

"Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised." -Woodrow Wilson"

Woodrow Wilson, more intelligent than literally every president since him.

[Edited on June 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2012 3:24:44 PM

He was also arguably responsible for the rise of Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin, which I'm sure passes as brilliant in your book.

But, hey - good intentions, right!?

[Edited on June 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM. Reason : ]

6/5/2012 3:27:48 PM

emphasis on 'arguably'

6/5/2012 3:57:14 PM