Being president is easy.

The United States government has more resources at its disposal than any organization in the history of the world, so that is settled. A banana republic is severely limited in resources. A “ludicrous” comparison.

empirically, the example I made of Truman proves you wrong. He pleased virtually nobody with enormous budgets, and now historians love him. Are you saying he had to please everyone? What is your particular definition of “had”?

Presidents benefit from the ideological veil that has been cast on government with the advent of democracy. People already buy into their schtick and view government, at best, as a necessary evil. This makes “running a country” particularly easy. In addition, their “customers” are coerced into “paying for services” unless of course they flee the country.

By stating that a president must please everyone, you have also failed to address what mechanism compels them. I will help you. Democracy right?

In a democracy the president is not compelled to change policy unless he feels his coalition of >50% voter support is threatened.

In a business if only one percent of customer support is threatened, it compels the company to make adjustments in proportion to the number dissatisfied customers. There is no such mechanism in government. If 49% want the govt ousted, they must still pay taxes. If 49% of a customer base go away, the company must make major adjustments in policy.

**This is the important part: when a company loses customers it also loses revenue and is hampered in its ability to acquire more resources and direct them. This is good because a 49% reduction in revenue means this company will no longer be bidding up resources and directing them towards ends which society has deemed unsatisfactory. If a president fails 49% of his taxpayers, he still continues to acquire resources and direct them to the same old ends that 49% of society has deemed unsatisfactory.

In summation, if you believe we live in a world of scarce resources, you can also see how government direction of the resources is relatively unresponsive to consumer demand, therefore you cannot support democracy unless you are against humans satisfying their needs and wants. **

Government ineffectiveness is exacerbated by the fact that they monopolize so many services (being kind here). For if 100% of a population disagrees with how a president conducts foreign policy, there may still be no mechanism for compelling change because 51% may agree with his domestic agenda and voters could place domestic issues as their priority in voting. The numbers are exaggerated here to demonstrate a principle.

If I go to Wal Mart and like their socks but not their bacon, I am not compelled to continue paying for their bacon as long as I buy their socks. If I was representative of their customer base, you could eventually see a further degradation in the quality of their bacon. There would be no mechanism to compel Wal Mart to improve their bacon.
In the business world there are competitors. Governments have a monopoly. Reach back to your middle school days and tell me which of these models are better for consumers. It really is as simple as that.

Comedy is hard.

You have proved that more than once.

I’m not seeing how your OP supports your assertion that “bring President is easy.” Please explain?

Can you provide a link to the previous rant to give us some context?

Basically being president means having to please nobody with vast resources. A president can operate at zero approval for years at a time with no mechanism for addressing this.

No it pretty much stands as is.

Rant: saying something I disagree with in a casual style?

Clicking on the blue arrow in the original quote should take you to the source thread.

Thank you. I am often computer illiterate.

Does it not matter to your argument, then, whether someone is a good or bad president?

I’m sorry. Maybe it’s a lack of caffeine, or all the heroin, but I’m still not seeing how that makes the job easy. (Even were it true, which I would argue against.)

Simply having the weight on my shoulders that my decisions could affect the lives and well being of millions and possibly even billions of humans long into the future would be a weight I am not prepared to bear. Nothing even remotely easy about that.

Being President CAN be easy. A President can choose to be extremely hands-off.

But doing a good job as President can’t and shouldn’t be easy.

No, there is a mechanism. It’s both vague and unwieldy, but it exists. The vagueness means it’s hard to use but it also means that it could move swiftly, if necessary.

If the President suddenly started practicing cannibalism, it’d be addressed right damn quick.

‘…No mechanism for addressing…’

I think Mr Nixon and Mr Clinton, might disagree with that assertion.

This is a vast oversimplification. In many cases, and especially cases where the good is a luxury, monopolies are a bad thing. But we grant monopolies for patented items or creative works. We grant monopolies for violence. And we grant monopolies, sometimes, for certain services like schools that are necessary for all citizens to have access to.

In all these cases, monopolies are better for consumers in the long run than competition: monopolies on creative works lead to more creative works, monopolies on violence lead to reduced risk of homicide; monopolies on schools ensure that folks receive a baseline of service no matter what they can afford.

Saying monopolies are never better is like middle-school economics.

With great power there must also come – great responsibility

Given the OP its hard to determine whether he is saying that being president is easier than being a CEO or easier than being a Dictator of a banana republic, but given which thread this sun off of I’m going to go with CEO.

As a CEO you have one responsibility, to make your share holders happy, all of whom basically want the same thing (to make money) and who if they aren’t happy can just move their money to another company and get out of your hair. use whatever means necessary within the law to make that happen, whether or not others in the company approve. If a portion of you company isn’t performing you can shut it down, and sell it off. If a few perks are given to well performing employees (say a Christmas party on a river cruise ship), its viewed as part of doing business. If a rival business sends a bunch of thugs to tear up one of your franchises you can take them to court.

As president, you have to be accountable to 300 million share holders all of whom have different needs, and many of whom hate the very existence of your company. In order to take any action you have to get enough of those varying groups to agree so that you can get it through congress. As president you also can’t pick and choose you target customer base and business model. If Mississippi is under-performing you can’t sell it off to consolidate their interests in the over performing industrial states. Every move you make is scrutinized by your 300 millions share holders. If you spend $15.00 per per person for a continental breakfast at a bushiness meeting its a massive scandal because everyone of those 300 million will see at as their personal $15 that is going to pay for the lazy bum’s breakfast. If another country attacks your embassy you can’t go crying to the world police for help, the buck stops there.

If I could run the country like a business, I would sell of much of the south to the highest bidder, raise taxes to the point of maximum profit, while providing just enough service to keep most of my customers from leaving to my competitors (masses of fleeing refugees are bad for profits), give myself a trillion dollar performance bonus for putting the country in the black for once and call it a day.

And if the job description meant “make nobody happy,” then you’d be correct. However, the job involves a lot more work than just pissing people off.

Is that why presidents in office look like they age 2 or 3 years for every 1?

“My post is my cite?” :rolleyes: