How do (or how would) the other facets of government and private business map to one another?
Specifically:
On the business side: profit/dividends and shareholder responsibility
On the government side: Taxes, regulation
On both sides: products/services, customers
96% of all busineses fail in their first ten years. An African banana republic’s military coup has a better chance of flourishing for a decade than an American startup.
That analogy doesn’t really work since we we aren’t trying to “grow the country immensely”. I’m not even sure what that would mean. Borrow money so we could finance more immigration? When businesses “grow” they are seeking to develop new products or new markets in order to generate more profit. But the government isn’t there to “make a profit”.
There are certain business practices that can work in government, but it’s not set up to be run like a business, and doing so is a fool’s errand.
One example might be construction of pay roads which has already been suggested by the incoming administration.
Other examples where government could in theory be run like a business is selling of carbon credits if the goal is to set the fees to maximize profit rather than minimize pollution or help corporations. Similarly with entrance fees for national parks which you could sell if they would make more money in private hands. Of course we all know how good of a business decision that would turn out to be (i.e. sweetheart deals). And the less said about privatizing other national lands the better since the reason the government owns them is because no one wanted the responsibility of owning them in the first place, so more firesale prices.
(I do, however, think it wouldn’t be wise for the government to set prices on resource collection on national land with an eye to maximizing revenue, if environmental goals don’t dictate other policy. Currently the prices seem more oriented toward giveaways to resource companies/grazers.)
A business is what it’s owners decide it is. Running something like a business is about being responsible to the stockholders. The employees of the business need to perform their jobs for the owner’s benefit, not their own. The congress is our elected board of directors, the president is the executive we have elected to run the business. We have to demand that they operate for our benefit, not the people who bribe them, not the special interests who try to take our ownership away. We don’t need to sell or make profits, it is our obligation to constantly invest in our government/business in the form of taxes if needed. If we can sell products we should do so for our profit.
When people want government run like a business they may mean different things, but often no matter what their political view they mean that the government should make decisions based on achieving the mission provided by citizens. From that point the same problem exists no matter how you define business or government, we have hundreds of millions of owners who have disparate and conflicting desires for that mission. I believe that even in all that conflict if the voters considered themselves as owners instead of customers we’d do better in selecting our boards and executives and do better at making them work for our benefit. To work for the government, whether in elected or appointed positions should be a privilege which is dearly held. Those lucky enough to serve should work hard to perform and deliver for the owners of the country, not to feather their own nests and divest their responsibilities. And among the voters/owners too many look at government as a rich uncle who will spoil us with gifts when we need to take responsibility for the managing the country that we own.
You’re already winding yourself into knots attempting to justify the notion of “running a government as a business.” A government isn’t a business. You do not run a government as a business for the same reason I don’t run my family as a business; it’s not a business. If it was I’d fire the kids and the cat. They aren’t generating any revenue.
What does “run the government like a business” even mean? People are asking this question in all seriousness and no one who says “run the government like a business” ever provides a coherent answer. If you’re trying to do what most businesses do - maximize profit - you’d starting selling poorer states off to other countries. While I would not be at all surprised if Trump would be willing to sell Alaska and all its hapless residents back to Russia, I’m not sure you’d agree that’s a good idea.
No different than service managers at car dealerships working on commission. I thought we were supposed to be running government like a business here.
This post scares the shit out of me.
And where, pray tell, will you find the millions of saints willing to do this?
I agree that government employees should care about the country, but they should also earn a decent wage corresponding to their hard work and qualifications. They have families to raise, too. Demanding that government workers somehow be more morally superior and self-sacrificing than private sector workers is both impossible and a recipe for disaster.
IMO “run the government like a business” is merely a cliché false conclusion built on two cliché false propositions:
Once you recognize who believes the latter claptrap you’ll identify who believes the former claptrap.
There is a third thread of claptrap running more or less orthogonal to the two above:
Even if 3) was accurate about large corporations, which anyone who’s ever worked for one knows it isn’t, it’s also a direct recipe for the Big Man = Stalinist form of government. One we fought a war a couple hundred years ago to get away from.
Funny that the folks who buy 1) and 2) often like the idea of Stalinist leaders. They’ll eventually discover they’re not actually Dear Leader’s favored group though. And they’ll act all surprised when it happens to them.
Fair point. How about this: I got a new driver license recently in less time than it took me this weekend to receive my order at celebrity chef Bryan Voltaggio’s sandwich shop.
ETA: I guess the advantage of running government like a business is that lots of government officials would get more perks like golf trips to “woo clients” and big expense accounts, as well as profit sharing.
(Looks at our budget deficits)
Ok maybe the profit sharing thing is a loser.
Except that Trump’s tiny hands can’t even grasp a small tap hammer effectively. This is a guy who drove multiple casinos–a business with a statistically guaranteed gross profit margin–into bankruptcy. His biggest business wins have been convincing other people that the Trump name is work licensing and the unaccredited Trump “University” which he paid out a $25M settlement to avoid going to court for defrauding “students”. Most of the actual businesses he has run have gone bankrupt (6 bankruptcies of Trump properties or businesses) or have been shut down or sold for not being profitable (Trump Airlines, Trump Mortgage, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, GoTrump.com, the New Jersey Generals, various media companies).
Even if there were a credible argument for “running the government like a business,” Donald Trump would be about the last person you’d want running it based upon his evidential business acumen. He’s a terrible fucking businessman who has to lie about his supposed success to the point that he refuses to release his tax records in violation of decades of precident for the transparency from presidential candidates.
All of which is true (save that technically the Federal Reserve System, while being a federally chartered system of banks with the authority to regulate various aspects of banking and monetary policy, is not technically part of the government and is theoretically independent of the President and Congress in terms of controlling the monetary supply and interest rates). Large businesses often assure profitablility by manipulating goverment regulations such as corporate taxes, employment laws, tarriffs and trade agreeements, and (for government contractors) the Federal Acquisition Regulations. As the government, you can’t just manipulate your own laws to manufacture efficacy; you actually have to provide services and support, in theory within the means provided by tax revenue. Many of those services are, as msmith537 and others have pointed out, are services that explicitly can’t or shouldn’t be used to generate a profit as they benefit the public at large (transportation and communication infrastructure, national security, pollution abatement, large emergency response, et cetera) or provide a long-term benefit with no promply realized profit (primary and secondary education, fundamental science and technology development, preservation of natural resources and scenic areas). Government exits to do the things that private companies could not afford or justify doing in a business plan; arguing that government should be run as a business with the expectation of profitability is as obtuse as arguing that an airplane should be able to taxi through rush hour traffic.
If we can add Florida to the list I’m all in. ALL IN! Sell that sinkhole-infused swamp infused with evil reptiles and Disney tourists back to Spain and count ourselves fortunate that the diesese hasn’t spread. We just need a long term inviolate lease on Cape Canaveral for a launch site and we’re good.
Stranger
Also, do we really want the world’s most advanced military and intelligence community to be run on a for-profit business model?
Imperial Rome tried that, sort of. And there’s a reason the adjective “Imperial” is there. f you run an army like a business, what’s the best way to make it profitable? Conquer and pillage.
Actually, I expect Trump actually will “run the government like a business.” Or at least try real hard.
For the particular definition of “like a business” which is actually “Shovel as much of the cashflow into the Big Bosses’ pockets as we can get away with without the shareholders complaining too much.” And since in this case the Big Boss & his cronies will control all the enforcement agencies, it’s likely to be a pretty big percentage of what’s already a whopping big number.
And that is part of the problem-we have thousands of governments in the US with all levels of efficiency and service.
Around here, the DMV works quite well. During the busy hours the line is kind of long, but if you are in a hurry, just go down to one of the contract offices and pay the small service charge. You can’t get a new license there, but everything else is available. Some of our local businesses are far from efficient or friendly. Our schools are well-run and popular. No private school can hope to compete if your child needs special services or if you want your child to go to a neighborhood school. Regular ed students do quite well compared to state and national norms. There is always a waiting list for job openings in the schools. School taxes are quite high, but to date voters have always voted for renewals.
Obviously my experience differs from Enola Gay. And that is the problem. Lots of governments to choose from. Lots of businesses to choose from. I doubt anyone wants our government to be run like Enron.
What we all want is a Government that is responsive to the public’s needs and a public that focuses on important issues. Both are a work in progress and comparing Grapefruits to Berries (how is that for an analogy? 
) isn’t the best way to approach our goal.
A democratic government can do that without trying to be a business-that’s-not-actually-like-a-business-when-challenged.
They said the same thing about Eisenhower, that he didn’t understand the differences between running the military and running the government. They predicted that he would come strutting in, bellow out orders and expect Congress to hop to them on the double. Instead, he quickly grasped how to operate within the framework of government to get what he wanted accomplished. In that case, his experience leading a group of disparate, strong personalities was actually an asset. So as long as Trump is as intelligent and reasonable as Eisenhower, we have nothing to worry about…
(We’re going to get Michigan’ed, aren’t we :()
I think Trump will work well with Congress and the bureaucracy. He understands them a LOT better than they understand him. Again, he is a salesman and he makes his living understanding the pain points of the person he is selling to. Trump also has to be the manager of a large organization. He may be good at that or no, I don’t know myself.
The problem will come with his decision-making ability and his ability to seek out and understand the truth. I have little faith in either of these areas.
BTW,
I disagree with above, the comparison to Eisenhower isn’t particularly relevant. Eisenhower’s prior experience came from making life and death decisions-and seeing the consequences of those decisions. Far far better training than someone making deals with other people’s money and walking away unscathed if the decision is bad. Trump got the wrong experience in managing large organizations, Eisenhower got the painfully right experience.
True, but the O.P. is discussing style of management rather than substance. Everyone (even Truman) though Ike would run things like a general rather than a politician. He didn’t. Everyone is assuming that Trump will run things like a C.E.O. That has yet to be seen.