Why do people buy into the idea that a business man or woman would be a good choice to run

[upaloopa]

a government?

Governments do not exist to make a profit as any for profit business does. A government's revenue does not come from selling a product or service. Governments do not try to "build a better mouse trap." Governments do not exist in a world of supply and demand.

There are functions of government that could be made more efficient if they followed best business practices. But local governments do not have deficit spending. Their spending is limited to their revenue. State and Federal governments are supposedly trying to operate within a balanced budget. Many times efficiencies that come from new technologies are not available to governments because there isn't sufficient revenue. Governments must be run efficiently using limited and sometimes antiquated resources.

Governments can do many things more efficiently than private businesses because there is no need to make a profit. If governments had a profit motive then they would limit their services to those things that were profitable. They would only offer services to those that could afford them. That is why privatizing services that government does well and everyone needs is such a bad idea.

So a business mentality that is driven buy the profit motive is not what is needed in government. Leaders who can operate in an environment where revenue is limited yet services are provided to all citizens and as efficiently as possible is what we should be looking for to run our governments.

[HughBeaumont]

1. Well, they're probably the same people who believe Trickle Down is in their best interests.

They're also the ones who's selectively short term memories have blocked out 2001-2009.

[denverbill]

2. George W Bush was a businessman. That worked pretty well right?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. You see this in campaigns for municipal offices and boards of education.

These kind of candidates claim to have expertise in finance and executive training. Which is supposed to translate into ability to turn in trimmed down budgets, slicing away red tape and pork, and organizational skills that produce better results for less money. They won't be bogged down by sympathy for civil employees and their pensions. They'll look at a budget, look at the revenue and make decisions coldly on the numbers. Get things done! Keep work abstract.

[upaloopa]

4. You don't make decisions in government coldly, based only on the numbers. In government you don't

have that latitude.

You live within laws, contracts, and rules which you have no control of. You don't decide what services to offer and you don't decide who to offer them to. You don't decide how much revenue there will be and you don't decide what expenses to cut.


No, you don't keep things abstract. Government is about serving people. Sympathy for not only your constitutes but also your employees.

Those people you describe would fail in a government environment.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Exactly. My point is they enter their offices with that mindset,

thinking they can "change the system". Ultimately, nothing meaningful gets done.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Excellent question.

I've wondered where this twisted mindset comes from many times.

[alc]

7. executive experience

There are many similar talents used assuming your are talking about a large company with many divisions.

There is a hierarchy with lots of workers at the bottom who you don't know. You need to manage the hierarchy from the top in a way that uses the bottom level most efficiently. Who you pick for the levels you control, how you direct them, monitor them, mentor them, is important.

Business leaders have to be good at negotiation. For the good ones, this means being able to find "win-win" scenarios. The successful ones don't get there by constantly screwing over suppliers, customers, and vendors. They find ways to get into long-term relationships with those groups, which means the contracts must be good to both sides. They have to work directly with people they don't like and not let that interfere with the best decision.

They have to look at long term effects of decisions. Yes, they are VERY focused on this quarter's results. But, they are also looking at the 3-year, and 5-year ROI on VERY large decisions (building a factory, merger/sale, product expansion.) A lot goes into this from size/education/skills of work force, to source of funding, to competitors, to current laws, to potential laws (e.g. tax changes, or real impact of Obamacare).

[Teamster Jeff]

8. And when they lack the skills you mention or it's "to hard"

Then they go into politics.

[smirkymonkey]

11. They are sociopaths.

If they are any good at running a business.

[Nye Bevan]

9. The qualities that make a good businessman

are very, very different from the qualities that make a good President.

[ibegurpard]

10. precisely

you have summarized my philosophy about the general role of government quite well.

[woo me with science]

12. We are corporate-owned now.

Good post.

[MrScorpio]

13. False equivalency

People have been brainwashed into buying the meme that government should be run like a business" with accounting for the differences in each.

It's low information thinking in action.

[rock]

14. Not all people do

Those with working brains do not. It struck me from the first as a pretty stupid analogy. Why then do the Repukes use it? Because all the claim they have for the candidate is that he is a businessman. Here's a couple of examples on why it's a poor analogy:

1) If a person is found guilty of breaking the a) countries laws b) companies policies, we
a) incarcerate/execute him. b) reprimand/fire him.

2) countries tax; companies are taxed.

3) countries provide infrastructure; companies use infrastructure.