> The government is not in the business of meeting any objective goals.
That's an absurd statement. We don't send officials to congress without them running a campaign specifying their goals. You might not like the process, or trust the process, or think private companies (dictatorships) do it better, but don't say they have no goals. Every single one of them has goals for their districts/states and they get fired (not reelected) if they fail more than the public likes.
If government seems so inefficient and difficult to get things done, it's often because members of congress have conflicting goals so getting anything done is difficult. This isn't an accident, it's how the system is supposed to work.
> There is punishment for incompetence.
Usually, but as we're clearly seeing now government and business are so tightly interwoven in the modern world that execs knowingly abuse the government and do things that would be bad if they didn't know they'd be bailed out by their buddies in government who they paid to have elected.
> I suggest that firing the current crop of executives
There is a qualitative difference between the vague and often contradictory corpus of promises that a politician makes on the campaign stump and the clear contractual obligations that a corporation owes to its creditors. That difference is captured with the notion of "objectivity", which is why I said that corporate executives face an objective performance standard while politicians do not.
The only potential discipline for politicians is made by voters who mostly don't understand the issues that well and don't spend a lot of time following their representatives in office. Thus, the job of a politician is largely PR.
This, again, is in stark contrast to the creditors of a corporation, who are very interested in its actions, follow it very closely, have very clear expectations, and who have deep knowledge of its activities.
I know I am not going to convince you, but I think my point is good and my logic is sound.
>"Not going to happen and you know it."
My sentence had a fairly large phrase in the middle. If it is removed, it reads "I suggest that firing the current crop of executives...is a good way to run the company into the ground". Although, I suspect it is likely that AIG is already beyond salvage.
> My sentence had a fairly large phrase in the middle.
Apologies, I misread what you wrote, my bad.
As for the rest of it, you're presuming that no one votes with any understanding of the issues. I disagree, though many don't understand them deeply, or possibly misunderstand, people don't vote unless they care about some of the issues. That's why most people don't even vote. So those who do are certainly doing it because they want some objectives met or some ideology upheld.
I've worked at many companies and I've been an employee of the federal government and quite frankly, the federal government is vastly more efficient than most private companies as far as I can tell.
Sure, if you look at the fortune 500 the government might look incompetent, but that's not a fair comparison, those are the top companies in the market. If you look at the fortune 5 million, i.e. the vast majority of the rest of the market, the federal government comes out looking quite efficient.
I doubt I ever convince you of anything with any argument. So in conclusion, I only offer the observation that the most significant prior managerial experience of the current chief executive of the United States government was running his own campaign for the position, and yet he seems to be doing no worse than his predecessor. I offer, with the observation, a humble and limited hypothesis: that there is a fundamental difference between the talents needed to be the chief executive of a company and the chief executive of a country, and that this difference counters Mr. Greenspun's point, which I originally commented on.
You're right that there is a difference, I don't argue that point. The thing is, I don't want a good CEO as president, I want a good commander in Chief and running a business with the primary goal of being profitable is vastly different than running a country where the primary goal securing the country and upholding our values as a country as defined by our constitution.
Having been in the military, there's just a certain difference in the way you look at your job when you've worked in a place where you completely divorce pay and work. Pay... that's the finance department on the other side of base, it has nothing to do with your job or your performance, only with your rank.
At work, you just don't think about pay at all, you think only about your job and being good at what you do out of pride for what you do rather than how much money you can make. Every one knows exactly what everyone else makes, it's printed in the stripes on your arm and a standard pay scale. This allows a commradare that generally doesn't exist in the private sector because jealousy over pay interferes with it.
It's totally different than the civilian world where most keep their salaries secret, or lie about them, and everyone is stepping all over each other trying to make more money than the next guy, by any means necessary, quality of the work be damned because manipulating people seems to work better when climbing the ladder.
The last thing I want in a president is a guy who thinks the seeking of profit trumps all else, because it doesn't. This idea that seeking profit automatically results in the most good I just find absurd. Frankly, the idea that being a great CEO somehow prepares you to be a great president I also find silly.
Great CEO's != great person, in fact more often than not being a great CEO requires being ruthless. That's not what I want in a president, I want a great person as president, someone who I can morally look up to, someone who takes responsibility for his actions, is honest with the public, someone who leads by example, not by privilege of power. Someone I can point to and tell my kids, that's how to be a man.
> We don't send officials to congress without them running a campaign specifying their goals.
Perhaps you have a different concept of "goals". Political candidates spew platitudes, but when have you ever heard they cite a specific, measurable goal? The few instances I've heard always specify a timeframe that's conveniently just beyond the next election, e.g. a presidential candidate promising that something will happen in 5 years, so that their next election can't be held up by it.
> execs knowingly abuse the government ... their buddies in government who they paid to have elected
It works both ways. Don't just focus on business, also look at the government officials who are so willing to prostitute themselves.
That's an absurd statement. We don't send officials to congress without them running a campaign specifying their goals. You might not like the process, or trust the process, or think private companies (dictatorships) do it better, but don't say they have no goals. Every single one of them has goals for their districts/states and they get fired (not reelected) if they fail more than the public likes.
If government seems so inefficient and difficult to get things done, it's often because members of congress have conflicting goals so getting anything done is difficult. This isn't an accident, it's how the system is supposed to work.
> There is punishment for incompetence.
Usually, but as we're clearly seeing now government and business are so tightly interwoven in the modern world that execs knowingly abuse the government and do things that would be bad if they didn't know they'd be bailed out by their buddies in government who they paid to have elected.
> I suggest that firing the current crop of executives
Not going to happen and you know it.