Small gov't, push Fed programs to sstates or private
JC29856
Posts: 9,617
Im wondering since government is so inefficient and should be run by the private sector...what industry or company sets the example, what business serves a the role model for government?
Auto industry
Insurance industry
Banking industry
Hedgefund companies
Oil industry
Google
GE
BP
Proctor Gamble
Thoughts??
Auto industry
Insurance industry
Banking industry
Hedgefund companies
Oil industry
GE
BP
Proctor Gamble
Thoughts??
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Procter and Gamble and GE are a couple of great companies but they too go through periods of too much centralization (which equals the federal government). They are pretty great to their employees though.
Can you elaborate?
Well for one business is for profit, do you really think government should be?
Depends on how you define "profit". There are not-for-profit businesses.
But, if the citizens are the "shareholders" then the profit really is about giving them what they need.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey ... -business/
Why Government Should Not Be Run Like A Business
The idea that government should be run like a business is a popular one with both Republicans and, albeit to a lesser extent, Democrats. But this betrays a basic misunderstanding of the roles of the private and public sector. We should no more want the government to be run like a business than a business to be run like the government.
Those popularizing this notion feel this way because they see business as more efficient. This must be the case, so the logic goes, or the entity in question would lose market share and go bankrupt. Only the fit survive. Meanwhile, government agencies face no backlash. This is why we have long lines to get driver’s licenses, poorly maintained VA hospitals, inferior returns on investment from Social Security, etc., etc. Were there a choice on where to be licensed to drive, then such offices would forced to make the customer’s experience a positive one or they would go elsewhere.
There are, of course, many businesses that also make the customer’s life very unpleasant because simply being in the private sector does not guarantee effective competition. The American Medical Association has, for example, argued for years that very few people actually have much choice when it comes to health care. It is a very concentrated industry, meaning that they can demand payment while giving only a vague idea of coverage (which may well change over time and with little to no notice) and they can delay reimbursement. And there are government agencies, like police and fire departments, where their dedication to duty has nothing to do with profit. They put their lives on the line every day because they think it’s the right thing to do.
But while we might all grant that there are exceptions, the general question still stands: does it make sense to run government like a business? The short answer is no. Bear in mind, first, that “efficiency” in the private sector means profit. Hence, to ask that the government be run like a business is tantamount to asking that the government turn a profit. The problem in a nutshell, is that not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. Reality TV, pornography, fashion, sports, and gambling are all of questionable social value, but each is quite profitable and exists in the private sector. Meanwhile, few would argue that the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, police department, fire department, libraries, parks, and public schools are of no social value, and yet they could not exist if they were required to be profitable. Imagine maintaining a standing military by selling subscriptions door-to-door: “Hello, my name is Captain Johnson, and I represent the US Army. Are you afraid of foreigners? Would you like guaranteed protection against invasion, pillaging, enslavement, and more? Please see our brochure for our three levels of service.” There would, of course, be a few subscribers, but nothing approaching the level necessary to truly protect the United States from attack.
To reiterate, the key issue is this: not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. The proper role of government is the latter. Those arguing for a business model for government must necessarily be ready to shut down all government functions that do not earn a profit, regardless of their contribution to our well being. And, if the public sector is being run properly, that should mean every single one. If it’s profitable, they shouldn’t have been doing it in the first place. There is no need for the government to start a chain of hamburger stands, hardware stores, or coffee shops. Rather, they run child protective services, the National Park Service, and the Air Force. Profit is the realm of business, while unprofitable but socially useful tasks is the responsibility of government.
This is not to say that every government agency is actually performing a useful public service or that it is not wasting resources (by whatever standard). Nor am I arguing that there are not many private sector activities that add greatly to our well being. The point, however, is that saying that government is inefficient because it does not turn a profit is the equivalent of saying that Peyton Manning is a poor quarterback because he doesn’t hit enough home runs. He’s not supposed to.
Actually, our current government is like playing texas hold 'em with unlimited buy ins and owning a money tree (the people).
I agree in a sense and don't get me wrong, I believe governments should always try and have balanced budgets. But I also think there are times when reasonable deficits are okay (not to the degree that they are running today though).
Yeah, every business or family has a time or two when they need credit. The difference is that business or family has a specific pay back plan that they must meet in order to get that credit.
first I would ask what the point of your question would be? are you actually looking for an example or are you trying to prove that private business is full of failures too so gov't shouldn't be modeled after it? Profit should never be the motivating factor for Gov't. Efficiency and quality of service should be.
If you are looking for an example Target Corporation is a pretty great company. There are a lot of great companies out there to work for...As management changes so do philosophies and work environments, for instance, Federated Insurance is a pretty large insurance provider, they were a great place to work for many decades. Never had any lay offs because the founder wouldn't have it...the work day ended at 3:30 when kids were getting home from school, etc...When the founder left the CEO/Chairman position, within 3 months people were laid off and a new philosophy came to be. So specifically to each business and each industry there is always fluctuation, but the need to improve or die is always there. A company cannot sit still and succeed. A business needs to offer a product that is useful. A gov't agency needs to spend the money allocated or risk losing it next year when the budgets come out. There is a big difference in the mindset of a gov't agency and a corporate/business entity. Gov't could learn a lot from business but there is simply little motivation to do so. Business can also learn a lot from gov't. Intangibles like Goodwill belong on a balance sheet as a long term asset...Businesses seem to forget that.
I know for me, a large central gov't is inefficient. The latest round of budget crisis for local and state governments has helped agencies review their practices and services for efficiency...The same inefficiencies exist in the private world, but there is a higher level of motivation to fix them. To me the same cannot be said with the same need. Of course, those inefficiencies in business become less and less necessary to fix as gov't gets larger and larger and starts bailing out industries and companies that are inefficient.
Some gov't is good, too much is dangerous and becomes impossible to eliminate. The best example I can provide of how hard it is to eliminate is that the party that preaches small gov't actually allows it to grow exponentially and I would say more egregiously than the other party in power because they don't talk about how they want to shrink gov't...for what it is worth, in my opinion, my money should go out in this order Local gov't > state gov't > federal gov't...When the gov't gets too large it stops protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and begins to look at corporations as people and huge diverse groups as statistics rather than individuals.
For most who won't read all that nonsense and to sum up, Target is a good corporation. Federated insurance up to about the year 2000 was as well. There are more, but those are two that I know about because they are locally headquartered.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
agree %100
I'm guessing we would disagree on how to balance the government budget. I think higher taxes mixed with cuts (e.g. military). From what I see, the US has a large revenue problem.
Yeah, I'm sure we would disagree because I'm not really for higher taxes until there is a balanced operating budget from spending cuts (I would also include military cuts). Then, once proven more trustworthy or required by law (amendment), I could support a different tax scheme that might include raising taxes to tackle the deficit.