Why Gov't can't run business

[BDashe 0]

Another Op Ed from WSJ that makes lots of sense to me! D*mn logic!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html

main points:

1) Governments are run by politicians, not businessmen

2) Politicians need headlines.

3) Governments use other people's money

4) Government does not tolerate competition

5) Government enterprises are almost always monopolies and thus do not face competition at all.

6) Successful corporations are run by benevolent despots

7) Government is regulated by government.

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[kelpdiver 2]

We should really get that url changed to foxnews.com. Calling it the Wall Street Journal certainly makes it seem more respectable than it really is.

There's no doubt that the failure of non regulation has lead to an excess of it. Though I doubt Obama wants to run the car companies - there just isn't an alternative at this moment.

4) Government does not tolerate competition
5) Government enterprises are almost always monopolies and thus do not face competition at all.

The USPS coexists with UPS and Fedex. It's hurting right now, but that's more about not evolving quickly with the online shift.

The military coexists quite well with subcontractors that manufacturer and that supply personnel (ie, Halliburton).


6) Successful corporations are run by benevolent despots

This one is pretty funny, and basically a useless, false generalization. 3 of the 4 significant words are open to wide interpretation.

[Lefty 0]

Fine, fine. I'll just delete my posting of the same article so we can contain the discussion to one thread.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 3,111]

>1) Governments are run by politicians, not businessmen

True - but many businesses are run by politicians as well. You can't ascend very high in some companies without being a politician.

>2) Politicians need headlines.

So do companies - which is why they spend so much for PR.

>3) Governments use other people's money

So do businesses. Capitalism is all about getting other people's money. The difference there is how they go about it. Often government does its business with taxes (with a few exceptions, like the USPS.)

>4) Government does not tolerate competition

There are several examples where this is provably not true. There are privately operated toll roads that parallel public highways, for example.

>5) Government enterprises are almost always monopolies and thus do not
>face competition at all.

Not true in terms of:
highways
security (police)
space transportation
postal service

>6) Successful corporations are run by benevolent despots

Hey, some of our presidents have been basically benevolent despots!

>7) Government is regulated by government.

True - and in turn, government is elected (or turned out of office) by we the people. We have no such control over corporations.

That being said, the best reason for government to not get involved in private businesses is that it's not their job. The capitalist system of allowing companies to take risks and thus succeed or fail doesn't apply well to the government, who accomplishes their tasks primarily via legislation rather than by sales quotas or P/E ratios.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

>7) Government is regulated by government.

True - and in turn, government is elected (or turned out of office) by we the people. We have no such control over corporations.

I have to disagree with this point. When we decide to spend our money on whatever a corporation is peddling are we not, in essence, voting for them with our dollars?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 3,111]

> When we decide to spend our money on whatever a corporation is
>peddling are we not, in essence, voting for them with our dollars?

We can "vote with our dollars" to determine how retail-based businesses do, but can do nothing to change their leadership (outside direct action by becoming a stockholder and voting in elections) and can do very little to affect non-retail organizations.

[tkhayes 348]

hmmmmm, maybe with so many "Well run" corporations failing at an alarming rate - the title of your thread should also include
"Why Corporations can't run business....."

lots of blame to go around. THe government is simply being "your Mommy".

When you misbehave, take irresponsible actions, fuck over the general public, abuse your powers, play 'blackjack' with people's investments and securities, then you get ALL your toys taken away from you and you get a time-out in the corner.

And if you cry about it, you get told "I'll give you something to cry about.....!"

[Lefty 0]

Quote

We can "vote with our dollars" to determine how retail-based businesses do, but can do nothing to change their leadership (outside direct action by becoming a stockholder and voting in elections) and can do very little to affect non-retail organizations.

Unless the government gets involved, even non-retail businesses rely on consumers for their profits. I agree we can't directly change the leadership of a company as non-stockholders, but that is as it should be.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 3,111]

>Unless the government gets involved, even non-retail businesses
>rely on consumers for their profits.

Not directly. You can't boycott Blackwater or Aerojet and have it do a damn thing.

[Lefty 0]

Look at my quote again.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin