DiscussMormonism.com

When I lived in Los Angeles, occasionally I’d go to concerts at the Hollywood Bowl. One time I went with some girlfriends, and after one particular performance one of them said, “I always like to read the paper the next day, to see what the critics say and see if I was right.” I told her I also liked to read what the critics say, but it was to see if the critics were right.

That may sound overly confident, but my ticket is paying for the musicians to perform, and it’s my own standards I care most about. So it is with politics; I never lose sight of the fact that I am, and you are, their boss.

So let’s look at the country like it’s a company. Your company. You’ve hired a guy to head it up, and instead of keeping the promises he made during the interview, he has run it into the ground. He has wildly overspent the budget you gave him, destroyed your credit, ignored your mission statement, blamed his failures on previous employees, and has even run around and apologized for your company to other companies. On the plus side, he’s done nothing whatsoever to balance out the disastrous stuff. Would you keep him or fire him? I mean, he has a nice severance package, so at least there’s that. (And he keeps making you think of that phrase, “We think the fox is clever until we remember the stupidity of chickens.”) But I would absolutely fire him. Let him get a job with the companies he felt deserved an apology.

Now, amazingly, you have a new applicant who actually has some experience running a company like yours. In fact, he’s an economic genius. You look over his resume and are astounded at his experience in saving organizations and turning them around. This is what you’ve always dreamed of, but thought could never happen. After all, such guys rarely consent to work for low-paying companies like yours. We all complain that the really top performers are never interested in jobs like this—they’re so successful they don’t need the aggravation. Your heart is pounding and you think to yourself, “Sign him up before he changes his mind!”

But then some of the other workers say he’s not gregarious enough, not a natural showman. And now you think of yourself having a terrible accident, bleeding out, and calling for the paramedics. But when they arrive, you say, “Whoa, whoa, hold it—before you put me on that gurney, do you have any experience as a comedian? Because otherwise, I’m not sure you’re the right guy to help me here.” Crazy, right? Any thinking person would just want to stop the hemorrhaging. Being hilarious is hardly a requirement when there’s an emergency.

So you go back to the basics and you think, “What does this company need right now?” And it’s a desperate need, not just a comfy “boy, this would be nice” wish list. Otherwise your company is going to go the way of Greece. You need someone who knows how to rescue, how to take action, how to solve financial problems swiftly and surely. Someone who knows how to surround himself with other brainy, experienced leaders who can get you rolling again. Someone who actually loves and believes in your company as much as you do.

That’s why Mitt Romney has my vote. Not because he’s LDS. Not because he’s handsome or well-spoken or has a cute wife and a bevy of wholesome sons. It’s because he’s the best danged employee you could ever hope or pray to find. We need an economic rescue and we need it this November.

Joni Hilton wrote:So let’s look at the country like it’s a company. Your company. You’ve hired a guy to head it up, and instead of keeping the promises he made during the interview, he has run it into the ground. He has wildly overspent the budget you gave him, destroyed your credit, ignored your mission statement, blamed his failures on previous employees, and has even run around and apologized for your company to other companies. On the plus side, he’s done nothing whatsoever to balance out the disastrous stuff. Would you keep him or fire him? I mean, he has a nice severance package, so at least there’s that. (And he keeps making you think of that phrase, “We think the fox is clever until we remember the stupidity of chickens.”) But I would absolutely fire him. Let him get a job with the companies he felt deserved an apology.

MeDotOrg wrote:

Joni Hilton wrote:So let’s look at the country like it’s a company. Your company. You’ve hired a guy to head it up, and instead of keeping the promises he made during the interview, he has run it into the ground. He has wildly overspent the budget you gave him, destroyed your credit, ignored your mission statement, blamed his failures on previous employees, and has even run around and apologized for your company to other companies. On the plus side, he’s done nothing whatsoever to balance out the disastrous stuff. Would you keep him or fire him? I mean, he has a nice severance package, so at least there’s that. (And he keeps making you think of that phrase, “We think the fox is clever until we remember the stupidity of chickens.”) But I would absolutely fire him. Let him get a job with the companies he felt deserved an apology.

Are all of our problems reducible to simple analogies? Is government like a company? Are we hiring a new CEO every 4 years? What makes a great President? How many great Presidents were great businessmen? Lincoln? Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt? Reagan? George W. Bush was a successful businessman. Does being a successful businessman automatically translate into being a skilled politician, or a good President?

A Government is not like a corporation. Corporations are Plutocracies, our government is a Democracy. The President cannot fire Congressmen who actively oppose and fight the President's agenda. In business they would be gone. This is a democracy, we have to learn to work together. The skill set needed to run a country does not necessarily translate from business. Ross Perot was a very successful businessman, but he was dogmatic and autocratic. He would have made a terrible President.

Romney's '47%' statement reveals the pitfalls of thinking business is like government. He says he won't get, and doesn't need, those people to win. He approaches an election like a proxy fight with a recalcitrant board of directors.

That's even before I get to the erroneous analogies. "He has wildly overspent the budget you gave him." Budgets are passed by Congress. The Tea Party obstructionists who caused our credit rating to be downgraded were refusing to fund a budget that Congress already passed. 'Apoligizing to other companies?' Which countries? When? Specifically, name one horrible thing that he said.

At the risk of being obvious, one reason we're experiencing the slowest recovery since the Great Depression is that we're in the greatest financial downturn since the Great Depression. It was a bubble caused in no small part by a lack of regulation and oversight, and Mitt Romney wants to dismantle the rather anemic Dodd-Frank bill so that we have virtually no oversight. If you look at the history of booms and busts in capitalism, the one constant is that human nature does not change. Every 30 or 40 years, in a fit of hubris, we tell ourselves we really don't need regulations because we're smarter now and have learned our lessons. Then we have a great boom and bust. And some people are actually astounded when bipolar capitalism starts acting bipolar when we stop regulating it.

We don't need simple analogies right now. The situation is bit more complex than that.

Drifting wrote: You need someone who knows how to rescue, how to take action, how to solve financial problems swiftly and surely.

LittleNipper wrote:We have lots of regulation for business, the Democrats simply all but ended the regulations surrounding financing home mortgages and that bubble busted when people couldn't pay the interest rates as fuels prices began to skyrocket. The problem is that what is needed is community regulation and not FEDERAL regulations. The Federal government doesn't know what a "Riverside, New Jersey" needs to grow and prosper. The Federal government only understands blanket regulations for everybody everywhere. The Federal Government hires lots of people that it pays lots of our tax money to see that Business A runs exactly as the book says. In the meantime, jobs are lost as business moves to places where regulations are unheard of... The Federal government and the State do not know how to run a business and they have proven this time and time again. With them it is all about CONTROL and manipulation of funds. They do not know people and they do not understand specific area problems.

Now, amazingly, you have a new applicant who actually has some experience running a company like yours.

But then some of the other workers say he’s not gregarious enough, not a natural showman. And now you think of yourself having a terrible accident, bleeding out, and calling for the paramedics. But when they arrive, you say, “Whoa, whoa, hold it—before you put me on that gurney, do you have any experience as a comedian? Because otherwise, I’m not sure you’re the right guy to help me here.” Crazy, right? Any thinking person would just want to stop the hemorrhaging. Being hilarious is hardly a requirement when there’s an emergency.