DiscussMormonism.com

A couple of weeks ago, someone sent me an email. The gist of it was that Walmart is a wildly successful company, so why don’t we hire them to run the government? Really? Walmart? Then I thought about it for a while. That email represented a very commonly held idea in this country, that a successful business is superior to government. We elect business people to office on the idea that they will run the government in a more cost effective manner than someone without business experience.

Despite years as a public servant, Mitt Romney is running for President on his business credentials, hoping Republican voters forget about his relatively liberal voting record and the dickish things that come out of his mouth. George Bush touted business acumen, and we know where that got us. To many voters that doesn’t matter. As long as someone knows how to make a buck, no matter how unethical the circumstances, he automatically would be good at handling the economy. They are wrong!

1. Companies are in business for one reason and one reason only…to make money. They are not in business to serve their employees or even their customers. A corporation is legally obligated to put profit above all else. This philosophy typically boils down to making the cheapest product the market will allow (or offering the least amount of service) and selling it at the highest price the market will allow. It’s one thing if your cell phone has a built in life span of six months to two years. It’s quite another for the electrical power grid.

2. Businesses do not care about their customers. I know. That statement is a little cold. They spend billions in advertising convincing us that they care about us. They truly want us to have clean clothes. They want us to have a clean environment. They want your children to frolic in fields. They sell you that toy just so your child can see you as the hero you are. They want you to be happy. Actually, no where in the corporate charter does it talk about customer happiness or even customer satisfaction. Sure, if a competitor is making their customers happy, there might be some incentive to go in that direction, but ultimately, it’s about the shareholders and only the shareholders. It’s easier and cheaper to improve the marketing than it is to improve the product or service. In other words, it’s fine to sell defective products, as long as they can manipulate a certain percentage of the people into believing they are buying a good product at a good price, their shareholders are happy. If the marketing campaign is really good, they will convince their customers that product defects are normal (as with many electronics) and that they should pay to replace their defective product with the next generation of the very same defective product.

3. The government is not in the business of turning a profit. Let’s use the post office as an example. Granted, the post office isn’t doing that great right now, but the reason for that is pretty simple. Thanks to a Republican Congress, they were forced to fund their retirement pensions for far longer than any other organization, public or private. But let’s say they were doing well. Let’s say they were profitable. Customers would be screaming. We would want that money back in the form of cheaper postage stamps. In fact, wasn’t that the entire premise behind the Bush tax cuts? The government had a surplus of funds. Bush and the Republicans felt it should go back to the taxpayers.

4. The government is not in the business of creating demand. By and large, government services are services deemed necessary for our society to function. Businesses spring up every day by creating new demands for new products. Pharmaceutical companies invent illnesses. Clothing manufacturers convince us that we are somehow inferior if we are caught wearing last year’s styles. Governments pick up trash, teach children, put out fires and serve justice. They have no incentive to have us create more trash, make dumber children, start fires or imprison innocent people. On the other hand, if those same services were run by business, the more trash they picked up, the more money they would earn. The more work they had to put into educating our children, the more money they would earn. The more fires they had to put out, the more money they would earn. The more people that they put in jail, the more money they earn.

5. The cost cutting measures taken by businesses can backfire on the government. Since the age of free trade agreements, one of the most common cost cutting measures has been to outsource jobs. In fact, Mitt Romney’s company taught businesses how to save money by outsourcing. Personally, I’m a little uncomfortable with foreign nationals running the CIA. Say what you will about government employees, at least they pay American payroll taxes.

6. The government is directly accountable to us. Post-Citizens United, this might sound somewhat naïve, but we do still hold elections and only the people are eligible to vote. A corporate CEO, on the other hand, is controlled by a small group of people known as the board of directors. If we, the customers, wish to fire our President or Congressperson, all we have to do is show up at the polls (something Americans are notoriously bad at). If we, the customers, wish to fire the CEO of a multinational corporation, well, good luck.

7. Business people tend to do a very bad job at governing. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both came from business backgrounds. They left the country in the worst financial shape since the Great Depression. Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts was 47th out of the 50 states for job creation.

8. Business is by definition, amoral. Morality is not part of the corporate charter. The US Constitution is a moral (not to be confused with religious) document. It is a code of conduct for all government officials. It states that government officials must answer to We the People. If We the People don’t like the Constitution, we can change it. Business people have no such codes of conduct, unless it is to instruct them to not embarrass the corporation and its board of directors. We the Customers have absolutely no input into any such code of conduct.

9. Finally, businesses can, and do do something that would be unacceptable for the US Government…they go bankrupt.

In all fairness, government runs best when represented by a variety of backgrounds. Business people do have a place in government as do trash collectors, artists and even community organizers. It runs best with a variety of perspectives. It runs best when it is run by We the People.

KG wrote:couple of weeks ago, someone sent me an email. The gist of it was that Walmart is a wildly successful company, so why don’t we hire them to run the government? Really? Walmart?

Imagine how happy they'd be enjoying all the benefits of a Walmart employee. I dare predict however, that if Walmart did end up running the country, Walmart would become even more successful than they are now, and this would probably prove to the typical TBM they're doing a great job.

KG wrote:1. Companies are in business for one reason and one reason only…to make money. They are not in business to serve their employees or even their customers. A corporation is legally obligated to put profit above all else...Business is by definition, amoral. Morality is not part of the corporate charter.

I agree, though MF would say a firm serving its shareholders is the ethical underpinning of business. I think many TBM types of conservatives get confused when distinguishing the rules of the game from the players in the game. I don't think they understand that governing is about being a custodian of the rules, not a star player. If Joesph Stalin were alive today, he'd be a fantastic entrepreneur and a fierce business competitor. No doubt he'd love the chance to take on the nation as his own personal enterprise. But wait, this is all sounding familiar.

TBMs making these kinds of recommendations are actually arguing for a command economy. The belief that the country is best ran by a single entity, whether an individual or firm, admits that resource allocation is not best computed by market forces.

7. Business people tend to do a very bad job at governing. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both came from business backgrounds. They left the country in the worst financial shape since the Great Depression. Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts was 47th out of the 50 states for job creation.

From Factcheck.org:

A Democratic governor said Romney “left his state 47th out of 50 in job growth.” Actually, Massachusetts went from 50th in job creation during Romney’s first year to 28th in his final year.

...

We’ve covered some similar claims before. Let’s start with the claim that Romney “left his state 47th out of 50 in job growth.” That’s a slightly different twist on a recurring Democratic attack line. It’s true that over Romney’s entire four years as governor, the state ranked 47th out of 50 states in percentage of job growth. But that’s a four-year, cumulative number. The state’s ranking actually improved while Romney was in office.

In the 12 months before Romney took office, the state ranked 50th in job creation, and by his final year, the state ranked 28th. Quinn would have been more accurate to say Romney “left his state” in 28th place, not 47th.

Only a trained businessman with Romney's background would be able to efficiently strip the countries assets for maximum profit.

i have to object to your characterization of Romney and Bush as business people.

in their respective careers Romney was a financier and Bush only served as a figurehead.

Wow. I guess I don't get out much, because I am honestly shocked that someone could seriously make those claims. As a business owner, I elect myself to speak for all businesspeople in response.

Kevin Graham wrote:1. Companies are in business for one reason and one reason only…to make money. They are not in business to serve their employees or even their customers. A corporation is legally obligated to put profit above all else. This philosophy typically boils down to making the cheapest product the market will allow (or offering the least amount of service) and selling it at the highest price the market will allow. It’s one thing if your cell phone has a built in life span of six months to two years. It’s quite another for the electrical power grid.

The first problem we have here is that you are lumping all businesses or corporations together, as if all the people running them had the same goals, attitudes and priorities in life. That's just not the case. There are millions of "businesses" and each one is different. Certainly, some might fit the accusations you've made, but you can't generalize to such a great degree.

I'm also mystified by your comment that "A corporation is legally obligated to put profit above all else." I'm a partner in a corporation, and I've never heard of this obligation. Please let me know where I can learn more, because I would hate to unintentionally break the law. There are many things that I place above "making a profit". For example, every year I give several thousand dollars in bonuses to my employees. This reduces my profit, so according to you, no businessperson would or could do this, and it might even be illegal. Either I'm making a mistake, or you don't know what you're talking about.

And again, you make an oddly general statement about what companies must do to make a profit. While some companies try to make a profit by offering the cheapest product or service for the most highest price, there are many who don't.

And there is nothing stopping anyone from starting a business that makes non-cheap products for below-market prices. You could do it today Kevin, and it would be entirely legal. In fact, you would probably be applauded by other businesspeople if it worked. And if it didn't work, you would be applauded by those who were able to buy non-cheap products for below-market prices until you ran out of money.

2. Businesses do not care about their customers. I know. That statement is a little cold. They spend billions in advertising convincing us that they care about us. They truly want us to have clean clothes. They want us to have a clean environment. They want your children to frolic in fields. They sell you that toy just so your child can see you as the hero you are. They want you to be happy. Actually, no where in the corporate charter does it talk about customer happiness or even customer satisfaction. Sure, if a competitor is making their customers happy, there might be some incentive to go in that direction, but ultimately, it’s about the shareholders and only the shareholders. It’s easier and cheaper to improve the marketing than it is to improve the product or service. In other words, it’s fine to sell defective products, as long as they can manipulate a certain percentage of the people into believing they are buying a good product at a good price, their shareholders are happy. If the marketing campaign is really good, they will convince their customers that product defects are normal (as with many electronics) and that they should pay to replace their defective product with the next generation of the very same defective product.

This might be true for some businesses, but it's hardly a universal rule. I suspect it is much less prevalent than you think.

You definitely have a mixed up view of corporate organization, the role of "shareholders", "profit", and customers. In fact, I suspect your entire knowledge of "business" stems from Occupy protest signs and Dilbert cartoons.

3. The government is not in the business of turning a profit.

Sure it is, we just don't call it "profit". When it's government, we call it a "surplus". The government can either have a surplus (take in more money than it spent), break even, or run a deficit (spend more than it brings in). We might disagree on what the best course of action is for the government when it has a "surplus", but is anyone arguing that a deficit is better than a surplus?

"Break-even" might be a good option, but considering the different factors involved in government income, I don't see how it could be planned for.

4. The government is not in the business of creating demand. By and large, government services are services deemed necessary for our society to function. Businesses spring up every day by creating new demands for new products. Pharmaceutical companies invent illnesses. Clothing manufacturers convince us that we are somehow inferior if we are caught wearing last year’s styles. Governments pick up trash, teach children, put out fires and serve justice. They have no incentive to have us create more trash, make dumber children, start fires or imprison innocent people. On the other hand, if those same services were run by business, the more trash they picked up, the more money they would earn. The more work they had to put into educating our children, the more money they would earn. The more fires they had to put out, the more money they would earn. The more people that they put in jail, the more money they earn.

There are many places in the United States that have private businesses picking up trash, teaching children, putting out fires, and running the prisons.

While there may be good arguments for and against government or private enterprise providing these services, I don't think I've ever heard of the "private" options leading to the effects you theorize. And it certainly isn't a given that those services have to be provided by the government.

5. The cost cutting measures taken by businesses can backfire on the government. Since the age of free trade agreements, one of the most common cost cutting measures has been to outsource jobs. In fact, Mitt Romney’s company taught businesses how to save money by outsourcing. Personally, I’m a little uncomfortable with foreign nationals running the CIA. Say what you will about government employees, at least they pay American payroll taxes.

I was going to respond to that claim, but you pretty well summed it up in the last sentence.

6. The government is directly accountable to us. Post-Citizens United, this might sound somewhat naïve, but we do still hold elections and only the people are eligible to vote. A corporate CEO, on the other hand, is controlled by a small group of people known as the board of directors. If we, the customers, wish to fire our President or Congressperson, all we have to do is show up at the polls (something Americans are notoriously bad at). If we, the customers, wish to fire the CEO of a multinational corporation, well, good luck.

A corporation is directly accountable to you, in that you can choose at any time to not use it. The corporation can't forcibly take your money from you (under threat of prison). The government can.

7. Business people tend to do a very bad job at governing. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both came from business backgrounds. They left the country in the worst financial shape since the Great Depression. Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts was 47th out of the 50 states for job creation.

Really? Bush and Cheney both had "business backgrounds" and the economy was a disaster when they left office, so therefore "Business people tend to do a very bad job at governing"? You have got to be kidding me.

8. Business is by definition, amoral. Morality is not part of the corporate charter.

Really? Not even Ben and Jerry's:

http://www.benjerry.com/activism/mission-statement

Any company worth its salt has a "Mission Statement" which is its statement of values. Here's a sample of Mission Statements from Fortune 500 companies:

http://www.missionstatements.com/fortun ... ments.html

There's a lot of variety in those statements, I think it gives a good sample of the different ways in which people view their businesses, including their "morals" or ethics.

The US Constitution is a moral (not to be confused with religious) document. It is a code of conduct for all government officials. It states that government officials must answer to We the People. If We the People don’t like the Constitution, we can change it. Business people have no such codes of conduct, unless it is to instruct them to not embarrass the corporation and its board of directors. We the Customers have absolutely no input into any such code of conduct.

So, let's say on a single day you have a problem with a manager at Walmart, a clerk at the DMV, and your child's elementary school teacher (they all do things which should result in their being fired according to the policies of their employer). So you report the incident to their supervisors. Which complaint do you think will have the most effect?

9. Finally, businesses can, and do do something that would be unacceptable for the US Government…they go bankrupt.

Governments need money just as much as businesses do. Businesses (and individuals) go bankrupt when they run out of money and can't borrow more. Is it possible for a government to run out of money and not be able to borrow more? If so, what's the alternative to going bankrupt? Is this alternative a good thing?

And if it's a good thing, why don't we afford this same privilege to all businesses, so no one would ever have to go bankrupt?

cinepro wrote:Wow. I guess I don't get out much, because I am honestly shocked that someone could seriously make those claims. As a business owner, I elect myself to speak for all businesspeople in response.

Kevin Graham wrote:1. Companies are in business for one reason and one reason only…to make money. They are not in business to serve their employees or even their customers. A corporation is legally obligated to put profit above all else. This philosophy typically boils down to making the cheapest product the market will allow (or offering the least amount of service) and selling it at the highest price the market will allow. It’s one thing if your cell phone has a built in life span of six months to two years. It’s quite another for the electrical power grid.

The first problem we have here is that you are lumping all businesses or corporations together, as if all the people running them had the same goals, attitudes and priorities in life. That's just not the case. There are millions of "businesses" and each one is different. Certainly, some might fit the accusations you've made, but you can't generalize to such a great degree.

I'm also mystified by your comment that "A corporation is legally obligated to put profit above all else." I'm a partner in a corporation, and I've never heard of this obligation. Please let me know where I can learn more, because I would hate to unintentionally break the law. There are many things that I place above "making a profit". For example, every year I give several thousand dollars in bonuses to my employees. This reduces my profit, so according to you, no businessperson would or could do this, and it might even be illegal. Either I'm making a mistake, or you don't know what you're talking about.

And again, you make an oddly general statement about what companies must do to make a profit. While some companies try to make a profit by offering the cheapest product or service for the most highest price, there are many who don't.

And there is nothing stopping anyone from starting a business that makes non-cheap products for below-market prices. You could do it today Kevin, and it would be entirely legal. In fact, you would probably be applauded by other businesspeople if it worked. And if it didn't work, you would be applauded by those who were able to buy non-cheap products for below-market prices until you ran out of money.

2. Businesses do not care about their customers. I know. That statement is a little cold. They spend billions in advertising convincing us that they care about us. They truly want us to have clean clothes. They want us to have a clean environment. They want your children to frolic in fields. They sell you that toy just so your child can see you as the hero you are. They want you to be happy. Actually, no where in the corporate charter does it talk about customer happiness or even customer satisfaction. Sure, if a competitor is making their customers happy, there might be some incentive to go in that direction, but ultimately, it’s about the shareholders and only the shareholders. It’s easier and cheaper to improve the marketing than it is to improve the product or service. In other words, it’s fine to sell defective products, as long as they can manipulate a certain percentage of the people into believing they are buying a good product at a good price, their shareholders are happy. If the marketing campaign is really good, they will convince their customers that product defects are normal (as with many electronics) and that they should pay to replace their defective product with the next generation of the very same defective product.

This might be true for some businesses, but it's hardly a universal rule. I suspect it is much less prevalent than you think.

You definitely have a mixed up view of corporate organization, the role of "shareholders", "profit", and customers. In fact, I suspect your entire knowledge of "business" stems from Occupy protest signs and Dilbert cartoons.

3. The government is not in the business of turning a profit.

Sure it is, we just don't call it "profit". When it's government, we call it a "surplus". The government can either have a surplus (take in more money than it spent), break even, or run a deficit (spend more than it brings in). We might disagree on what the best course of action is for the government when it has a "surplus", but is anyone arguing that a deficit is better than a surplus?

"Break-even" might be a good option, but considering the different factors involved in government income, I don't see how it could be planned for.

4. The government is not in the business of creating demand. By and large, government services are services deemed necessary for our society to function. Businesses spring up every day by creating new demands for new products. Pharmaceutical companies invent illnesses. Clothing manufacturers convince us that we are somehow inferior if we are caught wearing last year’s styles. Governments pick up trash, teach children, put out fires and serve justice. They have no incentive to have us create more trash, make dumber children, start fires or imprison innocent people. On the other hand, if those same services were run by business, the more trash they picked up, the more money they would earn. The more work they had to put into educating our children, the more money they would earn. The more fires they had to put out, the more money they would earn. The more people that they put in jail, the more money they earn.

There are many places in the United States that have private businesses picking up trash, teaching children, putting out fires, and running the prisons.

While there may be good arguments for and against government or private enterprise providing these services, I don't think I've ever heard of the "private" options leading to the effects you theorize. And it certainly isn't a given that those services have to be provided by the government.

5. The cost cutting measures taken by businesses can backfire on the government. Since the age of free trade agreements, one of the most common cost cutting measures has been to outsource jobs. In fact, Mitt Romney’s company taught businesses how to save money by outsourcing. Personally, I’m a little uncomfortable with foreign nationals running the CIA. Say what you will about government employees, at least they pay American payroll taxes.

I was going to respond to that claim, but you pretty well summed it up in the last sentence.

6. The government is directly accountable to us. Post-Citizens United, this might sound somewhat naïve, but we do still hold elections and only the people are eligible to vote. A corporate CEO, on the other hand, is controlled by a small group of people known as the board of directors. If we, the customers, wish to fire our President or Congressperson, all we have to do is show up at the polls (something Americans are notoriously bad at). If we, the customers, wish to fire the CEO of a multinational corporation, well, good luck.

A corporation is directly accountable to you, in that you can choose at any time to not use it. The corporation can't forcibly take your money from you (under threat of prison). The government can.

7. Business people tend to do a very bad job at governing. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both came from business backgrounds. They left the country in the worst financial shape since the Great Depression. Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts was 47th out of the 50 states for job creation.

Really? Bush and Cheney both had "business backgrounds" and the economy was a disaster when they left office, so therefore "Business people tend to do a very bad job at governing"? You have got to be kidding me.

8. Business is by definition, amoral. Morality is not part of the corporate charter.

Really? Not even Ben and Jerry's:

http://www.benjerry.com/activism/mission-statement

Any company worth its salt has a "Mission Statement" which is its statement of values. Here's a sample of Mission Statements from Fortune 500 companies:

http://www.missionstatements.com/fortun ... ments.html

There's a lot of variety in those statements, I think it gives a good sample of the different ways in which people view their businesses, including their "morals" or ethics.

The US Constitution is a moral (not to be confused with religious) document. It is a code of conduct for all government officials. It states that government officials must answer to We the People. If We the People don’t like the Constitution, we can change it. Business people have no such codes of conduct, unless it is to instruct them to not embarrass the corporation and its board of directors. We the Customers have absolutely no input into any such code of conduct.

So, let's say on a single day you have a problem with a manager at Walmart, a clerk at the DMV, and your child's elementary school teacher (they all do things which should result in their being fired according to the policies of their employer). So you report the incident to their supervisors. Which complaint do you think will have the most effect?

9. Finally, businesses can, and do do something that would be unacceptable for the US Government…they go bankrupt.

Governments need money just as much as businesses do. Businesses (and individuals) go bankrupt when they run out of money and can't borrow more. Is it possible for a government to run out of money and not be able to borrow more? If so, what's the alternative to going bankrupt? Is this alternative a good thing?

And if it's a good thing, why don't we afford this same privilege to all businesses, so no one would ever have to go bankrupt?

Wow this off-topic forum is enormously interesting (I can't believe I hadn't frequented it until very recently). I was missing A LOT!

I nominate Cinepro in 2012 (Is it too late?)

EXCELLENT post, Cinepro!

Excellent!

Thank God his voice is among the MDB membership!

Peace,
Ceeboo

cinepro wrote:I'm also mystified by your comment that "A corporation is legally obligated to put profit above all else." I'm a partner in a corporation, and I've never heard of this obligation. Please let me know where I can learn more, because I would hate to unintentionally break the law. There are many things that I place above "making a profit". For example, every year I give several thousand dollars in bonuses to my employees. This reduces my profit, so according to you, no businessperson would or could do this, and it might even be illegal. Either I'm making a mistake, or you don't know what you're talking about.

i'm confused by your example of employee bonuses cutting into your profits. you write as though bonuses were some undeserved plum you offer out of the goodness of your heart and to the detriment of your company's interests. can this really be correct? bonuses are just another form of compensation, and in a free market the compensation package you offer is going to affect the quality of workers you're able to attract, which will in turn impact the long term revenue and profitability of your company. so why do you describe this one part of your compensation package as being altruistic?

Kevin Graham wrote:1. Companies are in business for one reason and one reason only…to make money. They are not in business to serve their employees or even their customers. A corporation is legally obligated to put profit above all else. This philosophy typically boils down to making the cheapest product the market will allow (or offering the least amount of service) and selling it at the highest price the market will allow. It’s one thing if your cell phone has a built in life span of six months to two years. It’s quite another for the electrical power grid.

You seem to believe that all businesses run by the same business model: build cheap and sell high. That's Wal-Mart's model, but it doesn't apply to most businesses. Sure, people need to make money, but how they do it differs by the industry.

2. Businesses do not care about their customers. I know. That statement is a little cold. They spend billions in advertising convincing us that they care about us. They truly want us to have clean clothes. They want us to have a clean environment. They want your children to frolic in fields. They sell you that toy just so your child can see you as the hero you are. They want you to be happy. Actually, no where in the corporate charter does it talk about customer happiness or even customer satisfaction. Sure, if a competitor is making their customers happy, there might be some incentive to go in that direction, but ultimately, it’s about the shareholders and only the shareholders. It’s easier and cheaper to improve the marketing than it is to improve the product or service. In other words, it’s fine to sell defective products, as long as they can manipulate a certain percentage of the people into believing they are buying a good product at a good price, their shareholders are happy. If the marketing campaign is really good, they will convince their customers that product defects are normal (as with many electronics) and that they should pay to replace their defective product with the next generation of the very same defective product.

We have a name for businesses that don't care about their customers: former businesses. The way you meet shareholder expectations is to provide a good business model that brings in profits. If you say "screw the customers," you won't be in business long.

3. The government is not in the business of turning a profit. Let’s use the post office as an example. Granted, the post office isn’t doing that great right now, but the reason for that is pretty simple. Thanks to a Republican Congress, they were forced to fund their retirement pensions for far longer than any other organization, public or private. But let’s say they were doing well. Let’s say they were profitable. Customers would be screaming. We would want that money back in the form of cheaper postage stamps. In fact, wasn’t that the entire premise behind the Bush tax cuts? The government had a surplus of funds. Bush and the Republicans felt it should go back to the taxpayers.

There's little difference between profit incentive and the goals of a balanced budget or surplus. And what the country does with a surplus depends on the people in power. The Bush tax cuts essentially made it so that a greater percentage of taxpayers didn't actually pay any taxes. A $1000-per-child tax credit tends to do that. Another emphasis of the 2001 bill was to encourage retirement savings by lowering taxes on IRAs and such. Were they successful? I don't know, but you can't say it was because "businessmen" were in charge.

4. The government is not in the business of creating demand. By and large, government services are services deemed necessary for our society to function. Businesses spring up every day by creating new demands for new products. Pharmaceutical companies invent illnesses. Clothing manufacturers convince us that we are somehow inferior if we are caught wearing last year’s styles. Governments pick up trash, teach children, put out fires and serve justice. They have no incentive to have us create more trash, make dumber children, start fires or imprison innocent people. On the other hand, if those same services were run by business, the more trash they picked up, the more money they would earn. The more work they had to put into educating our children, the more money they would earn. The more fires they had to put out, the more money they would earn. The more people that they put in jail, the more money they earn.

Of course the government creates demand. The demand for ethanol, for example, was not the result of economic conditions but government policy. Cash for Clunkers was another attempt to create demand, as was the huge subsidies for renewable energy. Whether you agree with these policies or not, it's silly to say the government does not attempt to create demand.

5. The cost cutting measures taken by businesses can backfire on the government. Since the age of free trade agreements, one of the most common cost cutting measures has been to outsource jobs. In fact, Mitt Romney’s company taught businesses how to save money by outsourcing. Personally, I’m a little uncomfortable with foreign nationals running the CIA. Say what you will about government employees, at least they pay American payroll taxes.

Is anyone talking about outsourcing government functions? Nope.

6. The government is directly accountable to us. Post-Citizens United, this might sound somewhat naïve, but we do still hold elections and only the people are eligible to vote. A corporate CEO, on the other hand, is controlled by a small group of people known as the board of directors. If we, the customers, wish to fire our President or Congressperson, all we have to do is show up at the polls (something Americans are notoriously bad at). If we, the customers, wish to fire the CEO of a multinational corporation, well, good luck.

The way we fire CEOs is by not buying their products. Or if we're shareholders, we dump the folks who hurt our company. The past is littered with the corpses of dead companies and failed CEOS because people voted with their purchases. And besides, this does not have anything to do with businesspeople in office: we can vote them out just as easily as we can vote out a career bureaucrat-turned-politician.

7. Business people tend to do a very bad job at governing. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both came from business backgrounds. They left the country in the worst financial shape since the Great Depression. Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts was 47th out of the 50 states for job creation.

Let's see, Bush and Cheney were businessmen, huh? Bush traded on his name, and everyone knows he was a figurehead who used his connections and ability to schmooze. Does anyone believe George W. Bush was the managing director of anything? And Cheney was in government for 40 years, working as a congressional aide, an aide to the Defense Secretary, White House chief of staff, Congressman, and Defense Secretary. Halliburton hired him because of his connections, not his business acumen. And as cinepro mentioned, you really want to say that those two are representative of all business owners?

8. Business is by definition, amoral. Morality is not part of the corporate charter. The US Constitution is a moral (not to be confused with religious) document. It is a code of conduct for all government officials. It states that government officials must answer to We the People. If We the People don’t like the Constitution, we can change it. Business people have no such codes of conduct, unless it is to instruct them to not embarrass the corporation and its board of directors. We the Customers have absolutely no input into any such code of conduct.

All businesses have codes of ethics and conduct. I have to sign mine every year. Where are you getting the idea that corporations have no interest in moral or ethical behavior? Again, it depends on the business. Ask Chik-Fil-A how much input their customers have in their business conduct.

9. Finally, businesses can, and do do something that would be unacceptable for the US Government…they go bankrupt.

That hasn't stopped state and local governments from going bankrupt. Is it a good thing that the government can keep borrowing from foreign sources, safe in the knowledge that it is too big to fail and cannot ever go bankrupt? That thought scares the hell out of me.

In all fairness, government runs best when represented by a variety of backgrounds. Business people do have a place in government as do trash collectors, artists and even community organizers. It runs best with a variety of perspectives. It runs best when it is run by We the People.

As long as those people aren't involved in business.

Bob L wrote:Whether you agree with these policies or not, it's silly to say the government does not attempt to create demand..

Your response to Kevin is good, and I am confused by Kevin's comments because it's the mantra of the Left that government does in fact create demand, this is the very lynchpin to Keynesian economics, which I imagine he must accept. Perhaps he meant something else, that government has no vested interest in creating demand for bads, like the private sector does. This point could potentially be more consistent with his position as a liberal, but I do not think it is true. Ask any cop if he's ever considered the number of tickets he needs to write in a day to justify his salary. Or ask city officials, certainly, not a single road has ever been paved unnecessarily over worries that fewer project dollars will show up next year if the money isn't spent this year. Who has less incentive or better tactics for controlling the the production of bads? I'll leave that as an open question, but it is simply untrue that government has no incentive for producing bads.