Re:Yang,
I'm vaguely sympathetic to the idea of "elect a business person so they can run government like a business", but any openness to the idea goes out the window when the candidate's business is venture capital.
I'm vaguely sympathetic to the idea of "elect a business person so they can run government like a business", but any openness to the idea goes out the window when the candidate's business is venture capital.
There are lessons and principles that government can take from business - like treating customers well and resource efficiency. But anyone who says they are going to “run government like a business” is dumb. They require very different forms of leadership.
As a CEO you can pretty much tell people what to do. You are their boss. You are paying them. If you say we are doing something then it generally happens. The downside is no one tells you unpleasant truths.
In government most all of the time you are building consensus. You provide a vision and try to rally people around it. You build relationships. You compromise. You appeal to common goals. Things often happen more gradually. But when big things happen they can improve many lives.
[1] https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1107126100163858432
This has come up with the current president's most-dimwitted son and it's so hysterical it bears repeating. US taxpayers and voters are not the customer. They're the board.
Example: Interactions with TSA, IRS, DMVs (state government obviously but a government nonetheless), etc.
I get what you're saying, but I think you also have to understand what Andrew Yang is implying (not particularly interested in looking up the quote from whichever son).
I think you mean the shareholders. Who elect the board (Congress). And vote for the CEO (President) who is accountable to the board and shareholders.
A closer analogy would be that the US government is a non-exclusive consumer coop, and the citizens are the customer-owners, non-citizen residents, visitors, and other tax-or-fee payers a lotre non-owner customers, and Congress is the board.
Besides, the president's only tasks should be international diplomacy, commander of the military, and doing what the Congress says. They can be "ideas gals/guys," but he/she shouldn't be independently making huge decisions outside of war scenarios. That doesn't sound like a CEO to me.
No, this metaphor does not work.
Shareholders have zero say in how modern corporations are run.
I really don't want a government that ruthlessly cuts costs that don't drive revenue and uses all mechanisms within reach to maximize lock-in and extract monopoly rents from customers.
But anyway, it's not new. That was a lot of that maybe a century ago in the US.
Like it or not, we need politicians who can work across the aisle and actually get things done.
The majority of Americans own stock.
1. http://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/how-many...
If the proposed action is part of / agreeable with the $opposing_party platform, I don't think I _want_ it to get done; with extraordinarily few exceptions.
I'd prefer someone who can push forward without compromising the point of the platform.
There's no compromise state; instead, there's at best some kind of tit-for-tat, where you'll concede something else in exchange for your most important plans.
But even a wall provides room for compromise--physical barriers in some places but not others.
One with multiple bankruptcies too!
To work with someone across the aisle you have to have someone on the other side of the aisle who wants to work with you. The republicans have made it absolutely clear over the past decade that they will not work with Democrats. Centrist Democrats need work with their colleagues to their left if they want to accomplish anything.
Biz and govt are two separate things, I don't understand how one can be run like the other. Sure, there are some overlaps, but thats about it. Can someone explain?
I don't know what it means when politicians say it, aside from being an appeal to the above. Possibly they mean the same thing.
[EDIT] incidentally, it's almost entirely associated with the Right. Unusual to see it brought up as a point in favor of a Democrat.
[EDIT EDIT] awinder probably nailed what it means when politicians say it, and/or why it's an idea some of them have promoted.
I'm being charitable that no one actually believes that garbage at it's heart, but the other explanation might be garden-variety insanity.
In theory, at least some of this makes sense. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like businesspeople who have "made enough money" tend to show any desire to rest on their laurels and decide enough is enough. And a businessperson who runs for office is just as likely as anyone else to be running to get power and notoriety.
And of course, businesses do well by leveraging debt. And they have handouts and nepotism and corruption.
In Canada, this is called a "crown corporation".
Canadian examples include CATSA (like the TSA), CBC (TV network), VIA Rail (like Amtrak), LCBO and Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation (provincial monopolies on alcohol and marijuana sales, respectively).
At least, if you're talking about Venture for America, it's more of a YC or TechStars. It's a non-profit designed to help entrepreneurs start companies.
Prior to that, I think he was the CEO of Manhattan Prep before it getting acquired by Kaplan.
Operational experience is not my concern.
> applying an investment mindset to them
This is my concern. I don't trust people in the VC industry to have a healthy concept of an investment mindset.
Or being the activist investor that breaks up the business and sells what's profitable.
I mean, didn't we try that already, and quite recently for that matter? It doesn't seem to be working very well. What makes you think that Yang can do better than that?
This is a terrible idea for a society. Typical businesses are internally dictatorships that are single-minded, intolerant of dissent, very controlling (my employer reads my E-mails and lately they are setting up a ton of cameras) and are designed to funnel rewards to only few people. That's not a good mindset to run a whole country. We can't just lay off people to cut costs.
I think that's why Trump seems to get better along with dictators like Erdogan, Putin or Kim Jong Un than with democratic leaders. their leadership is much closer to what he is used from his business.
Running government more efficiently would be nice but I don't see the ex-business people who got elected into government do better than other politicians.