• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Running the Country Like a Business Make Sense?

Luckyone

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
24,151
Reaction score
11,144
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Many Republicans voted for Trump given that he is a Billionaire and showed success in the last 20 years in running his businesses. Nonetheless, should a government be run like a business?

 
It depends on which business.

IKEA or Sears?
 
Luckyone said:
Many Republicans voted for Trump given that he is a Billionaire and showed success in the last 20 years in running his businesses. Nonetheless, should a government be run like a business?

Click to expand...


But Trump University was such a great success/idea.
 
Is bankrupting 4 casinos the Republican idea of success?
 
Luckyone said:
Many Republicans voted for Trump given that he is a Billionaire and showed success in the last 20 years in running his businesses. Nonetheless, should a government be run like a business?

Click to expand...


I used to say "yes" without question. But it isn't "yes" and it isn't "no". There is a lot of crossover between running government and running a business. Budget management. Elimination of waste and redundancies in processes. Negotiation. Forecasting. Voice of customer. And so on.

We won't know though until we actually have a President who knew how to run a business. Trump didn't. Trump was self-employed, and didn't run a business like Rex Tillerson did, which is why Trump is a failure as POTUS. He's never had to answer to anyone in his life. I would actually not mind a Rex Tillerson as POTUS because he would know how to manage it like a business while still understanding the fundamental differences between government and a service organization.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Is bankrupting 4 casinos the Republican idea of success?
Click to expand...

Hey, let give the man some credit. When he associated himself with the Russian backed Bayrock Group in 2001, his failures and bankruptcies stopped. So from 2001 to 2016, he can be considered successful, or at least successful-with-help.

It is certainly a negative that the Russians are not going to help him to run the government (other than perhaps "into the ground") but the OP was more about whether the government should be run as a business or not. If the answer is "not" then why the heck is he doing there?
 
Does running a country like a business make sense? No. The goals of government and a for profit business are completely different so you can’t run a country like a business.

A better question is “does running a for profit business give you experience that transfers to running a country.”

The answer to that is it depends. A large multinational publicly held corporation? Probably yes.

A small privately held real estate concern? All indications are that answer is no.
 
Luckyone said:
Many Republicans voted for Trump given that he is a Billionaire and showed success in the last 20 years in running his businesses. Nonetheless, should a government be run like a business?

Click to expand...


Oh goodie... a YouTube video authored by a group with a left of center bias.

Fusion - Media Bias/Fact Check

Got anything else?
 
trixare4kids said:
Oh goodie... a YouTube video authored by a group with a left of center bias.

Fusion - Media Bias/Fact Check

Got anything else?
Click to expand...

Why dispute the source and not the points made?

Care to contest them, or shrug them off due to supposed bias?

If that (bias = no good) is the case (what you believe), are you ready to discredit FOX news here and now?
 
Luckyone said:
Many Republicans voted for Trump given that he is a Billionaire and showed success in the last 20 years in running his businesses. Nonetheless, should a government be run like a business?
Click to expand...

WTF??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Trump was successful?

OMFG
 
Luckyone said:
Many Republicans voted for Trump given that he is a Billionaire and showed success in the last 20 years in running his businesses. Nonetheless, should a government be run like a business?

Click to expand...


Success isn't exactly what I'd call it. :lamo
 
Yes and no. Having business experience can be a plus if you then understand how government is different than a business. If you don't, then no it is not a good idea as we have seen with the moron in the White House.

It is a bit like entering a new market for a private company. If you don't adapt to the local demands and tastes then you will fail. I believe it was Target that felt this the hard way when they tried to open in Canada. Or American car manufacturers who refused to adapt in Japan.

Now add to this, the fact that there are fundemental differences between a company and government. Lets put it this way.. The company called the USA has been running in the red aka a deficit since the 70s or so. No company would be able to do that for so long.

And then there is the for profit issue. Government has to make roads to the middle of no where so to say, where as a private company would never do that because of lack of profit. If a country was run like a company, then rural areas would be in the Stone age and populations would be concentrated in big cities of 100k+ if not bigger.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
 
Luckyone said:
Why dispute the source and not the points made?

Care to contest them, or shrug them off due to supposed bias?

If that (bias = no good) is the case (what you believe), are you ready to discredit FOX news here and now?
Click to expand...

Already told you why.
It is a waste of time to debate your selective source that affirms YOUR confirmation bias.
 
Luckyone said:
but the OP was more about whether the government should be run as a business or not.
Click to expand...

Then you should have just asked that specific question and left Trump out of your OP.
 
Luckyone said:
Many Republicans voted for Trump given that he is a Billionaire and showed success in the last 20 years in running his businesses. Nonetheless, should a government be run like a business?
Click to expand...
Mmmmm... No.

Government and businesses are completely and utterly different types of entities. To wit:

- Governments exist to provide public goods (like defense, safety nets, regulations, monetary policies). Businesses exist to produce goods and services at a profit.

- Governments fundamentally should not attempt to earn profits, and doing so is detrimental to its mission. Businesses basically need to earn profits.

- Governments need to be open and transparent. Businesses don't (or, at least, much less so).

- Citizens are not customers.

- Citizens are not shareholders.

- Customers don't vote for CEOs.

- With the exception of open warfare, governments need to be predictable and consistent. Businesses don't.

- The methods of persuasion are fundamentally different. E.g. businesses can get their way by bribing public officials with donations, or threatening lawsuits. Elected officials can't really bribe one another or sue one another.

- Walmart is the top of the Fortune 500 right now. It basically has one job: Selling stuff in its stores, and it does so by its top staff being as quiet as possible. The President basically has to oversee the entire military, plus departments managing energy, housing, education, labor relations, national parks, law enforcement, prisons, health... Plus, the President has to wrangle legislators, foreign leaders and the press.

Running a massive retail operation requires a complex skill set. But few, if any, of those skills translate to the job required by the Oval Office.

IMO the idea that experience in business somehow makes one qualified for public office is mostly an indication of the debasement of the American concept of social relations, and a fundamental failure to understand the role of government, and the skills required to govern. I.e. some of us think that business and commerce are the end-all and be-all of civic and social life, thus of course business executives would be great at running a government! I think I'll pass on that one.
 
noonereal said:
WTF????? Trump was successful? OMFG
Click to expand...
You did get the Billionaire part, right? It isn't like he inherited it. He has also been successful as President, witness the economy, improved trade, the defeat of ISIS, energy independence, historically low unemployment, tax reform, etc.

Given that you cannot plausibly argue that Trump has failed as President, I am unclear about the point of the thread.
 
Luckyone said:
Many Republicans voted for Trump given that he is a Billionaire and showed success in the last 20 years in running his businesses. Nonetheless, should a government be run like a business?

Click to expand...
Yes, it does, in certain aspects. Being in charge of a massive organization requires management and leadership that are common amongst CEOs and Presidents. Understanding how to use subordinates effectively is useful to both as is planning and possessing a goal or vision. Also being able to effectively deal with critics and competitors is a transferable skill.

What's different is that most Presidents enter office with around 50% of the people not wanting him to be there and many actively working to combat his plans and policies. A CEO would be sent packing long before 50% of his investors disliked his performance.

A CEO isn't likely to have open and/or covert hostile employees in large numbers.


And, no, we didn't vote for him "because he's a billionaire . . ." We voted for him because, first off, the alternative was repugnant,and he expressed some understand of the plight and complaints of ordinary Americans, and he proposed an economic agent we felt was more likely to make the country prosperous.
 
Last edited:
Luckyone said:
Hey, let give the man some credit. When he associated himself with the Russian backed Bayrock Group in 2001, his failures and bankruptcies stopped. So from 2001 to 2016, he can be considered successful, or at least successful-with-help.

It is certainly a negative that the Russians are not going to help him to run the government (other than perhaps "into the ground") but the OP was more about whether the government should be run as a business or not. If the answer is "not" then why the heck is he doing there?
Click to expand...

So if Trump had done anything illegal related to some Russian finances wouldn't the Mueller investigation have uncovered that? I don't seem to remember those facts in the Mueller Report, or the Mueller Press Conference or the Mueller Senate Hearing. That seems so odd to me.
 
Luckyone said:
Hey, let give the man some credit. When he associated himself with the Russian backed Bayrock Group in 2001, his failures and bankruptcies stopped. So from 2001 to 2016, he can be considered successful, or at least successful-with-help.

It is certainly a negative that the Russians are not going to help him to run the government (other than perhaps "into the ground") but the OP was more about whether the government should be run as a business or not. If the answer is "not" then why the heck is he doing there?
Click to expand...

Jeeeeezzzz, lucky! Even the NYT admits there's no there there in regard Russia. Isn't it about time you found some other dead horse to beat? :beatdeadhorse
 
Luckyone said:
Why dispute the source and not the points made?

Care to contest them, or shrug them off due to supposed bias?

If that (bias = no good) is the case (what you believe), are you ready to discredit FOX news here and now?
Click to expand...
There weren't any "points" made, just loony left mantras made to influence their weak-minded constituency. Apparently, they've been successful.
 
Jay59 said:
You did get the Billionaire part, right? It isn't like he inherited it. He has also been successful as President, witness the economy, improved trade, the defeat of ISIS, energy independence, historically low unemployment, tax reform, etc.

Given that you cannot plausibly argue that Trump has failed as President, I am unclear about the point of the thread.
Click to expand...

this post is too ridiculous to respond to

it is the result of propaganda not considered evaluation
 
tres borrachos said:
I used to say "yes" without question. But it isn't "yes" and it isn't "no". There is a lot of crossover between running government and running a business. Budget management. Elimination of waste and redundancies in processes. Negotiation. Forecasting. Voice of customer. And so on.

We won't know though until we actually have a President who knew how to run a business. Trump didn't. Trump was self-employed, and didn't run a business like Rex Tillerson did, which is why Trump is a failure as POTUS. He's never had to answer to anyone in his life. I would actually not mind a Rex Tillerson as POTUS because he would know how to manage it like a business while still understanding the fundamental differences between government and a service organization.
Click to expand...

Absolutely nailed it on the crossover aspects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom