Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
skeptic

"Tongue in cheek" comparison?

Recommended Posts

It occurred to me today that our aberrant pols seem involved in an ongoing game of "Win All You Can".  Valid?

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be a case of "When government runs like business."

It's been interesting to see the gerrymandering cases in PA and WI (among others). Academing solutions of how to redistrict states have been cooked up (e.g., https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08781) but deciding bodies want to have their cake and it it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we be worried when our boss informs us he now has a twitter feed and it might be good to check it daily?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2018 at 3:41 PM, qwazse said:

It could be a case of "When government runs like business."

It's been interesting to see the gerrymandering cases in PA and WI (among others). Academing solutions of how to redistrict states have been cooked up (e.g., https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08781) but deciding bodies want to have their cake and it it too.

Yes. For a while it has been been popular to say govt should be run like a business but I never bought into that idea. While budgets and financial controls should exist in both, the inherent differences between governmental agency and a business are to profound to be run the same way.

To wit, the primary function of a business is to make profit. This is accomplished by maximizing the delta between income and expenses. In simplest terms, providing the least service (goods) for the highest price possible.

 The primary function of a government agency (should be) to provide a service to the public with the cost shared across the community. In simplest terms, providing the most service for the least cost possible. 

The primary functions and methods to achieve them for a business and a government agency are opposites for the most part. While some business sense is important in running government, the mindset is completely different. Public policy, and providing for the safety and general welfare of the people is best not driven by a profit motive. 

In my opinion many in government (both sides) have either willfully engaged in profit based decision making to enrich themselves, family or friends or are so entrenched in a business mindset that they are unable to comprehend the mindset of public policy for the general good so they have unwittingly abdicated their true responsibility. And partisanship is just the gasoline on the fire. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2018 at 12:52 PM, Jameson76 said:

Should we be worried when our boss informs us he now has a twitter feed and it might be good to check it daily?

Probably.  If it were me, definitely yes.  I do not have a Twitter account and do not want one.  With any luck I will make it to the end of my life without having to have one.  I was dragged kicking and screaming into the Facebook Generation about 5 years ago, and I still only have about 15 friends, most of whom I am related to.  That's already more Social Media than I want.   

(I can just imagine people like ItsBrian reading this and thinking, "WHAT is this guy talking about?"  :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DuctTape said:

To wit, the primary function of a business is to make profit. This is accomplished by maximizing the delta between income and expenses. In simplest terms, providing the least service (goods) for the highest price possible.

 The primary function of a government agency (should be) to provide a service to the public with the cost shared across the community. In simplest terms, providing the most service for the least cost possible. 

The primary functions and methods to achieve them for a business and a government agency are opposites for the most part. While some business sense is important in running government, the mindset is completely different. Public policy, and providing for the safety and general welfare of the people is best not driven by a profit motive. 

Your argument seems to have as a premise that a business has control over price, which it doesn't in a sufficiently competitive market.  Another way to state your argument about a business is this, the primary function of a business is to return value to owners.  This is accomplished by providing a service or good that meets a consumer demand at the market price.  Value is returned to the owner by meeting demand for the least cost possible.  Stated this was a business has exactly the same motive that you attribute to a government agency.  

The difference is when a business succeeds, value is returned to the owner, when Government succeeds, it rarely returns cash to the owners (taxpayers).  When a business fails to meet their cost constraints, it fails, when Uncle Sam fails to meet its cost constraints, it just raises more "revenue" through increased taxes on a captive market.  The government agency you reference is basically a monopoly with all the problems endemic to that model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

Your argument seems to have as a premise that a business has control over price, which it doesn't in a sufficiently competitive market.  Another way to state your argument about a business is this, the primary function of a business is to return value to owners.  This is accomplished by providing a service or good that meets a consumer demand at the market price.  Value is returned to the owner by meeting demand for the least cost possible.  Stated this was a business has exactly the same motive that you attribute to a government agency.  

The difference is when a business succeeds, value is returned to the owner, when Government succeeds, it rarely returns cash to the owners (taxpayers).  When a business fails to meet their cost constraints, it fails, when Uncle Sam fails to meet its cost constraints, it just raises more "revenue" through increased taxes on a captive market.  The government agency you reference is basically a monopoly with all the problems endemic to that model.

I have worked in government at various levels and what happens is if costs go up we have to do the same work with less people like most workers. At some point we do not have enough money to do something we have layoffs and it just doesn't get done. One thing I have seen again and again and again is governments services being stripped away by private companies who charge more for the same service and the public just pays more. It is not unusual for the private efforts to collapse and the government has to take it over again. 

At the local level we have had the state legislature both  demand we provide a service while simultaneously taking away the ability for us to raise any revenue to pay the costs. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×