You got me thinking with this one! Learn, earn, and serve: love it. I find it hard to disagree with your premise as some of the biggest failings in government were because of things basic in business. However, it's not all business.
There is a strong appeal for bringing business efficiency to government, but here's the devil's advocate: businesses optimize for profit, but government has to optimize for people - including the ones who can't pay. (Dems get this to the extent that they forget everything else sensible and become social justice warriors for the cause.)
When a business fails, shareholders lose money. When the government fails, people lose their homes, healthcare, or civil rights. The "inefficiencies" in government - like public hearings, constitutional checks, and serving unprofitable communities - aren't bugs, they're features of democracy.
I've seen plenty of brilliant CEOs who couldn't navigate the reality that in government, your "customers" include people actively trying to stop you, you can't fire your board of directors (Congress), and your success isn't measured in quarterly earnings but in whether a kid in rural Montana gets the same opportunities as one in Manhattan.
Business skills absolutely have value in government, but running government like a business may miss the point. Democracy is messy by design - it has to be when you're trying to serve 345+ million people with wildly different needs and values.
I doubt they'd bite. I'd rather NOT have Bob Iger bite. Though, someone who is already loaded can circumvent the obvious pratfall of just showing up and co-writing books or just maintaining a media circus just to get re-elected over and over. With existent cash flow that isn't sourced through direct ties to the government--instead, the government makes it harder to make money via taxes and illogical restrictions--the business-based candidate already has an edge.
Sometimes, that measure of support is capable of keeping someone honest. Do you recall how pro-lifers got fleeced over four decades straight by the people who promised to rise up and challenge Roe vs. Wade? Nobody doing all the talking on podiums really wanted to since talking on podiums and agreeing with frustrated constituents netted them money and attention--just like "pick-me girls" and "male feminists".
But then, Donald Trump, without skin in the game beyond optics, picked Supreme Court judges who overturned it. Now, it's an issue of the states. Before, you always heard about the position on abortion as a metric of how liberal or conservative a candidate or official was. Then, it became anti-abortion, or pro-misogyny, against pro-abortion, or pro-death. Meanwhile, fetuses from predominantly mixed ethnic urban communities kept getting aborted because nobody thought they could support raising children in those situations.
Forty years of demonstrations and marching on both sides of the aisle, with bitterness and resentment being the only real gross national product of this nation of activated charcoal, then some schmuck from New York gets a bunch of black-robed people to say, "Nah-Uh, let the states handle it." It's like a cult of Satanists did the Lord's work and we can't process the irony. (On the bright side, the selfsame Supreme Court, however inclined, is unlikely to form a Federal ban on abortion because Federal bans are ephemeral, like Roe vs. Wade was despite how long that took.)
So, having no skin in the game is useful. If you're not dying for money, one less thing to worry about. The next step is your impression of the government, which businesses in this country are more than likely critical of most of all. How are they supposed to enter politics when they have no clue where to begin and their image is already bad due to, you know, owning or running a massive corporation that everyone likes to henpeck?
If anything, you should, in future letters, encourage CEOs to think like their clients, which are sort of like CEOs in minor scale, and see what they have to deal with. Practically everyone will say the same thing--and this is something the CEO has an incentive with addressing--tax. There's a reason we heightened Tariffs with plans to devise an EXTERNAL Revenue Service--because other countries have been doing it and we haven't.
Another issue to confront is the strange tax code that lets people shuttle their documents over to some place like Baltimore or Delaware--despite how crummy Baltimore in particular has become--or base the corporate address in some magical jungle island where everyone speaks French and has 1% body fat. Without lowering taxes across the board, none of these business types want to change anything for others, fending for themselves in a hypervigilant malaise.
So, it's a matter of deciphering an incentive to try, rather than a moral appeal. Both sides tend to get this wrong--business has a dual zeroth-and-first set of priorities in both making money and serving others so that money is generated that can serve others--because everyone wants to be on the right side of history but cannot grow physically or morally enough to manifest that destiny.
Invariably, a CEO comes from a hierarchical perch and is unaccustomed to a venue that ideally consists of checks, balances, and concrete limits on what the government can do since it can't do much beyond various levels of force-as-a-last-resort. The US Government is the last line of defense, while the CEO is the first to respond. Then, both entities get blame for things that they shouldn't take the rap for, which makes them resentful.
It's not that a CEO shouldn't give a four-year term in office on any level, Federal or State, the old college try, it's that their very position is inordinately incompatible with government in the first place. Perhaps that alone is exactly why they really should.
I just wonder what kind of makeup goes with an orange mouth. Because clearly you've been sucking it Trump's dick so long you have lost oxygen to your tiny fucking brain bitch
You got me thinking with this one! Learn, earn, and serve: love it. I find it hard to disagree with your premise as some of the biggest failings in government were because of things basic in business. However, it's not all business.
There is a strong appeal for bringing business efficiency to government, but here's the devil's advocate: businesses optimize for profit, but government has to optimize for people - including the ones who can't pay. (Dems get this to the extent that they forget everything else sensible and become social justice warriors for the cause.)
When a business fails, shareholders lose money. When the government fails, people lose their homes, healthcare, or civil rights. The "inefficiencies" in government - like public hearings, constitutional checks, and serving unprofitable communities - aren't bugs, they're features of democracy.
I've seen plenty of brilliant CEOs who couldn't navigate the reality that in government, your "customers" include people actively trying to stop you, you can't fire your board of directors (Congress), and your success isn't measured in quarterly earnings but in whether a kid in rural Montana gets the same opportunities as one in Manhattan.
Business skills absolutely have value in government, but running government like a business may miss the point. Democracy is messy by design - it has to be when you're trying to serve 345+ million people with wildly different needs and values.
I doubt they'd bite. I'd rather NOT have Bob Iger bite. Though, someone who is already loaded can circumvent the obvious pratfall of just showing up and co-writing books or just maintaining a media circus just to get re-elected over and over. With existent cash flow that isn't sourced through direct ties to the government--instead, the government makes it harder to make money via taxes and illogical restrictions--the business-based candidate already has an edge.
Sometimes, that measure of support is capable of keeping someone honest. Do you recall how pro-lifers got fleeced over four decades straight by the people who promised to rise up and challenge Roe vs. Wade? Nobody doing all the talking on podiums really wanted to since talking on podiums and agreeing with frustrated constituents netted them money and attention--just like "pick-me girls" and "male feminists".
But then, Donald Trump, without skin in the game beyond optics, picked Supreme Court judges who overturned it. Now, it's an issue of the states. Before, you always heard about the position on abortion as a metric of how liberal or conservative a candidate or official was. Then, it became anti-abortion, or pro-misogyny, against pro-abortion, or pro-death. Meanwhile, fetuses from predominantly mixed ethnic urban communities kept getting aborted because nobody thought they could support raising children in those situations.
Forty years of demonstrations and marching on both sides of the aisle, with bitterness and resentment being the only real gross national product of this nation of activated charcoal, then some schmuck from New York gets a bunch of black-robed people to say, "Nah-Uh, let the states handle it." It's like a cult of Satanists did the Lord's work and we can't process the irony. (On the bright side, the selfsame Supreme Court, however inclined, is unlikely to form a Federal ban on abortion because Federal bans are ephemeral, like Roe vs. Wade was despite how long that took.)
So, having no skin in the game is useful. If you're not dying for money, one less thing to worry about. The next step is your impression of the government, which businesses in this country are more than likely critical of most of all. How are they supposed to enter politics when they have no clue where to begin and their image is already bad due to, you know, owning or running a massive corporation that everyone likes to henpeck?
If anything, you should, in future letters, encourage CEOs to think like their clients, which are sort of like CEOs in minor scale, and see what they have to deal with. Practically everyone will say the same thing--and this is something the CEO has an incentive with addressing--tax. There's a reason we heightened Tariffs with plans to devise an EXTERNAL Revenue Service--because other countries have been doing it and we haven't.
Another issue to confront is the strange tax code that lets people shuttle their documents over to some place like Baltimore or Delaware--despite how crummy Baltimore in particular has become--or base the corporate address in some magical jungle island where everyone speaks French and has 1% body fat. Without lowering taxes across the board, none of these business types want to change anything for others, fending for themselves in a hypervigilant malaise.
So, it's a matter of deciphering an incentive to try, rather than a moral appeal. Both sides tend to get this wrong--business has a dual zeroth-and-first set of priorities in both making money and serving others so that money is generated that can serve others--because everyone wants to be on the right side of history but cannot grow physically or morally enough to manifest that destiny.
Invariably, a CEO comes from a hierarchical perch and is unaccustomed to a venue that ideally consists of checks, balances, and concrete limits on what the government can do since it can't do much beyond various levels of force-as-a-last-resort. The US Government is the last line of defense, while the CEO is the first to respond. Then, both entities get blame for things that they shouldn't take the rap for, which makes them resentful.
It's not that a CEO shouldn't give a four-year term in office on any level, Federal or State, the old college try, it's that their very position is inordinately incompatible with government in the first place. Perhaps that alone is exactly why they really should.
I just wonder what kind of makeup goes with an orange mouth. Because clearly you've been sucking it Trump's dick so long you have lost oxygen to your tiny fucking brain bitch