Well-run dictatorships can be prosperous in the short run, but the inexorable decay into rule by a corrupt elite will bankrupt a society. Is that, historically

Well-run dictatorships can be prosperous in the short run, but the inexorable decay into rule by a corrupt elite will bankrupt a society. Is that, historically, true? The monarchies of Europe lasted for generations, and in many cases overthrown in bloody coups causing more destruction than the regimes they sought to replace. It seems weird to me that government would be the only business that isn't run better through private ownership. If Bush owned the US's future tax revenues, and could pass them on to future generations of Bushes, you'd expect him to run things pretty consistently, and with an eye to maximizing property values to keep the tax-generating people happy. If you compare how well-run your government is at its best to how well-run Google or Goldman Sachs is at their worst, you can see the advantages to treating institutions as transferable and valuable private property, rather than giving managers temporary license to extract what benefit they can, after which the consequences are passed on to someone else. Would FDR have designed Social Security the way he did if the future cash flows cut into the dividend checks of future Roosevelts? Would Reagan have allowed Congress to spend so heavily if it were his money? I seriously doubt it.