3 ms·

>"We voters do it every 4-8 years for the U.S. government, a vastly more complex operation than AIG." The government is not in the business of meeting any obje

>"We voters do it every 4-8 years for the U.S. government, a vastly more complex operation than AIG." The government is not in the business of meeting any objective goals. It simply appropriates funds, does things with them, and then tells you about what it did with the best spin possible. As long as nothing too bad happens and the people in charge are serious-looking and wear suits, nobody complains. The government could be run by a ferret, as long as it had a good press secretary. Private companies, on the other hand, have an objective performance standard to meet. They must make money, or eventually die. The pressure of an objective performance standard makes them much harder to run. The ability to achieve results is much more important, and the ability to look good on camera is much less. There is punishment for incompetence. I suggest that firing the current crop of executives and making it clear to new potential hires that they will be underpaid and under intense public scrutiny is a good way to run what is left of the company into the ground. Given the other options available, this might be a good thing, but it could be done more directly.

gnaritas 18y ago
> The government is not in the business of meeting any objective goals. That's an absurd statement. We don't send officials to congress without them running a campaign specifying their goals. You might not like the process, or trust the process, or think private companies (dictatorships) do it better, but don't say they have no goals. Every single one of them has goals for their districts/states and they get fired (not reelected) if they fail more than the public likes. If government seems so inefficient and difficult to get things done, it's often because members of congress have conflicting goals so getting anything done is difficult. This isn't an accident, it's how the system is supposed to work. > There is punishment for incompetence. Usually, but as we're clearly seeing now government and business are so tightly interwoven in the modern world that execs knowingly abuse the government and do things that would be bad if they didn't know they'd be bailed out by their buddies in government who they paid to have elected. > I suggest that firing the current crop of executives Not going to happen and you know it.
- CWuestefeld 18y ago
  > We don't send officials to congress without them running a campaign specifying their goals. Perhaps you have a different concept of "goals". Political candidates spew platitudes, but when have you ever heard they cite a specific, measurable goal? The few instances I've heard always specify a timeframe that's conveniently just beyond the next election, e.g. a presidential candidate promising that something will happen in 5 years, so that their next election can't be held up by it. > execs knowingly abuse the government ... their buddies in government who they paid to have elected It works both ways. Don't just focus on business, also look at the government officials who are so willing to prostitute themselves.
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  There is a qualitative difference between the vague and often contradictory corpus of promises that a politician makes on the campaign stump and the clear contractual obligations that a corporation owes to its creditors. That difference is captured with the notion of "objectivity", which is why I said that corporate executives face an objective performance standard while politicians do not. The only potential discipline for politicians is made by voters who mostly don't understand the issues that well and don't spend a lot of time following their representatives in office. Thus, the job of a politician is largely PR. This, again, is in stark contrast to the creditors of a corporation, who are very interested in its actions, follow it very closely, have very clear expectations, and who have deep knowledge of its activities. I know I am not going to convince you, but I think my point is good and my logic is sound. >"Not going to happen and you know it." My sentence had a fairly large phrase in the middle. If it is removed, it reads "I suggest that firing the current crop of executives...is a good way to run the company into the ground". Although, I suspect it is likely that AIG is already beyond salvage.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    > My sentence had a fairly large phrase in the middle. Apologies, I misread what you wrote, my bad. As for the rest of it, you're presuming that no one votes with any understanding of the issues. I disagree, though many don't understand them deeply, or possibly misunderstand, people don't vote unless they care about some of the issues. That's why most people don't even vote. So those who do are certainly doing it because they want some objectives met or some ideology upheld. I've worked at many companies and I've been an employee of the federal government and quite frankly, the federal government is vastly more efficient than most private companies as far as I can tell. Sure, if you look at the fortune 500 the government might look incompetent, but that's not a fair comparison, those are the top companies in the market. If you look at the fortune 5 million, i.e. the vast majority of the rest of the market, the federal government comes out looking quite efficient.

gnaritas 18y ago

> The government is not in the business of meeting any objective goals. That's an absurd statement. We don't send officials to congress without them running a campaign specifying their goals. You might not like the process, or trust the process, or think private companies (dictatorships) do it better, but don't say they have no goals. Every single one of them has goals for their districts/states and they get fired (not reelected) if they fail more than the public likes. If government seems so inefficient and difficult to get things done, it's often because members of congress have conflicting goals so getting anything done is difficult. This isn't an accident, it's how the system is supposed to work. > There is punishment for incompetence. Usually, but as we're clearly seeing now government and business are so tightly interwoven in the modern world that execs knowingly abuse the government and do things that would be bad if they didn't know they'd be bailed out by their buddies in government who they paid to have elected. > I suggest that firing the current crop of executives Not going to happen and you know it.

CWuestefeld 18y ago
> We don't send officials to congress without them running a campaign specifying their goals. Perhaps you have a different concept of "goals". Political candidates spew platitudes, but when have you ever heard they cite a specific, measurable goal? The few instances I've heard always specify a timeframe that's conveniently just beyond the next election, e.g. a presidential candidate promising that something will happen in 5 years, so that their next election can't be held up by it. > execs knowingly abuse the government ... their buddies in government who they paid to have elected It works both ways. Don't just focus on business, also look at the government officials who are so willing to prostitute themselves.
jacoblyles 18y ago
There is a qualitative difference between the vague and often contradictory corpus of promises that a politician makes on the campaign stump and the clear contractual obligations that a corporation owes to its creditors. That difference is captured with the notion of "objectivity", which is why I said that corporate executives face an objective performance standard while politicians do not. The only potential discipline for politicians is made by voters who mostly don't understand the issues that well and don't spend a lot of time following their representatives in office. Thus, the job of a politician is largely PR. This, again, is in stark contrast to the creditors of a corporation, who are very interested in its actions, follow it very closely, have very clear expectations, and who have deep knowledge of its activities. I know I am not going to convince you, but I think my point is good and my logic is sound. >"Not going to happen and you know it." My sentence had a fairly large phrase in the middle. If it is removed, it reads "I suggest that firing the current crop of executives...is a good way to run the company into the ground". Although, I suspect it is likely that AIG is already beyond salvage.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  > My sentence had a fairly large phrase in the middle. Apologies, I misread what you wrote, my bad. As for the rest of it, you're presuming that no one votes with any understanding of the issues. I disagree, though many don't understand them deeply, or possibly misunderstand, people don't vote unless they care about some of the issues. That's why most people don't even vote. So those who do are certainly doing it because they want some objectives met or some ideology upheld. I've worked at many companies and I've been an employee of the federal government and quite frankly, the federal government is vastly more efficient than most private companies as far as I can tell. Sure, if you look at the fortune 500 the government might look incompetent, but that's not a fair comparison, those are the top companies in the market. If you look at the fortune 5 million, i.e. the vast majority of the rest of the market, the federal government comes out looking quite efficient.