jerryking + pro-business   6

Trump offering a timely cautionary tale on trying to run government as a business
Mar. 31, 2017 | The Globe and Mail | ADAM RADWANSKI.

.The enduring appeal of this hoariest of political clichés – some variation of making government run more like a business – is such that it surely seemed to Mr. Trump’s admirers like confirmation of the real-world expertise he seduced them with on the campaign trail....Mr. Trump is already providing cautionary tales. A management style that encourages factions in his employ to compete against each other for his attention is a proven recipe for chaos in government. His blustery approach to negotiations has yet to show many signs of working with foreign leaders. Most consequentially, so far, a lack of attention to detail, which could be overcome when delegating to underlings at his companies, proved devastating in the first legislative test of his administration – the President unable to sell fellow Republicans on his health-care plan, in part because he did not know details about the bill.......The more time one spends in or around governments, the more obvious it is why attempts to bring a Wall Street or Bay Street mentality to them can end badly.

Ethical scrutiny, for all that entrepreneurs-turned-politicians paint capital cities as swamps, is greater than in the corporate world. And because governments get more attention for failures than quiet successes, tolerance for risk is often lower.

Healthy tension with career civil servants can turn unhealthy if politicians and their staffs do not make honest efforts to understand and engage bureaucrats. And the overarching reality is that, in government, goals and outcomes are more complex, abstract and intuitive than when they can be measured by profit margins.

Business titans can triumph in politics – a Michael Bloomberg in New York, a Danny Williams in Newfoundland. And public-sector culture is often stagnant, and benefits from outside eyes. But the disruptors’ success usually involves a willingness to admit (privately) what they do not know about government, and trust people who understand it better.
bureaucrats  business  business_interests  businessman_fallacy  cautionary_tales  clichés  delusions  Donald_Trump  government  humility  national_interests  political_clichés  pro-business  public_sector 
april 2017 by jerryking
What is good for a business isn’t necessarily good for the country
Aug. 27 2013 | The Globe and Mail |CHRISTOPHER RAGAN
...Most non-economists probably think economics and business are the same. But anyone who has studied economics knows they are very different. Having done so for about 30 years, I am very comfortable thinking about how markets work, how they often fail to function effectively and how various government policies affect their operation. But I readily admit to having no expertise about product development, marketing campaigns, distribution networks or managing employees.

I only wish more business people admitted to having the opposite ignorance. People successful in their businesses obviously know a lot about running their own companies and dealing with their unique competitive challenges. But many of them believe their business acumen extends to the broader economy. They suffer from the misconception that what is good for their business is good for the country as a whole. And this is where they are terribly wrong.... Adam Smith was crystal clear about business interests, writing in 1776 that “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”...Fortunately for us, [James Moore] understands the difference between business interests and the national interest.
Adam_Smith  business_acumen  business_interests  businessman_fallacy  delusions  economics  humility  misconceptions  marketing  national_interests  policymaking  pro-business  product_development  rent-seeking  self-interest 
november 2013 by jerryking
The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent -
October 13, 2012 | NYTimes.com | By CHRYSTIA FREELAND.

IN the early 14th century, Venice was one of the richest cities in Europe. At the heart of its economy was the colleganza, a basic form of joint-stock company created to finance a single trade expedition. The brilliance of the colleganza was that it opened the economy to new entrants, allowing risk-taking entrepreneurs to share in the financial upside with the established businessmen who financed their merchant voyages.

Venice’s elites were the chief beneficiaries. Like all open economies, theirs was turbulent. Today, we think of social mobility as a good thing. But if you are on top, mobility also means competition. In 1315, when the Venetian city-state was at the height of its economic powers, the upper class acted to lock in its privileges, putting a formal stop to social mobility with the publication of the Libro d’Oro, or Book of Gold, an official register of the nobility. If you weren’t on it, you couldn’t join the ruling oligarchy.

The political shift, which had begun nearly two decades earlier, was so striking a change that the Venetians gave it a name: La Serrata, or the closure. It wasn’t long before the political Serrata became an economic one, too. Under the control of the oligarchs, Venice gradually cut off commercial opportunities for new entrants. Eventually, the colleganza was banned. The reigning elites were acting in their immediate self-interest, but in the longer term, La Serrata was the beginning of the end for them, and for Venetian prosperity more generally. By 1500, Venice’s population was smaller than it had been in 1330. In the 17th and 18th centuries, as the rest of Europe grew, the city continued to shrink....several recent studies have shown that in America today it is harder to escape the social class of your birth than it is in Europe. The Canadian economist Miles Corak has found that as income inequality increases, social mobility falls...Businessmen like to style themselves as the defenders of the free market economy, but as Luigi Zingales, an economist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, argued, “Most lobbying is pro-business, in the sense that it promotes the interests of existing businesses, not pro-market in the sense of fostering truly free and open competition.”
business_interests  capitalism  Chrystia_Freeland  city-states  cronyism  crony_capitalism  depopulation  elitism  entrenched_interests  history  income_distribution  income_inequality  lobbying  locked_in  moguls  new_entrants  oligarchs  pro-business  pro-market  Renaissance  self-destructive  self-interest  social_classes  social_mobility  The_One_Percent  Venice  winner-take-all 
september 2013 by jerryking
Pundit Under Protest - NYTimes.com
By DAVID BROOKS
June 13, 2011
The 2012 election is about how to avert national decline. All other
issues flow from that anxiety....The Republican growth agenda — tax cuts
and nothing else — is stupefyingly boring, fiscally irresponsible and
politically impossible... Republicans have taken a pragmatic policy
proposal from 1980 and sanctified it as their core purity test for
2012....Democrats, they offer practically nothing. They acknowledge huge
problems like wage stagnation and then offer... light rail! Solar
panels! ...Democrats dream New Deal dreams, propose nothing and try to
win elections by making sure nobody ever touches Medicare....a
Hamiltonian Party would offer a multifaceted reinvigoration agenda,
grabbing & blending growth ideas from all spots on the political
spectrum...This reinvigoration package would have four baskets.(1) an
entitlement reform package (2) a targeted working-class basket (3) a
political corruption basket. (4) a pro-business basket.
Alexander_Hamilton  America_in_Decline?  David_Brooks  decline  Democrats  elections  GOP  multifaceted  pro-business 
june 2011 by jerryking
Obama Sends Pro-Business Signal With Adviser Choice - NYTimes.com
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ANAHAD O’CONNOR
Published: January 21, 2011
Jeffrey_Immelt  Obama  GE  pro-business 
january 2011 by jerryking
The job of business secretary is to put the future first
Sep 29, 2010 | Financial Times. pg. 15 | John Kay.
There is a difference between being pro-market and being pro-business.
There is also a difference between being pro-business - in the sense of
wanting industry to be healthy, profitable and innovative - and being
supportive of the interests of particular companies....If you were a
government department pondering the future of the computer industry in
the 1970s, you would naturally have turned to IBM for thoughtful
experts and presentations. You would not have consulted Bill Gates or
Steve Jobs, who were barely out of school, or Michael Dell, who was
barely in it. But IBM did not know the future of the industry. If it
had known, it would have tried to prevent it. The interests of the
industry and of consumers were not only different from those of the
dominant business: they were diametrically opposed.
ProQuest  innovation  new_entrants  pro-market  pro-business  crony_capitalism  future 
october 2010 by jerryking

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: