The goals of countries and companies are usually very different. Company's maximize their owner's financial returns, countries (should) maximize their citizen's happiness (standard of living + freedom + etc. etc.). Different tools for different jobs.
The second paragraph strikes me as hubris of a totally different sort. I get the feeling this guy would be writing "how can a group of commoner think they can not only create a new government but run it better than the King" in 1776.
In general and ignoring party affiliations, why wouldn't we want a successful business person running for office? They have experience in hiring people and tax policies. Who is not full of hubris when they run for office?
Once of the many problems with Medicare has been fraud. The government has not dealt with it like a business would. The government doesn't have the same incentive. It seems that if the government had a lot more business like tendencies in its governance, it might be a lot more efficient. The reasons businesses exist are that they are a pretty efficient organizational tool (not perfect, but nothing is).
The prejudices laid out in that second paragraph really make it hard to really look at what the rest of the article says. He may be right in this instance about this report, but it seems like an opinion piece of poor value.
At first I thought Mary Meeker was delusional - to think that the US budget problem is one of identification is completely missing the point. But then I realized she's just pushing the underlying link between technology and politics: promise radical forward progress through tough decisions (made by you) and sacrifices (made by nebulous other people).
@protomyth, re: "why wouldn't we want a.."because the criteria to be successful in business and government are completely different! In business the ONLY goal is to create value for your shareholders.
In government the goal is to serve your people. If you're in government and lose sight of this goal, then you end up like Ben Ali, Mubarak, Gadafi etc :-) All of them created value for their "shareholders", be they foreign oil companies or the domestic businesses that were run by the local oligarchy.
The goal of a business is to return value to the people who own it. This is really no different than what the goal of government should be. Government needs to return value or it should be tossed to the street. If a government sees foreign oil companies as its "shareholders" then then the local populous needs to get rid of the government.
All this being said, I still want to know the qualifications of a person who should run for office that isn't seen as hubris by this author. It is a serious sign of problems and out of touch politics when we have a professional political class divorced from participation in commerce. If a government leadership has no or little understanding of commerce than how the heck can they make rules that economically work? It is like asking a non-techincal manager about coding standards.
You're saying the goal of government is to "return value" to the people. I'm saying its goal is to "serve" the people. I think we can agree we're saying the same thing.
Here's the thing about your second paragraph:
There is self-confidence, which is an absolute requirement if you want to start/run a business, a political campaign or even a war.
Then there is hubris. Hubris is when you haven't bothered to vote (the most basic civic duty) for 28 years, and then run for Governor of California based on the fact that you've been CEO of a Silicon Valley company. To me this is worse than asking a non-technical manager about writing coding standards.
Its like a non-technical manager TELLING you how to write a coding standard.
I guess I can agree on that. My point is that the both companies and governments are organizations formed by people without much difference in goals.
I get your definition of hubris, and go along with that in one case, but read the writing in the article makes it very much sound like all business people should stay out of politics. I am very sure that is not and has been shown to be a bad idea.
Hmm..when I read the article the first time I didn't get the impression that he was saying business people should stay away from politics. But I was closely following the 2008 election in CA and assumed that's what he was referring to.
I think business people should definitely be involved in politics. I think everyone should be involved in politics, as a matter of fact. Democracy is a wonderful thing.
But I don't think being successful at business automatically means you're going to be successful in politics as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was Meeker not the arch cheerleader for dotcom bubble compaines such as Netscape, 360 degree Networks, Aol, and many others? I recall her sending "buy" and "outperform" letters to clients for companies who lost from 90% - 100% of their values.
9 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 22.5 ms ] threadIn general and ignoring party affiliations, why wouldn't we want a successful business person running for office? They have experience in hiring people and tax policies. Who is not full of hubris when they run for office?
Once of the many problems with Medicare has been fraud. The government has not dealt with it like a business would. The government doesn't have the same incentive. It seems that if the government had a lot more business like tendencies in its governance, it might be a lot more efficient. The reasons businesses exist are that they are a pretty efficient organizational tool (not perfect, but nothing is).
The prejudices laid out in that second paragraph really make it hard to really look at what the rest of the article says. He may be right in this instance about this report, but it seems like an opinion piece of poor value.
In government the goal is to serve your people. If you're in government and lose sight of this goal, then you end up like Ben Ali, Mubarak, Gadafi etc :-) All of them created value for their "shareholders", be they foreign oil companies or the domestic businesses that were run by the local oligarchy.
All this being said, I still want to know the qualifications of a person who should run for office that isn't seen as hubris by this author. It is a serious sign of problems and out of touch politics when we have a professional political class divorced from participation in commerce. If a government leadership has no or little understanding of commerce than how the heck can they make rules that economically work? It is like asking a non-techincal manager about coding standards.
Here's the thing about your second paragraph: There is self-confidence, which is an absolute requirement if you want to start/run a business, a political campaign or even a war.
Then there is hubris. Hubris is when you haven't bothered to vote (the most basic civic duty) for 28 years, and then run for Governor of California based on the fact that you've been CEO of a Silicon Valley company. To me this is worse than asking a non-technical manager about writing coding standards.
Its like a non-technical manager TELLING you how to write a coding standard.
I get your definition of hubris, and go along with that in one case, but read the writing in the article makes it very much sound like all business people should stay out of politics. I am very sure that is not and has been shown to be a bad idea.
I think business people should definitely be involved in politics. I think everyone should be involved in politics, as a matter of fact. Democracy is a wonderful thing.
But I don't think being successful at business automatically means you're going to be successful in politics as well.