Jared Kushner says government should be run like a company

[Spindrift]

When I hear people say "run the country more like a business", to me it means stop wasting cash and try to stay within a budget.

It means caring about how much money is being wasted and doing something to fix it. Increasing debt is a recipe for failure for any entity, business or otherwise.

I agree that people are taking the statement too literally, but I also believe they actually know what Jared meant and are complaining anyways because he's related to Trump.

So when you hear people say "run the country more like a business", you hear "run the country more like a business, but not like most of the businesses in this country."

 

[Tony Stark]

When I hear people say "run the country more like a business", to me it means stop wasting cash and try to stay within a budget.

It means caring about how much money is being wasted and doing something to fix it. Increasing debt is a recipe for failure for any entity, business or otherwise.
I agree that people are taking the statement too literally, but I also believe they actually know what Jared meant and are complaining anyways because he's related to Trump.

Trump should know. He bankrupted three different casinos by running up too much debt.

Anyway, if Republicans are so worried about running up the national debt, they shouldn't give massive tax cuts to rich people. But we all know they will at least try.

Oh, and if Trump is so concerned about not wasting money, why is he going to surpass Obama's eight year travel budget in his first year?

 

[Spindrift]

If we want to run the country more business-like, how about we cut off those states that take more federal dollars than they put in?

 

[pgwenthold]

When I hear people say "run the country more like a business", to me it means stop wasting cash and try to stay within a budget.

It means caring about how much money is being wasted and doing something to fix it.

Do you not think we are already doing that?

Here's the problem: "stop wasting cash" - one person's waste is another person's good cause.

"try to stay within a budget" - "borrowing money" is part of budgeting. I don't see any reason to think that they aren't TRYING to stay within a budget; however, the government has obligations; note also that increasing revenues is an approach for staying within the budget

"caring about how much money is being wasted" - who doesn't do that? Again, one person's waste is another person's justifiable cause. You think there are costs that everyone agrees aren't needed?

Increasing debt is a recipe for failure for any entity, business or otherwise.

What is the alternative to increasing debt? Cutting the government spending? That's also a recipe for failure as we cut all our social services (besides, there's relatively little discretionary spending outside of the military; I mean, I'd actually accept a 10% across the board cut in discretionary spending, if it included the military; that might save some money. But that's not going to happen) Oh, I know, increasing taxes to generate more revenue? I'll let republicans weigh in on that one. How about Trump's proposed solution: print more money? Yeah, what's a little out-of-control inflation?

 

[Trebuchet]

Oh, and if Trump is so concerned about not wasting money, why is he going to surpass Obama's eight year travel budget in his first year?

To be fair, that's pretty typical CEO behavior.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I agree that people are taking the statement too literally, but I also believe they actually know what Jared meant and are complaining anyways because he's related to Trump.

Nope, this particularly dumb trope has been on my ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ a lot longer than Jared Kushner. If an administration wants to say that government should reduce waste and inefficiency (as virtually all of them have), hooray, then just say that and then tell me what you're going to do about it. If you propose things that actually address those issues, what citizen would object? What does "running the government like a business" have to do with it?

Nope, right-wingers use this particular shibboleth to promote the nonsensical notion that government is best run by businessmen. The reason for complaining is that we're already seeing what kind of "waste and inefficiency" these bait-and-switch Republican corporatists will find.

 

[skyeagle409]

Jared Kushner, whose long list of assignments as Senior Advisor includes "overhauling" the government, said in an interview last weekend: "We should have excellence in government. ... The government should be run like a great American company....

Trump running the government like a business?! Time to head for the hills.

A Complete List of Donald Trump’s Business Disasters

http://gawker.com/a-complete-list-of-donald-trump-s-business-disasters-1764151188

 

[banquetbear]

Pick an agency. It's bloated.

Look at this Organization Chart for the EPA -more like multiple pages of multiple charts. You don't find many businesses with such extensive charts. How many of those positions could be combined? How effective are the various branches at carrying out their tasks? Are the goals of the agency worth the expense being spent to achieve them? These are questions any successful business asks itself every day because it's existence depends on answering them correctly. Government agencies have no such motivation; their funding comes whether they are doing any good or not. And in the case of the EPA, the Flint Water crisis is a good indicator that they aren't very good at what they do.

...what an amazing gish gallop. What a bizarre line of argument.

Here is a business with an extensive chart.

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/about/office-locations.html

So yes: businesses do have extensive charts.

But the size of a "chart" is not an objective measure of anything. You want to see charts?

Here are some charts.

https://www.theofficialboard.com/moves/retail/-

You ask:

How many of those positions could be combined?

How effective are the various branches at carrying out their tasks?

Are the goals of the agency worth the expense being spent to achieve them?

These are questions that you need to have the answers to BEFORE you can make the claim that we have a problem here. So rather than asking us those questions, if you think you have a convincing case, why aren't you answering them? Do you not understand how government works? Do you think that the EPA was set up with no oversight at all? That these questions have never been asked before?

 

[fishbob]

In business, inefficiency lowers shareholder return and the long-term viability of the concern. Not all businesses are perfectly efficient, of course, but that's still an incentive to be more efficient. What is government's incentive to be more efficient?

In business, there is incentive to pursue short-term gain at the expense of long-term growth and stability. Government does not have that incentive.

 

[TraneWreck]

In business, there is incentive to pursue short-term gain at the expense of long-term growth and stability. Government does not have that incentive.

Exactly.

And the entire concept of debt is completely different when you can print your own money.

Sovereign debt =/= business debt

 

[rustypouch]

Exactly.

And the entire concept of debt is completely different when you can print your own money.

Sovereign debt =/= business debt

But businesses can declare bankruptcy and fold.

Realistically, governments don't have that option.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk

 

[TraneWreck]

But businesses can declare bankruptcy and fold.

Realistically, governments don't have that option.

I don't think we have a disagreement. Businesses and countries are very different. That's another way they're different. It's consistent with my point, not a contradiction.

There hasn't been an instance of a government able to print its own currency collapsing due to debt. If there's a case of hyper-inflation, it's either presaged by something radical - like WWI - or their ability to devalue their currency is constrained - Argentina with currency pegged to the dollar.

It's so totally different than the way a business would operate that the comparison is insane. It's only coherent if it's a reference to department-level operations.

 

[Trebuchet]

Run the company like a business? How about like an airline? Or a retail company? Or a restaurant chain?

ETA: Or a bank?

 

[Upchurch]

I agree that people are taking the statement too literally, but I also believe they actually know what Jared meant and are complaining anyways because he's related to Trump.

If we learned anything from Trump's campaign, it's that he literally means he things he says, even if it is neither practical nor possible: the wall, the Muslim ban, bringing back coal jobs, etc.

Just because it is foolish doesn't mean that Trump can't mean it. If history is any guide, it likely means he probably does mean it.