Jared Kushner says government should be run like a company

[WilliamSeger]

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. Our hope is that we can achieve successes and efficiencies for our customers, who are the citizens."

What's wrong with that? Everything, according to Harvard Business School professor Gautam Mukunda:

The first and most obvious problem with that is that American citizens are not customers. Someone has to tell Jared Kushner that citizens are his boss, not his customers. When you've inherited your job, that might be difficult to understand, but it's an important idea.

...
Now let's talk about the differences between running a democracy and a company, which are profound. First, there are differences in ends. Companies are supposed to run at a profit. If your government is running at a profit, you have a problem; it’s not an indicator of success. More broadly, almost all companies have a level of authority that flows upward that much more resembles a dictatorship than a democracy.


At the end of the day, a CEO can fire just about anyone who disagrees with him or her, and that's not an uncommon thing to do. Presidents don't have that option. However much Donald Trump wants to fire Chuck Schumer, the people of New York are not going to cooperate. So something as simple as that reveals how profound the differences between government and politics are.

In business, the question of ends [is] far less important. Everybody wants the company to make money, and maybe we want to do that by treating our workers better or maybe we want to make money by treating our workers worse — but we all want to make more money. There's nothing wrong with that — this is the whole point of business.


But the ends of government are far more debated. Is it, for example, the job of the government to provide health insurance for citizens or not? That is not a question of tactics but of objectives, and this is far different than the challenges you face in a boardroom.

(Much more in the article, and it doesn't mention that even if running the government like a business was a good idea, there's no good reason to think Jared Kushner knows how to do that.)

Kusher and his father-in-law need to read at least the preamble to the Constitution, which outlines the purpose of our government, and it doesn't say "we the businessmen of the United States, in order to maximize profits..."

Those people who thought it would be really cool if Trump ran the country like he ran his businesses are a modern parable of "be careful what you wish for." All of Trump's failures can be traced to him doing exactly that.


http://www.vox.com/conversations/20...p-jared-kushner-mitt-romney-business-politics

 

[xjx388]

Talk about taking things waaaayyyyy too literally . . .

 

[pgwenthold]

Talk about taking things waaaayyyyy too literally . . .

Yeah, it was just hyperbole. He takes after his father-in-law....

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...s-promise-to-eliminate-the-debt-was-hyperbole

 

[Armitage72]

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. Our hope is that we can achieve successes and efficiencies for our customers, who are the citizens."

Personally, I think it might be better to treat the citizens as shareholders. If we're only customers, who are the shareholders?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Talk about taking things waaaayyyyy too literally . . .

If you'll read the article, it also discusses the general notion that businessmen have the skills necessary for government: It's nonsense. A given businessman might not have the skills to survive at a different company in the same market.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Personally, I think it might be better to treat the citizens as shareholders. If we're only customers, who are the shareholders?

One BIG difference between Republicans and Democrats is the answer to that question.

 

[Spindrift]

If the citizens are customers and the government has things the customers want and can't get elsewhere, then good business says that the government should raise prices. It's supply and demand. You want a drivers license? That's $4000.
You want a road? $5 per mile tolls.

 

[3point14]

Personally, I think it might be better to treat the citizens as shareholders. If we're only customers, who are the shareholders?

If you're shareholders, who are the customers?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Talk about taking things waaaayyyyy too literally . . .

You mean just like we shouldn't have taken Trump literally with the Muslim Ban, or the Wall, or....

 

[xjx388]

I agree with the principle that government should be run more like a business, especially in the sense that each individual agency should be. The goals of each agency should be 1)Excellent service to the citizens it serves; 2)A focus on increasing efficiency and reducing expenditures; 3)A focus on returning dividends (tax savings) to it's shareholders (taxpayers).

I see absolutely nothing controversial in this simple idea and I'm pretty sure that's what Kushner was getting at.

 

[3point14]

I agree with the principle that government should be run more like a business, especially in the sense that each individual agency should be. The goals of each agency should be 1)Excellent service to the citizens it serves; 2)A focus on increasing efficiency and reducing expenditures; 3)A focus on returning dividends (tax savings) to it's shareholders (taxpayers).

I see absolutely nothing controversial in this simple idea and I'm pretty sure that's what Kushner was getting at.

You're really going to have to cherry pick which bits of corporate culture one wants to include to make any sense of it at all.

Just as valid to say it should be run like a scout group or a bridge drive.

 

[Belz...]

I agree with the principle that government should be run more like a business, especially in the sense that each individual agency should be. The goals of each agency should be 1)Excellent service to the citizens it serves; 2)A focus on increasing efficiency and reducing expenditures; 3)A focus on returning dividends (tax savings) to it's shareholders (taxpayers).

I see absolutely nothing controversial in this simple idea and I'm pretty sure that's what Kushner was getting at.

The essential difference is that businesses are run for profit. Everybody understands what Kushner meant.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

Shareholders can be customers. Heck, I'm an employee, a shareholder, and a customer of the same company. Roles aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[xjx388]

The essential difference is that businesses are run for profit. Everybody understands what Kushner meant.

I think I understand what he meant and it seems to differ from your and many others' understanding. Obviously, we all interpret things with our own biases.

And "profit" in the case of a government agency can mean spending less than you take in and returning the "dividend" to the taxpayer.

If you assume that he meant something along the lines of what I think he meant, do you disagree with that premise? Because if I assume that he meant what you think he meant, I totally disagree with "running the government as a business." It would be ludicrous.

ETA: Here's a more full quote from the OP article:

"All Americans, regardless of their political views, can recognize that government stagnation has hindered our ability to properly function, often creating widespread congestion and leading to cost overruns and delays," according to a statement issued Sunday in Trump's name.

"I promised the American people I would produce results, and apply my 'ahead of schedule, under budget' mentality to the government," the statement said.

I think that fits more along the lines of what I stated.

 

[Belz...]

I think I understand what he meant and it seems to differ from your and many others' understanding. Obviously, we all interpret things with our own biases.

No my point was that you understood exactly what he meant, just like we do.

 

[xjx388]

No my point was that you understood exactly what he meant, just like we do.

What do you think he meant?

 

[Belz...]

What do you think he meant?

I've already answered that.

 

[3point14]

What do you think he meant?

I think he meant "We know what we're doing, honest! Trust me, if we can run a company, we can run a country, obviously, it's practically the same thing. Trust me, I'm rich."

 

[WilliamSeger]

I agree with the principle that government should be run more like a business, especially in the sense that each individual agency should be. The goals of each agency should be 1)Excellent service to the citizens it serves; 2)A focus on increasing efficiency and reducing expenditures; 3)A focus on returning dividends (tax savings) to it's shareholders (taxpayers).

I see absolutely nothing controversial in this simple idea and I'm pretty sure that's what Kushner was getting at.

Which is to say, the similarities between running a business and running a government are too superficial to really mean anything.

 

[logger]

Which is to say, the similarities between running a business and running a government are too superficial to really mean anything.

Your thinking is why government is so fouled up.