The notion that a good businessman will make a good president

[rumborak]

This seems to be a mainstay in the conservative circles, and it always somewhat puzzled me.
To me, it strikes me as a stretched comparison to view a country merely as a business to be run well. I mean, there's no doubt that a president who has no good notion of finances would make a terrible president, but I don't think the reverse is true. A country is a lot more, especially regarding its surroundings (the world's other countries).

Comments?

rumborak

[antigoon]

I agree with you. The two often go hand in hand, but I would argue that being a great manager of people with a strong personality is more important than any business acumen. A president with little control over his cabinet is a bad thing, I think.

[El Barto]

You have to look at the respective mindsets of the two types.  A guy who's successful at getting himself reelected every 4-6 years for a few decades couldn't be any more different than a guy who's been successful running a profitable business[es].  I agree that the latter isn't automatically presidential material,  but the prior definitely sucks.

[snapple]

This seems to be a mainstay in the conservative circles, and it always somewhat puzzled me.
To me, it strikes me as a stretched comparison to view a country merely as a business to be run well. I mean, there's no doubt that a president who has no good notion of finances would make a terrible president, but I don't think the reverse is true. A country is a lot more, especially regarding its surroundings (the world's other countries).

Comments?

rumborak

In the last 20 years, sure. Once we get a business person elected and nothing changes, then America will be clamoring for someone not related to business.

It isn't always a conservative. Sometimes your posts just come off as ill informed. I know they're not, but damn that a huge brush stroke.

[rumborak]

Huh?

Are you saying it's not the conservative parts of the nation (GOP, Tea Party, Libertarians) who are lactating at the thought of a successful CEO running the country? Why would a retard like Herman Cain even end up on the ballots if that wasn't the case?

rumborak

[Scheavo]

If the president was a monarch, it would make more sense. It's a horrible comparison because the president doesnt actually control the budget, and he can't change more than he can. Your a diplomat as much as anything. They tend to lay a goal, but it's the congress that ultimately controls the country.

[snapple]

Huh?

Are you saying it's not the conservative parts of the nation (GOP, Tea Party, Libertarians) who are lactating at the thought of a successful CEO running the country? Why would a retard like Herman Cain even end up on the ballots if that wasn't the case?

rumborak

I'm pretty sure the other side of the spectrum would be clamoring for it, too, if they were in the GOP's situation. A quick look through American history will remind us of this.

[PraXis]

A good businessman would make a good president in terms of making sure departments are running efficiently. If a dept is not running up to speed then you make the necessary changes/reductions/shifting allocation of resources.. you just don't ask for more money and continue to screw up like the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Affairs (WTF is this anyway?), etc.

Also, businessmen know where money should be invested based on ROI, not because it just feels good to say something like 'let's invest in solar energy!"

Businessmen actually accomplish things in this world. Politicians ONLY care about being reelected starting the day they serve their 1st day of the term.

[GuineaPig]

A good businessman would make a good president in terms of making sure departments are running efficiently. If a dept is not running up to speed then you make the necessary changes/reductions/shifting allocation of resources.. you just don't ask for more money and continue to screw up like the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Affairs (WTF is this anyway?), etc.

Also, businessmen know where money should be invested based on ROI, not because it just feels good to say something like 'let's invest in solar energy!"

Businessmen actually accomplish things in this world. Politicians ONLY care about being reelected starting the day they serve their 1st day of the term.

The problem is, that any businessman who runs for office is a politician.

[kirksnosehair]

A good businessman would make a good president in terms of making sure departments are running efficiently. If a dept is not running up to speed then you make the necessary changes/reductions/shifting allocation of resources.. you just don't ask for more money and continue to screw up like the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Affairs (WTF is this anyway?), etc.

Also, businessmen know where money should be invested based on ROI, not because it just feels good to say something like 'let's invest in solar energy!"

Businessmen actually accomplish things in this world. Politicians ONLY care about being reelected starting the day they serve their 1st day of the term.

The problem is, that any businessman who runs for office is a politician.

They're all politicians, otherwise they wouldn't be running for office.  It's easy to regurgitate RNC talking points on a message board.  It's a whole different matter to consider the gargantuan thing that the United States economy really is and make sound fiduciary decisions based on information provided to you by trusted advisers, which is all ANY president is EVER going to do, regardless of whether there's a (D) or an (R) after his name.

[eric42434224]

A good businessman would make a good president in terms of making sure departments are running efficiently. If a dept is not running up to speed then you make the necessary changes/reductions/shifting allocation of resources.. you just don't ask for more money and continue to screw up like the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Affairs (WTF is this anyway?), etc.

Also, businessmen know where money should be invested based on ROI, not because it just feels good to say something like 'let's invest in solar energy!"

Businessmen actually accomplish things in this world. Politicians ONLY care about being reelected starting the day they serve their 1st day of the term.

Really doesnt work that way.  The president isnt just a businessman....he is more like a CEO.  There isnt a CEO of a very large company that is involved in the everyday operations of the company, much less dealing with efficiencies within departments.  The CEO has people below that tasks like operations are delegated to.  When you look at it, the President may be more like a CEO, but in the end, he has FAR less direct influence over his "company".

[PraXis]

Then his 39 czars are failures and should be fired.

[kirksnosehair]

Then his 39 czars are failures and should be fired.

I wonder what you think we should do with Dubya's 36 czars since it's pretty clear that they presided over the worst implosion of our financial system in a generation?  Something tells me you didn't really care much about them back then. 

[rumborak]

Really doesnt work that way.  The president isnt just a businessman....he is more like a CEO.  There isnt a CEO of a very large company that is involved in the everyday operations of the company, much less dealing with efficiencies within departments.  The CEO has people below that tasks like operations are delegated to.  When you look at it, the President may be more like a CEO, but in the end, he has FAR less direct influence over his "company".

There is also reasonably little diplomacy happening in the business world. And usually companies don't point guns at each other or commit genocide. I don't know, essentially only with a Ron Paulian notion of "what do other people bother me? As long as there's no genocide in the US it's not my business" can you fully think that a businessman's qualifications are the only thing needed to be a good president.

rumborak

[King Postwhore]

I think this notion is growing because of the deficit that we are in right now.  So people look at someone like Romney and what he has done with his business endeavors and thinks this is a plus.  People also see Bush's failures in business and see what he allowed the economy to become and want a stronger GOP that the last one.

Now, as we've seen in years gone buy being the best diplomat while in the Presidency (Carter) sometimes becomes a weakness when it's the only strength a President has.  He has done so much more after his Presidency for America then in office.

The problem is most running for office don't offer both strengths.

[Super Dude]

I think this notion is growing because of the deficit that we are in right now.  So people look at someone like Romney and what he has done with his business endeavors and thinks this is a plus.  People also see Bush's failures in business and see what he allowed the economy to become and want a stronger GOP that the last one.

Now, as we've seen in years gone buy being the best diplomat while in the Presidency (Carter) sometimes becomes a weakness when it's the only strength a President has.  He has done so much more after his Presidency for America then in office.

The problem is most running for office don't offer both strengths.

What he does is not what a good businessman does, let alone a good head of state.

[King Postwhore]

People look at the bottom line.  Just because you don't see it that way doesn't make it wrong.  Lets be honest,  most CEO's who run a business and make a profit do things that don't sit well with others but in the end they make their money.  I'm not saying his way is right but that is the "perception" out there that you seemed to miss in my last post.

[snapple]

Huh?

Are you saying it's not the conservative parts of the nation (GOP, Tea Party, Libertarians) who are lactating at the thought of a successful CEO running the country? Why would a retard like Herman Cain even end up on the ballots if that wasn't the case?

rumborak

rumborak,

I'm going to say this openly on the forums and not in PM.

I apologize for the tone of my posts. I re-read it and came off as a dick. I consistently accuse you (at least, in my mind) of being judgmental (and quick to judge) and it's totally off base. You're a great poster, and I realize your questions are just that - questions. You're not baiting or anything. You respond to my posts with class and respect, and I wish I could have offered that in the first place. In fact, while I may still think I'm correct in what I'm saying in my posts, it really doesn't help when I just say "look it up". This is a forum for serious political debate, and I'm being lazy.

Again, sorry about being a dick.

[rumborak]

Haha dude, no worries, apology accepted

rumborak

[snapple]

Haha dude, no worries, apology accepted

rumborak

And with that, I'm probably going to lurk for awhile.

[yeshaberto]

Huh?

Are you saying it's not the conservative parts of the nation (GOP, Tea Party, Libertarians) who are lactating at the thought of a successful CEO running the country? Why would a retard like Herman Cain even end up on the ballots if that wasn't the case?

rumborak

rumborak,

I'm going to say this openly on the forums and not in PM.

I apologize for the tone of my posts. I re-read it and came off as a dick. I consistently accuse you (at least, in my mind) of being judgmental (and quick to judge) and it's totally off base. You're a great poster, and I realize your questions are just that - questions. You're not baiting or anything. You respond to my posts with class and respect, and I wish I could have offered that in the first place. In fact, while I may still think I'm correct in what I'm saying in my posts, it really doesn't help when I just say "look it up". This is a forum for serious political debate, and I'm being lazy.

Again, sorry about being a dick.

 

[Riceball]

I don't think that being a good businessman will necesserally make a good president, but I think some kind of business acumen gives a potential president or politician an appropriate skill set to manage and work in teams.

But one doesn't by necessity preclude the other.

[Super Dude]

Haha dude, no worries, apology accepted

rumborak

And with that, I'm probably going to lurk for awhile.

Dude, you're a cool guy and a great poster.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

A good businessman would make a good president in terms of making sure departments are running efficiently. If a dept is not running up to speed then you make the necessary changes/reductions/shifting allocation of resources.. you just don't ask for more money and continue to screw up like the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Affairs (WTF is this anyway?), etc.

Also, businessmen know where money should be invested based on ROI, not because it just feels good to say something like 'let's invest in solar energy!"

Businessmen actually accomplish things in this world. Politicians ONLY care about being reelected starting the day they serve their 1st day of the term.

And businessmen don't ONLY care about making money?

uh huh

[kirksnosehair]

Huh?

Are you saying it's not the conservative parts of the nation (GOP, Tea Party, Libertarians) who are lactating at the thought of a successful CEO running the country? Why would a retard like Herman Cain even end up on the ballots if that wasn't the case?

rumborak

rumborak,

I'm going to say this openly on the forums and not in PM.

I apologize for the tone of my posts. I re-read it and came off as a dick. I consistently accuse you (at least, in my mind) of being judgmental (and quick to judge) and it's totally off base. You're a great poster, and I realize your questions are just that - questions. You're not baiting or anything. You respond to my posts with class and respect, and I wish I could have offered that in the first place. In fact, while I may still think I'm correct in what I'm saying in my posts, it really doesn't help when I just say "look it up". This is a forum for serious political debate, and I'm being lazy.

Again, sorry about being a dick.

Class:  snapple has it.   

[Chino]

I'd rather a great buiness man be president than a great lawyer.

[GuineaPig]

I'd rather a great buiness man be president than a great lawyer.

Why?

[hefdaddy42]

I have seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a great businessman would make a better president than anyone else.

[Chino]

I'd rather a great buiness man be president than a great lawyer.

Why?

This basically explains how I feel, but toward a president.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kKuXgzXt5U

[PraXis]

Then his 39 czars are failures and should be fired.

I wonder what you think we should do with Dubya's 36 czars since it's pretty clear that they presided over the worst implosion of our financial system in a generation?  Something tells me you didn't really care much about them back then.

I wasn't too concerned about his appointees/czars when the unemployment was 4.5-5.5% during the Bush years. The financial implosion was due to the actions by the Federal Reserve, but that dates back many years...1913 was an awful year for this country. No one except Ron Paul has ever called the F.R. out on their criminal activity. I only give Bush credit for lowering my taxes and trying to reign in Fannie/Freddie when Barny Frank was sleeping with one of the execs and claiming that everything was fine over at F/F... now we got the Dodd/Frank bill which will make the F.R. even more powerful.

[Cool Chris]

Really doesnt work that way.  The president isnt just a businessman....he is more like a CEO.  There isnt a CEO of a very large company that is involved in the everyday operations of the company, much less dealing with efficiencies within departments.  The CEO has people below that tasks like operations are delegated to.  When you look at it, the President may be more like a CEO, but in the end, he has FAR less direct influence over his "company".

This is what I came in to post. Have good people under you, delegate appropriately, trust their opinions but challenge them to stay sharp and keep their teams and departments working honestly and efficiently, present and promote a good company image and positive morale.

There is more to it, of course. Just as more is required than having an MBa.

[rumborak]

The financial implosion was due to the actions by the Federal Reserve, but that dates back many years...1913 was an awful year for this country.

That is a starkly Austrian interpretation of events, and I don't think many people agree with it.

rumborak

[snapple]

There is an interesting theory by historians about this sort of topic. I'm not a student currently, so I can't post the sources (no access to the database). However, it goes like this:

Economy is bad --> Current President = Politician
                          --> "Country" wants = Businessman for next election cycle

Economy is bad --> Current President = Businessman
                          --> "Country" wants = Politician for next election cycle

I know, I'm really doing the theory no justice. If I can find my thumbdrive from that semester, I have like a 20 page essay on this theory. It makes for an awful read. I love history and I hated this paper.

The best example is when FDR beat out Herbert Hoover in 1932. The economy was so bad, and Hoover was a "businessman" and FDR wasn't. Hoover had been the Commerce Secretary, most notably. And obviously, FDR was not a businessman. If you can find any of the stuff on google about this theory, please post. I hope you can understand why I refuse to look it up right now 

People generally don't understand the issues that the President has to deal with. It pretty much is a classic case of the President getting "too much blame when something goes wrong and too much praise when it goes well". Most people prefer to have the opposite of who is already in charge if a change is going to take place. Not just with fiscal issues but, war. I guess those are the two biggest issues.

So, as a "no-longer-pursuing-history-degree-but-still-loves-the-subject" expert, I'd honestly have to say that the elections are more just people not being able to understand the issue for what it is and equate electing the opposite views/experience/etc. person as the best candidate for change. It happened with Obama in 2008 (ending the wars, Gitmo, healthcare etc.). He campaigned hard and in the opposite of what the conservatives stood for.

Rarely is a power-change in the US Government because of a certain ideology being preferred by the American people. It usually is a repercussion against the party currently in power.

I know many of you probably know and understand this concept. I feel that it's one of those things that applies to many topics, including this one.

[Fiery Winds]

I've translated your psuedo-code into code.   

Code: [Select]


private SameShitDifferentFace Election_2012(scumbag currentPresident) {
     if (currentPresident == politician) {
          nextPresident = businessMan;
     } else {
          nextPresident = politician;
     }
     return nextPresident;
}



[snapple]

I've translated your psuedo-code into code.   

Code: [Select]


private SameShitDifferentFace Election_2012(scumbag currentPresident) {
     if (currentPresident == politician) {
          nextPresident = businessMan;
     } else {
          nextPresident = politician;
     }
     return nextPresident;
}