Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The sheer lunacy of looking to business people for political leadership

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 8, 2011, 11 a.m. EST by AngryPancho (17)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here's a quick overview of the dilemma: In organizations it's a given that the closer the owner is to his assets, the more likely they're protected from either misuse or theft. A sole proprietorship is the least likely to suffer from losses, followed by a closely held corporation. But after that, in either a large, widely held corporation, or worst of all, a government, the distance between the 'owners', we, the people, in the case of the government, and our 'assets', everything collectively owned by us from military weaponry to gold bullion and national parks, the risk of pilferage and worse is high and dependent on policies and procedures specifically instituted to catch such losses.

Sometimes it's enough, but often it isn't most directly due to the philosophy and character of our elected officials. In the case of successful businessmen, their ability to feather their own nest is hardly a sign that they are going to be good stewards of our national treasure. This is no idle worry. The shenanigans that go on at the national level are legendary and so obscured by layers of bureaucracy and red tape, they often take years to uncover.

The fundamental error conservatives make is thinking that just because someone has managed to run a business successfully, they can run a country just as successfully. The problems are NOT comparable. Running a country is FAR more difficult and complex. It is NOT a matter of just earning more than we spend as with a business.

GDP is a silly measure that would have been replaced years ago by the economic profession if they really had more concern for the commonweal than their own tenure. As one of my professors once said, it's the equivalent of judging an orchestra by how loudly it plays instead of how well.

We need to elect selfless, intelligent people into office, not those celebrated mostly for their ability to get rich. Those giving, responsible people are out there, often being actively suppressed by the powers that be, but they're out there. They're the kind of people that make up the OWS movement and the polar opposites of those who make up the Tea Party.

With a little luck and hard work, one day a mention of participation in OWS in one's resume is going to be considered the mark of someone who didn't just stand by while our society imploded from poorly chosen objectives and unfettered economic injustice.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23644) 10 years ago

Right. We have lost sight of political philosophy. A government is in no way, shape or form a business and a businessperson is ill-equipped to run a government.

A government is: "the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society."

A government is not a profit-making organization.

[-] 2 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 10 years ago

I agree. The first step to electing those kinds of people into congress is to vote them in as delegates to the National General Assembly AKA Third Continental Congress AKA parallel congress, a watchdog with teeth.

Indeed a very interesting set of ideas. thx


[-] 1 points by AngryPancho (17) 10 years ago

The thing about large organizations being hard to watch over is straight out of an MBA school, but thanks anyway. I will certainly look into the watchdog you mentioned.

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

An interesting set of ideas you have.

I find it equally interesting that prior to the original 13th amendment, attorneys were specifically barred from holding public offices.

I certainly know and believe that our democratic republic intended for every day people, to be elected to represent their respective states or communities.

I certainly know that "money in politics" is specifically addressed in our original Constitution as Treasonous, and am also aware of how this has "legally", not lawfully, been circumvented and to promote which specific agendas.

Federal legislation was never intended to be written by huge teams of law degree holding legal experts. It was intended to be written in PLAIN English such that a reasonable person could understand it, and thereby, knowingly give consent or agree to be subject to it.

It was intended to be that way in order to limit the bounds in which The People's Federal Government operated, within those limits as required for reasonable people to comprehend, and not a step beyond.

Who here cannot see how very far away we are from this?

[-] 2 points by AngryPancho (17) 10 years ago

God, it's been so long since I first wondered why plain English wasn't the rule, rather than the exception, that I'd forgotten how much I yearn to see it used. I personally have thought virtually everything worth saying could be said in high school English, and some post graduate work hasn't changed my opinion. Thanks for reminding me!

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 10 years ago

And amongst those who can see it, how many think there is a way to return to what has been lost? How?

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 10 years ago

As for plain English, there are now attempts to require it in contracts. The new, but currently mostly hamstrung, Financial Consumer Protection Bureau is working on this. They have a model credit card agreement up for comments now.

It's a place to start.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 10 years ago

I heard they are kicking themselves for not parking E Warren there when they had the chance. You know they're not always quite as smart as we give them credit ; ) oops I didn't intend that pun!

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 10 years ago

I hope you're right. I can't vote for her, but have a relative who can. And will.

She's not only brilliant and thoughtful, but one of the people she had working with her on TARP oversight was one of the most amazing thinkers I've ever seen. If she keeps bringing people like that along with her, Katie bar the door!

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

The best I can tell is to draw a hard line either at 1871 or 1861 and wipe the slate clean for a fresh start. Very extreme and likely cannot be forced upon those who hold the bankruptcy note without massive unity.

[-] 1 points by AngryPancho (17) 10 years ago

I've only watched the first video so far but found it hard to disagree with. I've been thinking along a similar track along with many others, of course, and I'm a little surprised I hadn't heard of the zeitgeist movement before. Right off though I do think you all need to find a more restrained and digestible way of delivering the good news. Though there's hardly a misstep in that first video, it would definitely scare off most people, I think. I'll have to see the other videos soon. Thanks for getting them together like this.