World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Should a country be run as corporation?
date
newest »



We often forget that the checks and balance in most democracies (legislative, executive, and judicial) neglect the fundamental power of the people. Once elected, a government will usually do everything it can to have all the branches turn into one single mindset, that of the executive. Sadly, sharing the wealth with the people is probably their last priority and is becoming more a myth than their main purpose.
Would a corporate approach do better? Hell! How did I ever manage to come up with such a ridiculous question?


And it seems to me we are seeing what happens when a government is run like a corporation. It's called the Trump administration.

Amen!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

A nation is made up of its citizens. Dictators and oligarchs will disagree, but I believe the primary purpose of the nation is to look after the health and welfare of its citizens. If not that, then why does it even exist?
If you take that view, then you see that nations and corporations have fundamentally different purposes and interests, and under the current reward model for corporations (maximize the bottom line, nothing else matters) they are fundamentally incompatible.

If you take that view, then you see that nations and corporations have fundamentally different purposes and interests, and under the current reward model for corporations (maximize the bottom line, nothing else matters) they are fundamentally incompatible...."
A state is a multi-purpose vehicle, and I guess everyone may expect different things of it. As a basic form of societies' organization it was designed to provide defenses, protection, order, basic (or much more than that) services and also to keep at bay discontent of less privileged (usually a majority) with more privileged. On a more complex level, it should take care of an optimal (re)-distributions of resources and establishing rules of play in every field of activity. Not sure about health, but supposedly they are for the well-being of all citizens. In practice though, it's often preferential towards different segments.
Some corps today are much more successful than any state. Yeah, say Microsoft's or Google's purpose may be the benefit of Gates & Co or Page/Brin & Co respectively, however their employees at any level are much better off than any average citizen in the same locale.. So the side effect may be stronger than state's declared prime target -:)
Of course, there are other examples - of say, automotive industries' melt-down, but so are of sovereign entities going bankrupt, be it Greece or others..
Yeah, a state forms a playground, cares for defense and rules (sometimes biased towards certain interests) to be observed. Every country also plays the re-distribution role - some of the proceeds collected from taxpayers are spent on businesses and citizens in trouble and/or for incentives and loans. In most places it's negligible, in some - sizable.
How important is this re-distribution function in your opinion?