Should the country be run like a corporation?

Back into blogging. Simple theme – search for truth.

Here’s a mental search that was touched off by an e-mailed newsletter sent around by Daniel Popescu, a wealth management guru based here in Vancouver, and a really smart guy. When it comes to making money and building portfolios.

But the newsletter essentially said (and I’m sure I’m paraphrasing wildly, so forgive me, Daniel, if I missed the point) that the U.S. government wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in today if only it were run like a successful corporation.

Got me thinking about that. What do corporations do? Generally, they produce a product, trying to get maximum return for minimum investment; they often invest in R&D so the product keeps improving and evolving to better serve their customers (or at least keep their attention); when they get big enough, they often diversify so they have multiple revenue streams. All that would be good for a government, I suppose, if you treat the country’s output as the product and keep pushing your country’s workers to do it better, cheaper, etc.

But is the product of a government truly the country’s output, with the people of the country as the workers of the national corporation? Is that why we form governments?

Maybe from an international trade standpoint. And I wouldn’t argue against it being one function of government. But look a little deeper at what successful corporations do.

1. In an effort to maximize profits for their shareholders, they’ll often cut and slash jobs to minimize overhead. Kind of like trimming the budget? Sure, if there are other jobs or places for those who are slashed to go. But if those who are slashed are the very ones who elected you to look out for their interests and they’ve now been cut adrift, just who are you the government of? Only the most productive/successful? Is that truly what we want a government to be? A government by the successful for the successful? Seems kind of redundant to me.

2. Again, to maximize return, corporations increasingly outsource their labor to the cheapest labor market, say, China or India. So if I elect a government to represent me, the first thing it might do is decide I’m way too expensive and it would really rather manage a group of people in another part of the world, thank you very much.

3. The focus is on product, what sells, what people will buy. Extraneous benefits like health care, childcare, education, infrastructure, are only considered when they impact that bottom line. Simple question: Is the point of living to produce stuff for others to buy? Is the point of life to accumulate wealth from this process? If your automatic response is yes, then the government-as-corporation model fits you well. If you have other values you’d like your government to represent or protect, recognize there may be a conflict at times.

All of which brings us to the simple point that it’s easy to look at government spending or operations from the context of how well it fulfills a particular function, but be very clear you understand the implications of such a narrow analysis.

Figuring out what values you most want to promote and defend with your life and speech (not an easy process) should be a prerequisite for public discourse.