[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Besides which, the gov’t does not adhere to budgets well at all. They always spend more than they have, and they always want to spend more. I suppose in the hypothetical event that there were a gov’t that adhered strictly to budget demands, did not deficit spend, and treated its income like a multi-national company’s, it might be possible to stick the gov’t in charge of a private company and do “ok”. However, all governments universally violate this requirement.
As such they are the last people I would stick in any position that required a)efficiency and b) rapid --and continued-- innovation. The only exception I can think of is the military, which is exceptionally good at killing things and breaking stuff. Still, the amount of innovation per dollar spent is pathetic, as is the global efficiency of many aspects of the military machine. They may be fantastic at warfare operations, but they are miserable at a wide variety of other tasks that a private company would run much smoother. My roommate is also a captain in the army, and I have heard at many junctures his bitching about various ineptitudes and inefficiencies of the Machine. He could probably write a book about them.
I agree to a level, however, I think the efficiency of big business versus government organization or non-profit organization, is grossly overexaggeratted. If big business is so stable, innovative and efficient, how the fuck did this whole mess come about…and fannie mae and freddie mac don’t fucking count, because…they were privatized, the government back-up which they did eventually get were implied not explicit.
All the big financial firms more or less crumbled because they were based on bullshit, and had a sizeable proportion of mismanagement and solitaire players as any other organization.
Maybe, I’m a communist, but I honestly do not believe individuals who work for private business and individuals who work in non-business organizations, and governments have any great difference in productivity.
It really comes down to the individuals in the organization, and the motivation they have within themselves. For the most part, people who just ‘want a job,’ be it degree’d or fastfood…suck. The world is driven by creators, be they artisans, creative finance people, web developers, devoted construction workers, whatever.[/quote]
Well firstly it depends on the type of business and a) what it does/supplies and b) how the structure of the business is set up. Solid, traditional hierarchies like IBM and GM etc are good at some things and horrible at others as a result of their structure. Alternative structures like Google, various tech companies, other businesses are exceptionally good at different areas. I think you are massively oversimplifying because it’s not like every big business has a comparable management/operations structure, OR comparably talented personnel. More fluid business structures are more adaptable, while more traditional business structures have different advantages.
Fannie/Fred are not privatized. They are QGEs. quasi-governmental entities. This particular middle ground has a large number of disadvantages because it is directly influenced by government and the market, but often is not allowed to adapt to market demands because of government pressure. IE–certain people in the legislature mandating that F&F take on ever increasing amounts of sub-prime mortgages. So I think you have it backwards in this case, as F&F are a) not private and b) F&F were not the true genesis of the problem anyways, but made it worse. As an aside I think that putting the government in charge of something that needs to respond to market forces is a bad idea.
“All” the big financial firms did not crumble. Some very very big ones did. But there were others that were properly managed and avoided catastrophe. But you never hear about those because they’re doing well.
Here’s the thing I think you need to take into account when talking about “individuals in the organization”–Statistically speaking, no one is altruistically motivated. At least not completely. And one of the driving forces for innovation and adaptation is profit motive. Ask yourself this: why did (and do) all the hotshot math, finance, and business guys go to Wall Street when they could work for the good of the country in the US gov’t in regulations and such? Money. The US gov’t pays in the hundreds of thousands and the Street pays in the 10s of millions.
Why do many of the best and brightest scientists go into industry instead of academics? Money. Industry pays between 1.5-4x as much as a professorship.
The one thing the gov’t excels at with regard to operations is killing creativity by regulating it to death with S.O.P.s and red tape, and killing the desire to achieve excellence. Fast adaptation requires a loose leash and the willingness to take risks, which is not something that government control excels at.
Particularly in pharm and biochem research, here is something you are missing in the equation. Productive research needs a loose leash and particularly needs almost this attitude of “let’s research for the sake of research and see what comes up”. This does not work well in a tightly regulated, standardizd, SOP paperwork filled atmosphere.
).