Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Given much if not all of what the government does makes no profit, the purpose of business, what reason(s) has/have there ever been to believe business skills would translate to governing skills?
Given much if not all of what the government does makes no profit, the purpose of business, what reason(s) has/have there ever been to believe business skills would translate to governing skills?
From what some people believe, it would be to have a better understanding of what the government does that harms business creation and/or expansion. Trying to find the line of enough protections, but enough room for growth.
Well the track record for a business executive in the presidency doesn't give you much confidence. Hoover which helped lead to the great depression and now Trump who's problems are way too numerous to list. I wouldn't be completely against it but they'd have to be damn good. I usually never say never because no one knows what the future will bring.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Villages Guy
From what some people believe, it would be to have a better understanding of what the government does that harms business creation and/or expansion. Trying to find the line of enough protections, but enough room for growth.
But it seems many business people would favor the elimination of many if not all of those protections. Given the history of corporations like Enron, BP which placed profit ahead of safety in the Gulf, companies responsible for places like Love Canal, et al, why would anyone believe giving businesses Carte Blanche to do whatever they like would be good for the country as a whole? Is creating air 'quality' like China's worth the trade off of less regulation?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo
Hopefully it will make it difficult for another idiot to become president
We already had enough with George Bush and now with Trump
That's a nice idea but looking at the candidates of the two major parties in the last election , I have to believe the entrenched two-party system is a bigger threat to this country than any outside force. They may point fingers and fight each other tooth & nail but you can bet dollars to donuts they'd form a united front in a New York minute minute should any third party mount a serious challenge to their dominance.
As much as I dislike Trump I would have voted for him had he run as an (I), I think he just may have been able to succeed and slap down both the Ds and Rs. IMO that would have been worth 4 years of ant nonsense he came up with.
Hopefully it will make it difficult for another idiot to become president
We already had enough with George Bush and now with Trump
Agree!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, I have to believe the entrenched two-party system is a bigger threat to this country than any outside force. They may point fingers and fight each other tooth & nail but you can bet dollars to donuts they'd form a united front in a New York minute minute should any third party mount a serious challenge to their dominance.
