为什么政府不应该像企业一样运作，有什么强有力的论据？ [美国媒体]

What are some strong arguments why government should not be run like businesses?

为什么政府不应该像企业一样运作，有什么强有力的论据？



Pedro Miranda, Former investment banker @GoldmanSachs @CreditSuisse
Updated Jan 21
That makes as much sense as trying to run a car like boat. Although in states like Florida your drivers license is all you need to drive a boat.
The difference is that in business decision making is very simple: which option maximizes profits for stakeholders.
This is one of the most interesting points that Former treasury secretary and Goldman Sachs (company) Co-CEO Robert Rubin makes in his book In an uncertain world. He goes into detail about the challenges of moving from the corporate to the government world.
In government decision making is much more complex. Even a very large firm has “only” 50,000 employees and maybe about the same number of investors that hold the majority of the shares.
In the US there are over 300 million citizens and decisions not only impact these people, but also the world.

这和试图像开船那样开汽车差不多，尽管在像佛罗里达这样的州，驾驶执照是你驾驶一艘船所必须的。
不同之处在于，商业决策非常简单：哪一种选择可以使利益相关者的利润最大化就选择哪一种。
这是前财政部长兼高盛公司(GoldmanSachs)联合首席执行官罗伯特 · 鲁宾在他的着作“一个不确定的世界 ”中提出的最有趣的观点之一，他详细介绍了从企业向政府转变所面临的挑战。
在政府决策方面要复杂得多，即使是一家非常大的公司，也“只有”5万名员工，而且持有大部分股份的投资者人数可能也差不多。
在美国有3亿多公民，政府的决策不仅影响到这些人，而且影响到全世界。

Every one agrees that smoking is bad, but should the government make it illegal? Many lives could be saved if people could not smoke. On the other hand there are states such as North Carolina where it is a major agricultural product. Should the government take these farmers out of business? What consequences these actions would have on families and the local economy? Prohibition of tobacco would cause a hard impact in North Carolina,Virginia and Kentucky. If cigarettes continue to be legal the deaths are diluted through the US population, but the costs are much higher. Do you inflict major pain on a few states or a smaller pain on the entire population? Not a clear cut decision.
To make matters worse in a company that would be the CEO decision to take. In government we have much slower and diluted decision making. So you could end up outlawing tobacco and paying farmers a compensation. This adds to government spending and you bring into the debate the fiscal conservatives versus those that want more social programs.
Even if everything is settled at the national level some states choose to enact their own regulations and the story goes.
Government should not be run like a business because it is a different animal.

每个人都同意吸烟是有害的，但政府是否应该将其定为非法呢？如果人们不能抽烟，许多人的生命将得以挽救，但另一方面，在北卡罗来纳等州，烟草是一种主要的农产品，政府应该让这些农民停业吗？这些行动会对家庭和当地经济产生什么后果？禁烟将对北卡罗来纳州、弗吉尼亚州和肯塔基州造成严重影响，如果香烟继续合法，死亡人数会通过美国人口来稀释，但成本要高得多，你是给几个州带来很大的痛苦，还是给整个人口带来较小的痛苦？这个决策可不好做。

更糟的是，在一家企业，首席执行官的决定就是采取行动，在政府中，我们的决策速度要慢得多，决策也不充分，因此，你最终可能会取缔烟草，并向农民支付补偿，但这会增加政府开支，你会把财政保守派和那些想要更多社会项目的人带入辩论。

即使一切都在国家层面得到解决，一些州还是会选择制定自己的法规，事情就这样发生了。
政府不应该像企业一样运作，因为它是另一种事物。

————————2————————

Megan Mishra, Living, Learning, Seeing the world
You live in a rural town in the Midwest. Population: 1,328.
You think it’s ridiculous that the government takes your tax money and spends it on things that don’t seem to benefit you at all.
After all, you are hard-working and self-sufficient. Why should the government take your money and use it to make the lives of lazy city-dwellers easier?
Then you hear that the president is announcing a new initiative: from now on, the government will be run like a business. Any government activity that can’t turn a profit will be shut down and turned over to private companies.
At first you think that sounds great. The government is going to cut back on waste and increase efficiency. Meanwhile, you get to keep more of your paycheck in your pocket.
Soon you hear your local post office is being shut down. It’s simply not profitable to deliver mail and packages to such a small population in a rural area. A private company may take over delivery, but prices are expected to go way up. You’re upset but you figure it’s a small price to pay for a more efficient government.

你住在中西部的一个乡村小镇。人口：1328人。
政府拿了你的税金，把它花在似乎对你一点好处都没有的事情上，你认为这是荒谬的。
毕竟，你工作努力，自给自足。为什么政府要拿你的钱，用它让懒惰的城市居民的生活更容易？
然后你会听到总统宣布了一项新的倡议：从现在开始，政府将像一个企业一样运作。任何不能盈利的政府活动都将被关闭并移交给私营公司。
一开始你觉得听起来不错。政府打算减少浪费，提高效率。同时，你可以把更多的薪水放在口袋里。
很快你就听说当地的邮局要关门了。在农村地区，向这么少的人投递邮件和包裹根本是无利可图的。一家私营公司可能接管投递邮件，但价格预计会一路走高。你很沮丧，但你认为这只是为一个更有效率的政府付出的小代价。

 

Later, you learn that the FCC has been spending millions subsidizing telecom companies to provide high-speed internet access in rural areas. Your town was supposed to be next but now that program is ending. Without those subsidies, telecom companies have refused to extend service to your area because there aren’t enough homes and businesses to cover the costs.
Next to go is your local public school. Art, music, and physical education classes were cut and the district even switched to a four-day school week. Yet with barely a dozen kids per grade, it was not cost-effective to keep the school open.
Your only options are to (1) send your kids 40 miles away to the nearest public school that is still open, (2) enroll your kids in online school, (3) send your children to private school, or (4) homeschool your kids. Without high-speed internet, option (2) is out. There aren’t any private schools in your district, so option (3) is out too. You and your wife work full time so there goes option (4). Unfortunately, option (1) is all that’s left.
Lately, there have been talks of shutting down the military. After all, it costs a lot of money to keep the military running but there doesn’t seem to be any way to generate revenue from all of that spending.

接下来，你得知联邦通信委员会已经花费数百万补贴电信公司，为农村地区提供高速互联网接入，你的镇子应该是下一个，但现在不行了，项目已经结束了，没有这些补贴，电信公司拒绝将服务扩展到你所在的地区，因为没有足够的家庭和企业来支付这些费用。

下一个是你们当地的公立学校。艺术、音乐和体育类课程被削减，学区甚至改为每周上课四天。然而，由于每年级只有十几个孩子，保持学校的开放是没有成本效益的。

你唯一的选择是：
(1) 送你的孩子去40英里外最近的公立学校
(2) 让你的孩子在网上上学
(3) 送你的孩子去私立学校，或者
(4) 在家教育你的孩子。
如果没有高速互联网，选项(2)就没有了，你所在的地区没有私立学校，所以选项(3)也不适用。你和你的妻子全职工作，所以不能选择(4)，不幸的是，只剩下选项(1)了。

 

Imagine maintaining a standing military by selling subscriptions door-to-door: “Hello, my name is Captain Johnson, and I represent the US Army. Are you afraid of foreigners? Would you like guaranteed protection against invasion, pillaging, enslavement, and more? Please see our brochure for our three levels of service.” There would, of course, be a few subscribers, but nothing approaching the level necessary to truly protect the United States from attack.[1]
Your small county hospital manages to soldier on for a few months, but soon it too shutters its doors. The hospital used to receive additional Medicare funds to cover the costs of caring for a small, rural population with low rates of health insurance coverage but that program is no more. When management of the hospital was turned over to a private company, the company decided that keeping the hospital open wasn’t profitable.
Now the nearest emergency room is at a larger regional hospital two hours away. There is only one doctor left within a 30-mile radius of your home. All the others left for more urban areas where hospitals are still open.

再接着，有关于裁撤军队的讨论出现了，毕竟，维持军队的运行需要花费很多钱，但似乎没有任何方法可以从这些支出中获得收入。

想象一下，通过挨家挨户推销订阅服务来维持一支常备军队：“你好，我是约翰逊上尉，我代表美国军队。你害怕外国人吗？你想要有保障的保护以免受入侵，掠夺，奴役吗？请参阅我们的服务手册。“  当然，会有一些订户，但不可能达到真正保护美国不受攻击所必需的水平。

你们县的小医院设法坚持了几个月，但很快就关门了。该医院过去接受额外的医疗保险基金，以支付照顾医疗保险覆盖率低的小农村人口的费用，但该方案现已不复存在，当医院的管理工作移交给一家私营公司时，该公司认为保持医院的营业无利可图。

最近的急诊室在两小时车程外的一家更大的地区医院，在你家方圆30英里的范围内只剩下一名医生了，其他所有人都去了人更多的城市地区，那里的医院仍然开放。

 

While the other changes were inconvenient, the hospital closing has made you and your neighbors extremely worried. Your police and fire departments have already been closed. What will you do in case of an emergency? What happens if someone has a heart attack or stroke? What if one of your children is seriously ill or injured?
That’s it. You’ve had enough.
You and your family are packing your bags and moving to the nearest large city.
There the population is large enough that almost all of the post offices, schools, libraries, police and fire departments, and hospitals have remained open. Not to mention the widely available high-speed internet.
You never realized how much your life depended on government spending that did not generate immediate profits. Now that you know, you wish the government would go back to the ways things used to be.

其他变化只是引起一些不便，但医院关门，使您和您的邻居非常担心。警察和消防部门已经关闭了，万一发生紧急情况，你怎么办？如果有人心脏病发作或中风怎么办？如果你的一个孩子病得很重或者受伤了怎么办？

就这样，你受够了！
你和你的家人正在收拾行李搬到最近的大城市去。
那里的人口足够多，几乎所有的邮局、学校、图书馆、警察和消防部门以及医院都还在营业，更别提随处可见的高速互联网了。
你从来没有意识到你的生活在多大程度上依赖于政府支出，而政府支出并没有立即产生利润，现在你知道了，你希望政府能回到过去的样子。

Does it make sense to run government like a business? The short answer is no. Bear in mind, first, that “efficiency” in the private sector means profit. Hence, to ask that the government be run like a business is tantamount to asking that the government turn a profit. The problem in a nutshell, is that not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable.
Reality TV, pornography, fashion, sports, and gambling are all of questionable social value, but each is quite profitable and exists in the private sector. Meanwhile, few would argue that the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, police department, fire department, libraries, parks, and public schools are of no social value, and yet they could not exist if they were required to be profitable.
To reiterate, the key issue is this: not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. The proper role of government is the latter. There is no need for the government to start a chain of hamburger stands, hardware stores, or coffee shops. Rather, they run child protective services, the National Park Service, and the Air Force. Profit is the realm of business, while unprofitable but socially useful tasks is the responsibility of government.
    —Professor John Harvey
    
    引用：
“ 像企业一样管理政府有意义吗？简短的回答是否定的。首先要记住，私营部门的“效率”意味着利润。因此，要求政府象企业一样运作，无异于要求政府盈利。简单地说，问题在于，并非所有有利可图的东西都具有社会价值，也并非所有具有社会价值的东西都是有利可图的。

真人秀、色情、时尚、体育和赌博都是值得怀疑的社会价值，但每一个都是相当有利可图的，并切实存在于私营部门之中，与此同时，很少有人会说陆军、海军、空军、海军陆战队、海岸警卫队、警察局、消防局、图书馆、公园和公立学校没有社会价值，但如果要求它们盈利，它们就不可能存在。

重申一下，关键问题是：并非所有有利可图的东西都具有社会价值，也并非所有具有社会价值的东西都是有利可图的，政府的正确角色是后者，政府没有必要开办连锁汉堡摊、五金店或咖啡店，相反，他们经营儿童保护服务，国家公园管理局和空军，利润属于商业领域，而无利可图但对社会有益的任务则是政府的责任。”

                                                                                                   —— 约翰 哈维教授

————————3————————

Randall Reade, Executive Vice-President (2011-present)
Answered Sep 28, 2017
Read Jane Jacob’s short book, “The Systems of Survival.” She addresses this very issue and presents strong arguments against running a government like a business.
She started with a simple question: Why is it that all governments in all societies, whether they are monarchies, democracies, or local tribal rulers, have a taboo against mercantilism and trading? She starts with the British aristocracy which has always looked down on merchants and would rather study latin than anything practical or business oriented.
No one could give her a satisfactory answer, so she sleuthed it herself. She identified that societies operate on two very different systems. There is the system for commerce and business, which she calls the Commerce System. That includes everything from the consumer buying detergent, to the businessman who cashes a check, to multinationals operating all over the world.
Then there is the system of government. That includes not just government but also military and other authority, which she calls the Guardian System.

建议阅读一下简 · 雅各布的《生存的体系》(The Systems Of Survival)，她谈到了这个问题，并提出了强有力的论据，反对像企业一样管理政府。
她从一个简单的问题开始：为什么所有社会中的所有政府，无论是君主制、民主政体还是地方部落统治者，都有反对重商主义和贸易的禁忌？她从英国贵族开始，他们总是看不起商人，宁愿学拉丁语，也不愿学任何实用的或以商业为导向的东西。

没有人能给她一个满意的答案，所以她自己进行了调查。她指出，社会是在两种截然不同的制度下运作的，其实一个与贸易和商业有关，她称之为“商业系统”，这包括从购买洗涤剂的消费者，到兑现支票的商人，再到在世界各地运营的跨国公司。
另一个是政府体系，不仅包括政府，还包括军事和其他权力机构，她称之为“监护系统”。

Both of these systems have a whole list of attributes the are the exact opposite of each other. So for instance, government and military value loyalty. Loyalty to your country, your brother in arms, the political you work for — all require loyalty. If you are disloyal, it can have major consequences for state or war. But commerce does not — you may be loyal to Tide, but you will switch in a heartbeat if a new detergent is better and cheaper. You may be loyal to your boss, but if you find a better opportunity elsewhere, you jump ship.
“Deceive for the sake of the task.” That’s another government/military value. In war, deception is essential oftentimes. The President cannot always tell the truth, but must say that the economy is strong even when it is failing — to say otherwise would only make it worse.
Business and commerce — if you lie to consumers, eventually you get caught and there are punishments available for that. the best business is transparent.
The job of government is to enact laws that are fair in at least a rudimentary way. They should level the playing field, even if they don’t always succeed. The government enforces the law too. But neither of these are functions or values of business or commerce.

这两个系统都有一个完整的属性列表，它们正好相反。例如，政府和军队重视忠诚，对国家的忠诚，对军队中兄弟的忠诚，对你为之工作的政治的忠诚--所有这些都需要忠诚，如果你不忠诚，它会对国家或战争产生严重后果。
但商业并不是这样——你可能忠于汰渍，但如果一种新洗涤剂更好、更便宜，你就会转而购买这个新品牌，你可能忠于你的老板，但如果你在其他地方找到了更好的机会，你就会跳槽。

“ 为了完成任务而欺骗 ”这是另一个政府/军队的价值观，在战争中，欺骗常常是必不可少的，总统不能总是说真话，但他必须说，即使在经济衰退时，他也必须说经济依然强劲——否则只会使它更糟。
贸易和商业呢，如果你对消费者撒谎，最终你会被抓，并为此受到惩罚，最好的生意都是透明的。

政府的职责是制定公平的法律，至少是一个基本的准则，他们应该创造公平的竞争环境，即使他们并不总是成功，政府也执行法律，但这两者（制定和执行法律）都不是贸易或商业的功能或价值。

There are about 15 values that she identifies for each. At the end of the book, she cautions that when you mix these values, you have what she calls a “dangerous hybrid.” Why doesn’t Apple, the largest company in the world, have it’s own army? It could certainly afford it. It would be able to enforce IP infringement. IT could throw people in jail if they violate their IP. But we would never allow it, because it would put other companies at a huge disadvantage. Plus, there is no accountability to the people or the country.
The Mafia is a great example of a dangerous hybrid. They engage in commerce and business, but they also have their own “code” and they enforce it. Violate that code, and you will have your knees capped.Dictatorships are the same thing and Russia and China prove that when you mix commerce and government, you have restricted rights of people and plenty of censorship. Corruption arises when you have people in authority engaging in commerce. A judge or policeman taking a bribe — that’s the definition of corruption. But paying the same amount of money to a lawyer to argue on your behalf, or a lobbyist is perfectly legal.
So that last thing we would ever want to do is to mix commerce with government or military. IT would lead us to rampant corruption at first, and eventually to much worse.

简 · 雅各布为每个系统标识了大约15个值。在书的最后，她警告说，当你混合这些值时，你就会得到了她所说的“ 危险的混合体 ”。
为什么世界上最大的公司苹果公司没有自己的军队呢？它当然能负担得起，它将能够强制执行侵犯知识产权的行为，如果有人侵犯了他们的知识产权就会被关进监狱，但我们绝不会允许这样做，因为这会使其他公司处于极大的劣势，此外，它不存在对人民或国家负责的问题。

黑手党是“ 危险的混合体 ”的一个很好的例子。他们从事商业活动，但他们也有自己的“守则”，并加以执行，违反规则，你就会受到惩罚。
独裁统治也是一样的，俄罗斯和中国证明，当你把商业和政府混为一谈时，人民的权利受到限制，审查制度会很多。当有当权者从事商业活动时，腐败就产生了。法官或警察受贿——这就是腐败的定义，但是付同样多的钱给代表你辩护的律师，或者说客是完全合法的。
所以，我们最不愿意做的事情就是将商业与政府或军队混合在一起，它会让我们一开始就腐败猖獗，最终会变得更糟。

This is why Trump is so dangerous. He owns a hotel in Washington and Mara lago in Florida, bout of which are businesses. People who want to curry favor with him engage in commerce to enrich Donald Trump, and then he can dole out favors to those who enrich him. There is no accountability. One of the values of government is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety because it undermines the public trust in their leaders. Trump not only doesn’t care about the appearance of impropriety, he celebrates it. He began his recent speech at the UN was an advertisement for his properties. Eventually, the public will just assume that the corruption is rampant, and it will of course rise to that level unless it is stopped soon.
The fun part (for me at least) was that it proves how and why government is so inefficient. People always complain about government expenses and how slow it is. It has always been that way, everywhere, and that’s a good thing. You really don’t want an efficient government — Nazi Germany was actually quite efficient in many ways. Not a good thing.

这就是为什么特朗普如此危险。他在华盛顿拥有一家酒店，在佛罗里达州拥有玛拉·拉戈(MaraLago)酒店，这都属于商业活动。那些想要讨好他的人会参与到商业活动中来丰富唐纳德特朗普，然后他就可以把恩惠施舍给那些让他富有的人，这里没有问责出现。
政府的价值观之一是避免出现不当行为，因为这会破坏公众对其领导人的信任。特朗普不仅不关心不正当行为的表现，他还对此表示赞许。他最近在联合国的演讲是对他财产的宣传。最终，公众会认为腐败是猖獗的，而且它当然会上升到那个水平，除非它很快就会停止。
有趣的是 ( 至少对我来说 )它证明了为什么政府效率如此低下。人们总是抱怨政府开支，以及它的效率有多低，一直都是这样，到处都有，这是件好事，你不会太想要一个非常有效率的政府的——纳粹德国实际上在很多方面都很有效率，但这不是件好事。

————————4————————

Fekri Al Kilani, A green eyed Arab
Answered Jan 8
I’ll give a few of real example in my country who adopted the motto “government should run like businesses”
Scenario 1:
You are driving you car at Night suddenly stopped by a police officer
Police Officer: you licence and registrations, please
You: here it is
Police Officer’s checks your papers
Police Officer: Are you wearing s seat-belt
You: Yes sir
Police Officer starts to check your car, until he discovers something.
Police Officer: you shaded your car widow.
You: Yes sir, the laws says you can shade your car under %30 , which I did it is %20.
Police Officer: it doesn’t look %20 to me, it is over %30.
You: say’s who
Police Officer: Say’s me, I am a professional and I know by look at it.
After useless argument you accepted the ticket and drove away.
Police Officer: thank god for this bozo, I was one ticket away from avoiding pay cut.

费克里亚尔，（一个绿眼的阿拉伯人）：
我举几个我们国家的实例，他们的座右铭是“政府应该像企业一样运作”。

情景1：
你在夜间开车突然被一名警察拦住。
警察：请出示执照和登记证。
你：给你。
警察检查你的证件。
警察：你系上安全带了吗？
你：是的，长官。
警察开始检查你的车，直到他发现了什么。
警察：你遮挡了你的汽窗。
你：是的，长官，法律规定我可以把我的车遮挡在30%以下，我只遮挡了20% 。
警察：在我看来不是20%，已经超过30%了。
你：谁说的。
警察：我说的，我是个专业人士，我一看就知道。
经过一番无谓的争论，你接受了罚单，开车走了。
警察：谢天谢地，多亏了这个傻子，我只差一张罚单就可以避免减薪了。

Scenario 2:
A well known Japanese car manufacturer after decade of research found your country is the best place to have their new plant. the government assign their “brightest” economist who studied in ivy league schools.
Recommendations:
“since the government 1.2 billion dollar annually from imported car tariff, one the car plant operates the income from tariff will drop %60. therefore we recommend not to open any car plant ever”

情景2：
经过10年的研究，一家日本知名汽车制造商发现，你的国家是建立新工厂的最佳地点，政府指派了他们在常春藤盟校就读的“最聪明”的经济学家给意见。
他的建议：
“由于政府每年从进口汽车关税中获得12亿美元的收入，开设一家汽车工厂会使关税收入下降60%，因此，我们建议永远不要开办任何汽车工厂。”

Scenario 3:
You are going to pay the government a bill, you are looking for a space to park , you found went inside the building and went out only to find a police officer issuing a parking ticket.
You: Whats wrong officer?
Police Officer: it is no parking zone
You: WTF! I where should park!?, there aren’t any F**king parking space expect for those space and it NO parking zone! and there isn’t any “no parking” sign either!
Police Officer : It is not my Problem
You: It Is not my problem that a governmental office visited by thousands daily and there is on single F**king parking space!
Police Officer: I don’t make the rules
and you drove away cursing the government
later in the city council
Bureaucrat: Sir, many citizen complained lack of parking spaces, especially near government offices
Senior Bureaucrat: forget about it, it cost a lot of money, besides, do you want to cut the revenue stream from the parking ticket?! You are disgrace to the civil service.

情景3：
你要支付一张政府罚单，你要找一个停车的地方，你找到了然后进了政府大楼，出去却发现一名警察开了一张停车罚单。
你：怎么了，警官？
警察：这里不是停车区。
你：喔！我应该把车停在哪里！？这TM没有任何停车位，也没有停车区！也没有任何“禁止停车”的标志！
警察：这不是我的问题。
你：这不是我的问题？一个政府办公室每天都有成千上万的人访问，却连个停车位都没有！
警察：规则不是我定的。
你驱车离开，诅咒政府。
之后在市议会，
官僚：长官，很多市民投诉泊车位不足，特别是在政府办事处附近。
高级官僚：算了吧，这要花很多钱，而且，你怕是还想减少停车罚单的收入？！你真是公务员的耻辱。

If a government sole focus is to get money:
Instead of developing the infrastructure, the effort will shift to deteriorate it.
Taxes, services fees will constantly rise without any improvement of the quality of services
Many restriction on businesses just to extort more money from them
government spend less on capital projects thought it could improve the economy on the longer run
Put itself in a corner, poor infrastructure, paying 200+ fees in addition to taxes without services in return forces everyone to close their business and do else, in addition of huge amount of tax evasion. which result much more less income from taxes not more.
The economy will eventually collapse

如果政府的唯一目标是赚钱：
· 而不是发展基础设施，这种努力将会使其邪恶化。
· 税收、服务费将在服务质量没有任何改善的情况下不断上涨。
· 许多对企业的限制仅仅是为了从他们那里勒索更多的钱。
· 政府在基础设施项目上的开支减少，认为长远来说可改善经济。
· 使自己陷入困境，基础设施差，除了没有服务的税收之外还要支付200多项费用，这迫使每个人关闭自己的业     务去做其他事情，此外还有大量的逃税行为，导致税收收入少得多，而不是更多。
· 经济最终会崩溃。
    
————————5———————— 
    
Colin MacWhirter, political animal
Answered Jan 9 
There are a lot of excellent practical reasons that people have outlined, but the most profound reason why governments shouldn’t be run like businesses is political. Businesses are not democracies; in fact, they are a form of tyranny. In nearly all businesses, employees have no input into how a company should run, what its profits should be used for, what it produces, who works there, etc. Most critically, employees play no meaningful role in the very decisions that most affect their own lives. This is the key reason why unions were created, to provide some leverage for employees to gain some control over the policies that are most pertinent to them. But notice that even with the support of unions, employees are excluded from corporate decision-making, only (if the union is truly representative and powerful) having some capacity to negotiate ‘from outside’ the company.
By contrast, democratic governments at least provide some level of public participation in policy-making and are obligated to represent the population. We understand that in practice such participation and political representation is pretty minimal, but it is still considerably more than in a business, where there isn’t even a notion of token representation. Furthermore, democratic governments are far more open to change from public pressure, often bending to the will of the people if public organisation and mobilisation is sufficient.
Governments that run like businesses have existed – Fascism is sometimes referred to as the ‘corporate model’, and it’s clear that fascist states have operated in many ways as corporations do. It’s noteworthy that many corporations now operate much like governments, with their own foreign policy divisions, for example, and even their own armies. But they don’t operate like democratic governments, except in rare cases of worker-controlled operations, co-operatives, and such.

大家提出了很多精彩的实际原因，但政府不应该像企业一样运作最深刻的原因是政治。企业不是民主国家，事实上，它们是暴政的一种形式。在几乎所有的企业中，员工对公司应该如何运作、利润应该用于什么、生产什么、在哪里里工作等等都没有任何发言权。最关键的是，员工在最影响他们自己生活的决策中并没有扮演有意义的角色，这是建立工会的关键原因，为雇员提供一些杠杆，使他们能够控制与他们最相关的政策。但请注意，即使在工会的支持下，雇员也被排除在公司决策之外，只有 ( 如果工会真正具有代表性和权力 ) 部分“ 从公司外部”进行谈判的权力。

相比之下，民主政府至少提供了一定程度的公众参与决策，并有义务代表人民。我们知道，在实践中，这样的参与和政治代表是相当少的，但它仍然没有一个企业那么严重，那里甚至连一个象征性代表的概念都没有。此外，民主政府对来自公众压力更加开放，如果公共组织和动员足够充分，政府往往会屈从于人民的意愿。

像企业一样运作的政府已经存在——法西斯主义有时被称为“企业模式”，很明显，法西斯国家在许多方面都像企业一样运作。值得注意的是，许多公司现在的运作方式很像政府，有自己的外交政策部门，甚至有自己的军队，但他们并不像民主政府那样运作，除非是罕见的工人控制的企业、合作社等等。

————————6———————— 

Mike Ohara
Mike Ohara, I have opinions that I will share free of charge.
Answered Sep 27, 2017
Flint, MI is a good argument against running a government like a business.
You may have heard the Flint suffers from a water crisis. That is, the water going into Flint homes is poisoned with lead. How did that happen? Hit the link above for a full description. Here, I will answer your question.
Gov. Rick Snyder was a successful businessman prior to election. He ran with a pledge to run government “like a business”. Indeed, he did. Many people have the mistaken belief that business is more efficient because it delivers goods and services at the lowest possible price. (Actually, business seeks to deliver goods and services at the highest possible price. It seeks the lowest possible cost so that it can realize the highest possible profit.) As government has no profit motive, the thinking goes that citizens will realize the benefit from lower prices for required services.
Here’s the problem. Life is not perfect. Failure is going to happen. Suppose you manufacture widgets. Your engineers tell you that the way you manufacture the widgets will result in 5% failure and that, as a result, some people will die. You investigate and learn that that reducing or eliminating failure will require that you raise prices resulting in loss of some market share. An alternative is to budget for your existing failure rate and simply pay off the survivors of those people who died. The rational capitalist will simply choose the second option. That is the way a businessman thinks. Failure is an option as long as it is properly accounted for and doesn’t cost you market share.
Government doesn’t work that way. When you are supplying drinking water, failure is not an option. That is not to say Gov. Snyder and his merry men knew they would poison Flint’s children. It is to say that they didn’t bother to find out why the water supply was from a safe source and what the downside might be to switching to a lower cost alternative.

（美国）“弗林特水危机”就是反对像企业一样运作政府一个很好的论据。
你可能听说过弗林特河正面临水危机，流进弗林特家庭的水被铅污染了。是怎么发生的？点击上面的链接获得完整的描述。这里，我回答一下你的问题。

州长里克·斯奈德(RickSnyder)在选举前是一位成功的商人。他承诺要“像企业一样”管理政府。的确，他做到了。许多人错误地认为，商业之所以更有效率，是因为它以尽可能低的价格提供商品和服务，(实际上，企业寻求以尽可能高的价格提供货物和服务，它寻求尽可能低的成本，以实现尽可能高的利润。)，由于政府没有盈利动机，人们的想法是，公民将从所需服务的较低价格中获得好处。

问题就在这里，生活是不完美的，失败常有发生。假设您生产小部件，你的工程师告诉你，你制造小部件的方式会有5%的几率失败，其结果会导致一些人死亡，你调查并了解一番，发现如果减少或消除失败，你必须提高价格，这会导致一些市场份额的损失；另一种选择是，为你现有的失败率做出预算，直接补偿那些死去的人的家属。理性的资本家只会选择第二种，商人就是这么想的，失败是一种选择，只要它有适当的解释，并且不损失你的市场份额。

政府不是这样运作的，当你在供应饮用水时，失败不能成为一种选择。这并不是说州长斯奈德和他的小伙伴知道他们会毒害弗林特的孩子，而是说，他们没有费心去思考为什么水供应是必须是安全的，以及转向更低成本替代方案的缺点。

————————7———————— 

Stefan Osborne, Watched the Yates hearings compulsively
Answered Nov 16
In businesses, you can fire people at will, and that’s fine, because the primary driving force of business is generating profit, and if an employee doesn’t generate as much profit as his or her replacement it’s totally acceptable and socially necessary to fire them.
The primary driving force in the government is to serve constituencies. A lot of jobs in the government are political appointments and if these people do a lousy job serving constituents it’s fine to fire them.
But there are other constituency services provided by the government where allowing a politician to fire them for political purposes is a bad idea. For example, a judge in charge of adjudicating corruption cases. If a politician being investigated can fire the judge investigating him, how are we supposed to fight corruption?

在企业中，你可以随意解雇员工，这很好，因为企业的主要驱动力是创造利润，如果一名员工不能产生像他或她的继任者那样多的利润，解雇他们是完全可以接受的，也是社会所必须的。

政府的主要推动力是为选民服务。政府中的许多工作都是政治任命，如果这些人在为选民服务方面做得很糟糕，解雇他们也没什么大不了的。
但在政府提供的其他选区服务中，允许政客出于政治目的解雇他们是个坏主意，例如，负责审理腐败案件的法官，如果一个被调查的政客可以解雇调查他的法官，我们该如何打击腐败？

Another example is analysts providing budget scores on proposed legislation. How are they supposed to function if they can be fired by congress people who don’t like the answer?
There’s a lot of analytical positions in the government that would not function well in an “employment at will” regime. As an economist, I wouldn’t even bother applying for a position where “wrong” answers (that is, economically correct but politically wrong) get you fired. Economic advice is rarely welcome, particularly in the government.
The reason why government appears to be inefficient is that the large majority of government jobs have protections built in, to protect people from being fired for political purposes, that also makes it next to impossible to fire people for being incompetent.
As technology advances it has become more possible to separate out politically sensitive tasks from ones that can be contracted out to the private sector, which helps a little (although you still get contracting problems). But most of the core services provided by the government are politically sensitive, so need protection from political whim.

另一个例子是分析人士就拟议中的立法提供预算评分。如果他们能被不喜欢这个答案的国会议员解雇，他们该如何运作呢？
政府中有很多分析性的职位，在“随意就业”的体制下不会很好地发挥作用。作为一名经济学家，我不会去申请一个给出“错误”答案 ( 即经济正确但政治错误 )就会让你被炒鱿鱼的职位，经济建议很少受到欢迎，尤其是在政府内部。

政府效率低下的原因在于，政府的大部分工作岗位都有内置的保护措施，以保护人们不因政治目的而被解雇，这也使得几乎不可能解雇那些不称职的人。
随着技术的进步，将政治敏感的任务与可外包给私营部门的任务分开的可能性越来越大，这对解决一些问题有一定的帮助( 尽管你仍然会遇到签约问题 )，但政府提供的大部分核心服务在政治上是敏感的，因此需要保护自己不受政治冲动的影响。

————————8———————— 

Anonymous
Answered Sep 26, 2017 
I must go anonymous for this, because if my views were public (though I am quite open with coworkers), it could jeopardize my job.
I am a nurse, and male, as it happens. I went back to college and became a nurse at the age of 38 because I wanted to do work which was fulfilling. Inspired by some volunteer work I did during college, I work with disabled and elderly people in a residential setting, in a state funded hospital. For whatever reason, my residents’ families are unwilling or unable to provide 24/7 care for their own family members. Do not judge families badly just because they have their own lives to live and their own children to raise, and not able to deal with the needs of their 90 year old mother with dementia who wanders and falls. I have had over ten jobs since high school, and being a nurse is my favorite job. In some cases, we are literally keeping people alive, because for example, they are unable to feed themselves, indeed, have no awareness of being hungry or thirsty due to dementia. Our priority is keeping our residents safe. Each day I feel like I am being of service to these people and their families. I am proud of what I do.
I have a bachelor’s degree in business, but in fact have never worked in business. My disillusionment with my major started in the beginning, when we were taught that the goal of the organization is maximization of stakeholder value. In the case of a for profit organization, that means make money. (This was during Reagan’s 1980s, if at all relevant.) Not fill a need and customers will find you, not serve your customers well and you will be rewarded; MAKE MONEY. Yes, I was also required to study business law and ethics, and that even in cultures where corruption is rampant, we are not to offer or accept bribes, but we were taught it was about the money. It does not surprise me that some businesses operate unscrupulously to make money, as long as they operate according to the law or in grey areas. I graduated in business, because I was already taking too long in university.

这题我必须匿，因为如果我的观点被公开 ( 尽管我对同事相当开放 )，可能会危及我的工作。
我是一名护士，而且是男性。我回到大学，在38岁的时候成为了一名护士，因为我想做一份有成就感的工作。受大学期间一些志愿者工作的启发，我在一家公立医院为残疾人和老年人提供护理服务。无论出于何种原因，我的服务对象的家庭都不愿意或无法为他们自己的家庭成员提供全天候的照顾，不能仅仅因为他们有自己的生活，有自己的孩子要抚养，就对他们做出不好的评价，因为他们不能满足90岁的患有痴呆症，四处游走，跌跌撞撞的母亲的需要。
从高中开始，我一共经历了十多份工作，当护士是我最喜欢的工作。在某些情况下，我们实际上是在维持人们的生命，因为他们无法独自生存，事实上，他们由于痴呆症都意识不到饥饿或口渴，我们的首要任务是保证病人的安全，每天我都觉得我在为这些人和他们的家人服务，我为我所做的感到骄傲。

我有商科学士学位，但实际上从未在企业工作过。我对专业的幻想破灭始于一开始，当时我们被教导组织的目标是利益相关者的价值最大化，对盈利性组织来说，这意味着赚钱。不满足需求，顾客就会找到你；不好好服务你的顾客，你就不会得到回报，这就是赚钱，我还被要求学习商法和伦理，而且即使在腐败猖獗的文化中，我们也不能行贿或受贿，但我们学到的都是关于钱的，我不奇怪有些企业为了赚钱而肆无忌惮地经营，只要它们是依法经营或处于灰色地带，我是商科毕业的，这些我上大学的时间已经学的够多了。

Yes, I have a family to feed and bills to pay, but my life is not about making (more) money. I drive a 22 year old SUV, can’t afford to ever buy a home, don’t have retirement savings, and my children need scholarships to attend university, but we aren’t hungry. After university, I became a teacher because I wanted to help build the future, but it didn’t work out, because it seemed some people weren’t about learning. Also, my last teaching job was working for a for profit - it was about making money, not students learning. I remembered my pleasant experience working with the elderly, and went into nursing to work with the elderly.
More to the point - so I am a nurse providing care to elderly and disabled people on the taxpayers’ dime. I wouldn’t have it any other way. I live in a small community - an island, in fact. The other choice if you do not come to my main hospital for emergencies, or to perform your surgery or deliver your children, is to go to the large private hospital on the other side of the island. Of course I know that hospital. I am a customer of that hospital, though I work in the other. I did my nursing school practical clinicals in that hospital. During my studies, I witnessed such things as nurse managers sarcastically going around clapping their hands and saying “Come on, fill those beds!” because of course, empty beds do not pay the bills.

是的，我有一个家庭要养活，还有账单要付，但我的生活不是为了赚钱。我开的是一辆22岁的SUV，买不起房子，没有退休储蓄金，我的孩子需要奖学金才能上大学，但我们并没有饿肚子。大学毕业后，我成为了一名教师，因为我想帮助学生建设未来，但它没有实现，因为似乎有些人就不是为了学习来上学的。但我上一份教书的工作是为了赚钱----没错，就是为了赚钱，而不是为了学生的学习，我想起了一些和老人一起工作的愉快经历，于是我开始从事护理工作。

更重要的是，我是一名护士，用纳税人的钱为老年人和残疾人提供护理，我住在一个小社区--实际上是一个小岛，如果你不是来我待的这家医院急诊，或做手术或分娩，那你可以就去岛上另一边的大型私人医院，我当然认识那家医院，我是那家医院的顾客，尽管我在另一家医院工作，而且我在那家医院做了护士学校的实习医生，在我的学习过程中，我亲眼目睹了护士经理们讽刺地拍手说：“来吧，把这些病床填满！”因为空荡荡的病床显然赚不到钱。

What were the nurses supposed to do to “fill those beds” and make the private hospital money? Go out and injure people or make more people sick? Encourage people to have more unneeded elective surgical procedures? Tell patients to ask their doctor if Cialis is right for them?
During my studies in that hospital, I met a nurse manager whose job it was to go through patient charts and decide who would be discharged because they weren’t making the hospital enough money. Not because they were recovered (though stable). Not because they were ready. Because they were not making the hospital enough money. I know because I asked her why. What about families who are not ready to care for their family member at home and their continuing needs (e.g., wound care, assistance to the bathroom or bathing), I asked. (In nursing school, we are taught about respite care - sometimes caregivers need a break.) They can stay for a thousand dollars a day, she said, this isn’t a hotel.

护士们该怎么做才能“填满那些病床”并让私人医院赚到钱呢？出去伤害别人还是让更多人生病？鼓励人们进行更多不必要的选择性手术？告诉病人去问他们的医生西力士（又名犀利士，壮阳药）是否适合他们？

在那家医院学习期间，我遇到了一位护士经理，她的工作是检查病人的病历，并决定谁能出院，是否能出院取决于他们有没有让医院赚到足够的钱，而不是他们是否恢复了，我为什么我知道，因为我问过她，我问她，那些还没有准备好在家照顾家人的家庭，以及有后续需求( 比如伤口护理、上厕所或洗澡)的病人，又该怎么办？-----“ 他们可以继续待，一天一千美元 ”，她说，“ 这里不是旅馆 。”

Contrast this with my publicly funded hospital - we are bleeding millions of dollars a year (not my department - our beds are full, with a waiting list). Our priority is not making money like that other hospital. Our priority is providing care. Sometimes we are down to just one or two patients in our acute care beds. Once, there was an elderly woman living in our acute ward for about five months until a bed opened up in a nursing home elsewhere. Our acute ward routinely has elderly and disabled people living there for weeks until they find placement in a care home. Our labor and delivery, intensive care, and emergency departments are sometimes vacant. Our hospital eats that cost. What are we supposed to do, pray for people to fall ill or have accidents so we can make money?
In our long term care, I’ve provided care to residents who were jobless adults, drifters, drug addicts, those with unspecified psychiatric conditions, even the homeless. That private hospital would never let people like that stay despite being certifiably (by their doctor and Medicare/Medicaid) unable to live independently. I’ve provided care to people who’ve never done a day of paid work in their life, because they need help. What are they supposed to do, suffer at home or on the streets until they die? My department will care for someone for the rest of their life (our oldest lived till over 101, our longest lived with us at least 23 years), for the pittance Medicare/Medicaid pays us, and a cut of their Social Security check - say, $654 a month. Try to find someone else who will provide your special needs loved one with 24/7 care for a piece of their disability or Social Security check - no money out of your pocket, if your elderly parent was living alone. Home health goes for a minimum $20 an hour under the table, and a private care home (no Medicare) will take say $6k a month, cash. Or will you sacrifice your job and risk your emotional well-being to provide 24/7 end of life care to your special needs loved one?

与我所在的公立医院相比---我们每年损失数百万美元( 不是我的部门--我们的病床都满了，还有一张等候名单)，我们的首要任务不是像其他医院那样赚钱，我们的首要任务是提供护理。有时候，我们只有一两个病人躺在急诊室的病床上，有一次，有一位老妇人住在了我们的急症室，住了大约5个月，直到另一间护理院的病床开放才离开，我们的急诊室经常有老人和残疾人住在那里几个星期，直到他们找到安置和护理的地方。我们的分娩房，特别护理房和急诊室有时是空的，我们的医院承担了这笔费用，我们应该做什么？祈祷人们生病或发生意外，这样我们才能赚钱？

在我们的长期护理中，我为那些没有工作的成年人、流浪者、吸毒者、那些患有不明精神疾病的人，甚至是无家可归的人提供了护理。那家私立医院永远不会让这样的人住下去，尽管他们的医生和医疗保险/医疗补助证明他们无法独立生活，我为那些一生中从未做过一天有偿工作的人提供服务，因为他们需要帮助，他们能怎么办？让他们在家里或街上受苦直到他们死去？我的部门会照顾一个人的余生( 我们这里最年长的病人活到101岁以上，时间最长的和我们在一起至少23年 )，只有医疗保险/医疗补助支付给我们的微薄费用，以及他们社会保障支票的一部分，比如说，每月654美元。
还有哪里可以找一个能为你的特殊需要提供24/7照顾的人--如果你年迈的父母是独居的话，甚至不要从你的口袋里掏出钱来。现在家庭医疗费用最低为每小时20美元，而一家私人疗养院 ( 没有医疗保险 ) 每月至少需要6，000美元现金，或者你自己照顾，你会牺牲你的工作，冒着感情上的风险，为你所爱的人提供24/7的临终关怀吗？

Be glad that public funded hospitals exist, not just private ones like our rival who will turn patients out if they aren’t making money. Every other industrialized nation in the world other than the USA spends less per capita on health care (sometimes for nothing at point of care), with better results. I’ll gladly pay more in taxes, to be able to pay nothing after a heart attack, major surgery, or cancer treatment. I’ll gladly pay more in taxes, so the people in my community will not BECOME sick like they are now. Get that diabetes treated, so people do not go blind, go on dialysis or lose their legs, and require the help of others to live.

让人庆幸的是公立医院的存在，而不仅仅只有像我们竞争对手那样的私人医院，如果他们不赚钱，他们就会把病人赶出去。除了美国之外，世界上其他所有工业化国家在医疗保健方面的人均支出都较少( 有时在医疗保健方面是免费的 )，效果却更好。我很乐意交更多的税，因为在心脏病发作、大手术或癌症治疗之后，我什么都付不起；我很乐意交更多的税，这样我们社区的人就不会像现在这样生病了，能够接受糖尿病治疗，这样人们就不会失明、做透析或失去双腿，并需要他人的帮助才能生存。

————————9———————— 

Jeff Del Papa, Builder of strange machines.
Answered Sep 27, 2017
Businesses can choose not to serve markets where they can't make money. Government has to serve that market even at a loss.
An easy example: voting. The government has to make a ballot available to every registered voter. Even if it means providing a polling place that is 100 miles from nowhere, and only has 7 people registered. A business might say there have to be at least 500 people assigned to a polling place in order to staff it, so the 7 people have a long drive ahead of them,
And business wants government to take care of stuff for them, for example, package delivery services. Instead of delivering to low volume, very rural areas, when they have a package going to such a destination, they transfer it to the US postal service for delivery. The postage which is a uniform rate nationally, is far cheaper than their (and the postal services) cost to deliver to such an address. A business gets to keep the profitable jobs, and externalize the ones that would result in a loss. If they didn't have this available, they would either just not take that business, or price it at a level that they could yield a profit. Sending a letter to Alaska? Is it going to Anchorage? No? That will be $40 postage please.

企业可以选择不为无法赚钱的市场服务，政府不得不在亏本的情况下为市场服务。
举个简单的例子：投票 。政府必须向每一位登记选民提供一张选票，即使这意味着提供一个100英里外的投票站，而这个投票站只有7人登记。一家企业可能会说，至少要有500人被分配到一个投票站才能为其配备工作人员，所以这7个得走很远才行。

企业希望政府为他们提供服务，比如包裹递送服务，他们不会把包裹送到小批量的、非常偏远的地区，当他们有包裹要送到这样的目的地时，他们会把包裹转到美国邮政服务机构投递，邮政服务机构在全国范围内，邮费是统一的，这比他们投递的费用要便宜得多。企业可以保留有利可图的工作，并将可能导致亏损的工作外化，如果不外化，他们要么不接受这个业务，要么把它的价格定在一个可以盈利的水平，你要寄封信到阿拉斯加，到安克雷奇？没问题，请给我四十美元的邮资。

————————10———————— 

Mitch Day
Answered Sep 29, 2017
The biggest concern of government is fairness and the biggest concern of business is efficiency.
Government and business require very different viewpoints. Business might be able to learn from good government and government can learn certain lessons from business.
Success in business does not necessarily qualify a person for government service. There is one simple reason. Businesses can dump their problems on someone else. Have an underperforming division? Close it. Have a chronically lackluster employee? Fire them.
Government, at least according to the ideals of the US Constitution and the guiding ideals of most other democracies, cannot dispose of their problems. Faced with a state that is wracked with poverty and social ills? Government can’t just write off the people living there.
Businesses can pick and choose their markets and write off losses. Governments must deal with all of their citizens needs and demands. This is a key difference and one you should consider when deciding if a candidates business experience is a positive asset.

政府最关心的是公平，而企业最关心的是效率。
政府和企业需要截然不同的观念，企业可以向优秀的政府学习，政府也可以从企业吸取教训。
商业上的成功不一定使一个人有资格担任政府公职。原因很简单。企业可以把他们的问题转嫁到别人身上，有一个表现不佳的部门？关了它，有个长期萎靡不振的员工？炒了他。

政府，至少根据美国宪法的理想和大多数其他民主国家的指导思想，不能处理他们的问题。但如果是一个饱受贫穷和社会弊病折磨的国家呢？政府不能把住在那里的人一笔勾销。
企业可以选择自己的市场并冲销损失，各国政府则必须满足其所有公民的需要和要求，这是一个关键的区别，当你决定候选人的商业经验是否是一种积极的效应时，你应该考虑到这一点。

————————11———————— 

Anna Canaux
Answered Jan 2
The process of governing a country has absolutely NOTHING to do with running a business. It’s Where on Earth did that idea come from?
It makes about as much sense as saying a hospital should be run like …. a casino, or a fishing boat or (or other random variable). A business exists to make as much money as possible for the people that own it. That is its only function and reason for being. Governing a country is far, far more complex and involves just about every aspect of human existence.
A lot of people who believe that a ‘good’ government doesn’t spend too much money on running the country because that would be ‘bad’ and wasteful and must keep our piggy-banks full (‘can’t spend money that we don’t have’, etc.) are stuck in an early 19th century paradigm which is kept alive because it suits the wealthy and the powerful to do. A few simplistic ideas about capitalism and economics are as effective for keeping everyone in line as religion used to be in the Middle Ages. In fact, all these systems are completely artificial and man-made and continue only because we submit to them and we are all scared. In fact, we have created a system with huge powerful corporations are sucking up everything - every last bit of ‘property’, every last tree in every last forest, every drop in the ocean - will be ‘owned’.
… To go back to governing a country, that is about creating a just, honest and peaceful way for people to live in harmony together and flourish. Very few people are up to the job. And a businessman with his eye fixed on profit is about the last person who would be any good at it

治理一个国家的过程与经营一个企业毫无关系。认为应该像运作企业一样运作政府，这样的想法到底是从哪里来的?

这就像说医院应该像……赌场、渔船 ( 或其他随机变量 )，企业的存在是为了给拥有它的人尽可能多的赚钱，这是它唯一的功能和存在的理由，治理一个国家要复杂得多，涉及到人类存在的方方面面。

很多人认为“好的”政府不会花太多钱在治理国家上，因为那样做是“坏的”，是浪费，而且必须让我们的储蓄罐满满的(“不能花我们没有的钱”)，完全被困在19世纪早期的范例中，因为它适合富人和有权有势的人，关于资本主义和经济的一些简单的观点，就像中世纪的宗教一样，试图让每个人都保持一致，事实上，所有这些系统都是完全人工的和人造的，并且仅仅因为我们服从它们而继续存在，我们都很害怕。事实上，我们已经建立了一个系统，它拥有强大的公司，它正在吞噬一切，一切都将被“拥有”。

说回治理国家，治理国家就是要创造一个公正、诚实、和平的环境，让人们和谐地生活在一起，繁荣昌盛，很少有人能胜任这项工作，一个眼睛只盯着利润的商人大概是最不擅长这个的人。

————————12———————— 

Christian Winter, interested in politics for 20 years, member of the Pirate Party
Answered Sep 27, 2017
Not even businesses should be run like businesses usually are. The typical business has one central goal: to maximize the profit of the shareholders. Everything else is completely secondary. That completely ignores the needs of customers, employees and nature. As long as customers have alternatives and can make a reasonable decision, they can boycott products that ignore their needs, that’s why businesses notoriously try to deny customers alternatives, e.g. by creating monopolies or making price agreements with their “competitors”, and withhold information the customer needs to make a reasonable decision. Employees need their job to earn a living and employers can widely dictate the job conditions, because again they make agreement with ther competitors. And nature simply is exploited to the edge of destruction.
But if you wanted to run government like a business, you would have to map the roles in businesses to the roles in government? Who are the shareholders? Who is the employer? Who are the employees? Who are the customers? A government as a business like Trump probably thinks of would have him as the almighty CEO and only shareholder and employer, the government employees as the employees and his and only his voters as the customers. Which means he will primarily make policies for his own profit, secondarily for his voters’ profit, exploiting everybody else. In other words: a dictatorship. Does this seem like a desirable approach?

即使是企业也不应该像通常的企业那样运作。典型的企业有一个中心目标：使股东的利润最大化，其它的都是次要的，这完全无视客户、员工和大自然的需求。只要顾客有其他选择，并且能够做出合理的决定，他们就可以抵制忽视他们需求的产品，这就是为什么企业以拒绝顾客的选择而闻名，例如通过建立垄断或与他们的“竞争者”达成价格协议，并隐瞒顾客做出合理决定所需的信息，而员工需要他们的工作来谋生，雇主可以广泛地规定工作条件，因为他们会再次与其他竞争者达成协议，而大自然则被利用到了毁灭的边缘。

但是，如果你想像一个企业一样管理政府，你就必须将企业中的角色映射到政府中的角色，谁是股东？雇主是谁？员工是谁？顾客是谁？像特朗普这样的政府，很可能会认为他是全能的CEO，只有股东和雇主，政府雇员是员员，只有他的选民才是顾客，这意味着他制定政策主要是为了自己的利益，其次是支持他的选民的利益，并剥削其他所有人，换句话说，就是独裁，这像是一种可取的做法吗？

————————13———————— 

Zee Hamid, Town Councillor. Public Speaker. Father. Techy. Traveller
Updated Sep 27, 2017
You are a business person.
Your son tells you his school needs a football field.
You look at the numbers and realize that there's no real business model for it. You don't build it.
Your son goes to the local government.
They look at the number of potential users of the facility and determine that there is, in fact, a need for it.
They go and build it.
You tell the government you're a businessman and can sell ice cream in a playground, making money and paying rental fees.
The government holds a public input session and the public decides they don't want retail activities in playgrounds.
Government does not sell ice cream on playgrounds, even though it would’ve made a profit.
Government is people appointing their representatives so they have a say over what type of society they want.
Businesses make money. Governments provide services where a business model to make money doesn't, or shouldn't, exist.
Governments are not businesses.

（这条答案获赞8.6K，仅次于第2条答案（9.9K））
你是个商人。
你儿子告诉你他的学校需要一个足球场。
你看着手上的数字，觉得无利可图，你没有去建。
你儿子去了当地政府。
他们审查了设施的潜在用户数量，并确定实际上有必要这样做。
他们去建造它。
你告诉政府，你是个商人，可以在球场上卖冰淇淋，赚钱，付租金。
政府举行公开会议，公众做出决定，他们不希望球场上有人卖东西。
政府不会在球场上卖冰淇淋，即使它本来可以盈利。
政府是人民任命的代表，所以他们有发言权，什么类型的社会才是他们想要的。
企业赚钱，政府提供服务，在这种服务中，赚钱的商业模式不存在，也不应该存在。
政府不是企业。

————————14———————— 

Dallas McKay, worked at U.S. Army
Answered Jan 1
I was a soldier, still am in my mind, and I know you can't run an Army like a business. Goals are different. Restrictions and constraints are different. So, because of these fundamental differences, it just can't be done.
But that doesn't mean you can't borrow and adapt. That doesn't mean understanding how to run a business isn't of value or that there is zero crossover of skills. When you're dealing with money, knowing how businesses work is of enormous value. Negotiating skills, efficiency and value, risk management, cost and benefit predictive analysis and a host of other techniques, tactics and practices are valuable to the politician, bureaucrat and civil servant.
You can't run a government like a business. You can't run an Army like a government. You can't run a farm like a factory. You can't run factory like a restaurant. But none are exclusive in their own right. Those in government, however, are best served and best serve when they have a little understanding about business. The challenge is to know when to adopt,modify of disregard methods to government.

我曾经是一名士兵，在我心里现在仍然是，我所知道的是，你不能像经营企业一样管理军队，因为目标是不同的，限制和约束是不同的，由于这些根本的差异，这是不可能做到的。

但这并不意味着你不能借用和适应。这并不意味着了解如何经营一家企业是没有价值的，也不意味着技能不可以交汇。当你与金钱打交道时，了解企业的运作方式是非常有价值的。谈判技巧、效率和价值、风险管理、成本和效益预测分析以及许多其他技巧、策略和做法对政治家、官员和公务员都很有价值。

你不能像企业一样管理政府。
你不能像政府一样管理军队。
你不能像工厂一样经营农场。
你不能像餐馆一样经营工厂。
但没有一种是独占的，那些在政府中的人，当他们对商业有一点了解的时候，我们才能得到最好的服务，政府面临的挑战是要知道何时采用、修改、忽略这些方法。

————————15———————— 

Marcus Lester, Carpenter in Oregon, experience starts when you begin.
Answered Jan 1
Several answers have focused on the profitability of business and how that would affect government operations.
Consider also how a business is run. The customers of any business, have no say in the operations or even the product or service of a business. Oh, business “theory” says the customer is king, but it is a lie. A board, a partnership, or a proprietor makes all the fundamental business and operational decisions.
You will no longer elect your city council or senators. The business leaders will decide what is best for the business. Government would become the kind of despotic organization that corporations are, and against which the American Revolution was waged.
If you really want to see what “government run like a business” looks like, then look at the Fascists of Germany in the 1930’s. Come to think of it, look at the changes the Trump administration is making.

有几个答案集中探讨了企业的盈利能力以及这将如何影响政府的运作。
还要考虑的是，企业是如何运作的。任何企业的客户（顾客），在企业的经营活动中、在产品或服务方面都没有发言权，商业“理论”说顾客是上帝，但这是一个谎言，董事会、合伙人或经营者基本作出了所有的业务和经营决策。

你将不能再选举议会或参议员，商业领袖将决定什么是对企业最好的，政府将成为一种专制组织，就像公司一样，这也正是美国革命所反对的。

如果你真的想看看“ 政府像企业一样运作 ”的样子，那就看看1930年代的法西斯德国，现在想想看，看看特朗普政府正在做出的改变。

————————16———————— 

Harry Zitzelberger
Updated Jan 4
There is only one strong argument why certain government functions should not be run like business —- that the specific function is not something a business would or could do.
The extreme example of this would be making war — a horribly costly and inefficient process — that no business would undertake, there is no profit there. Not many other examples exist.
The problem with most government programs is that the are NOT run like businesses. No concern is given for waste, inefficiency, mismanagement or poor strategic goals. Often, government encourages waste, inefficiency, mismanagement.
There has never been, and will never be, a government program, no matter how businesslike, that will match the efficiency of the private sector businesses. But as long as they don’t run out of other peoples money, they will keep trying.

只有一个有力的论据能说明为什么某些政府职能不应该像企业那样运作——即特定的职能不是企业愿意或能够做的事情。
这方面的极端例子是发动战争——这是一个可怕的代价高昂和效率低下的过程——任何企业都不会参与，也没有利润可言，其他例子不多。

大多数政府项目的问题是，它们不像企业那样运作，政府不考虑浪费、效率低下、管理不善或战略目标不佳，通常情况下，政府鼓励浪费，效率低下，管理不善。
从来没有，也永远不会有一项政府计划会与私营企业的效率相匹配，无论多么务实，但只要他们不耗尽民众的钱，他们就会继续尝试。