General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn this time and age, it would be wise to stay away from CEO's as government leaders...
...in my humble opinion.
Look what we got with George W Bush, the first MBA to hold the office.
CEO's and businesses have too much power in our politics and in our government already. We should be wary of any "successful businessman" running for high office.
We need oversight of CEO's - we don't need more of them over-seeing the government.
We should have heeded the words of Jesse Jackson when he said, "Stay outta the Bushes!"
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)We need leaders with strong executive skills who are experienced and knowledgeable about the business world. We need them to use their knowledge and skills to get a better deal for American businesses in the world market and make the country more competitive. The leadership we've had over the past 20 years gave away the store and American workers are suffering because of it.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)I am generalizing on business in general, from Wall Street to big bankers to hedge fund managers to wealth robbers that enrich themselves at the expense of others. I don't see business leaders in a positive light, I would agree with that observation.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)A highly qualified individual that only looks out for the 1% would be bad. A person lacking executive experience and knowledge of the business world would be just as bad, maybe even worse.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Like a democracy. I've always been in favor of economic democracy after all.
catbyte
(34,338 posts)Businessmen as public servants is a HORRIBLE idea. Look at Michigan.
Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Leo, Sophie, Taz & Nigel, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"We ride inside--HISS!”
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)what we would call a successful CEO would ever translate to a better deal for Americans?
Success today means big profits to the shareholders and those big profits usually mean the exact opposite of what is good for Americans.
Making America more competitive always means lower wages, shit labor laws, and a complete disregard for the environment.
Almost all these folks are greedy crooks without loyalty to the people of our nation, look at the host of rotten fucks across the country that fit this mold, they are all ruinous, even the "good Democrats" like Corzine or the New York fascist Bloomberg.
The type is not molded and geared to help the "small people" but rather to squeeze us.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Some fit your description, to be sure. I personally know three CEO's that are honorable, principled men. I also know some that are scumbags. It depends on the person.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)This should be the Democrats response to the "cool" ad by the Repubs.
Is this the right time to put a CEO in charge of our government? Business does not have a good track record for the last few years. Their decisions have made America a poorer country while they have enriched themselves in the process.
Instead, we have to watch these stupid ads about the "celebrity President" that is too "cool" to be the leader of the free world...
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)...I don't think President Obama's track record is that good either. It might be best not to go there.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)Bush or Romney?
I have criticized this President on several occasions but not for what he has done but for what he did not do.
I think we should "go there". What do you see as Obama's track record?
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)However, I see no evidence that Mitt would be any better and he would likely be even worse especially on the economic front. CEOs make terrible public servants, because they serve no one but the shareholders.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)The president's job is to serve the whole country. That goes to character and integrity. The knowledge and executive skills are about qualifications. We need both.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)they believe the wealthiest are their shareholders and deserve all the taxbreaks they can get and all the profit they can make. Otherwise, they would not be CEO's. It speaks of their character and integrity, in my opinion.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Why do you think the investors put their money in it? It doesn't matter whether the shareholders are wealthy or not; they all expect management to act in their best interests. That usually means maximizing profits and a CEO is supposed to lead that effort. It doesn't play well on DU, but that is the way the business world is structured.
A principled person moving from a leadership position in private industry to a leadership position in government would recgnize that he has a different constituency and act in the best interests of his new constituency. A skilled executive that does that could be very effective as a government leader.
BTW, how many CEO's do you know? I've worked with 5 long enough to know them well. Three were talented, natural leaders that in my opinion, would be equally effective in the government (if they could be persuaded to go there). Those three all have integrity and politically, one was a liberal Democrat, one was a conservative Republican and the third a more moderate Republican. One CEO was a low life scumbag that I wouldn't trust for a minute. The last one was an empty suit that wasn't to be trusted either. One Democrat and one Republican there.
You really can't generalize. Some are good people; some aren't.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)...and he can't turn it off and on like a faucet. It would be like a leopard attempting to change its spots.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)They need to believe in what they are doing and it has nothing to do with money. The really good ones are worth the money because they have vision and an ability to motivate others to follow where they lead.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)...show improvement in the bottom line or they will not be the CEO very long. That is the reality. It doesn't matter how much vision or motivational expertise they might have if they don't improve the bottom line from quarter to quarter. And they expect to be handsomely rewarded.
And this is the mentality we want to lead our nation? Not I...
.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)CEO's are driven to lead and be the best what they do. In the corporate world, the metrics that measure success are things like market share and bottom line. The CEO wants to maximize those things because it demonstrates how good he is at his job, not as ends in themselves. Compensation is also a metric and they do want that to be the best as well.
A good friend of mine was the CEO of a Fortune 500 retailing company for about 10 years. He was very good and the company's bottom line improved substantially under his leadership. He retired about 3 years ago and one of the things he now does with his time is to lead fundraising efforts for charities. He's good at that too and bottom line is a valid measure of how well he does. Same metric, but you probably view it differently. BTW, his kids are also active in charitable fundraising. He and his family are the nicest people you would ever meet and you would never suspect they are rich or that he was the CEO of a large company.
My CEO friend is also a very good bass fisherman and he's very competitive when it come to that as well. I'm a pretty good bass fisherman also and fish with him a lot. When I catch a nice one, he will work hard to catch a nicer one - it's all in fun, but the motivation to be the best drives it for him.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)Just curious?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I don't think he is very active politically and we don't talk politics much
kentuck
(111,052 posts)If I had a fishing friend, I think I would probably know where he stands politically, just from small talk??
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I know he's a Republican, but he's not a right wing crazy. I haven't seen him since last fall, but I do plan on asking him when I see him this summer. My guess is it'll be Romney.
I see myself as a conservative Democrat and generally avoid discussing politics with friends. You regularly read posts on DU about friendships or family relationships that were ruined over political disagreements. For me, it's not worth that risk.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)Do you believe we have gone from bad to worse? 
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)We badly need to strengthen private sector employment, but we are continuing to follow trade, tax and energy policies that incentivize companies to move the jobs offshore. That trend has been ongoing for a long time (since the mid-90's at least). That is the single biggest thing that has gone from bad to worse and many of our problems would get better in time if that trend could be reversed.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)The jury is still out on healthcare.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)And Bush. And what about Alan Greenspan?
No thanks.
We need leaders who care about people and have strong administrative skills, not leaders who place profit over people.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Has never been on the bottom of the corporate pyramid. Shit ALWAYS rolls downhill.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)K & R.
catbyte
(34,338 posts)and it's a fucking disaster. Business people make very poor public servants. Government and business have completely different objectives and what corporation do you know is run like a democracy? I never thought I'd long for the "good old days" of John Engler...
Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Leo, Sophie, Taz & Nigel, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"We ride inside--HISS!”
Bake
(21,977 posts)Amoral, short-sighted, quarterly-earnings-driven CEOs are not exactly role models, nor are they the kind of "leaders" we need in this country.
Bake
jmowreader
(50,529 posts)The leveraged-buyout quick-buck artists like Bain Capital are the main reason the economy collapsed. You can go on and on about the mortgage mess, the credit crunch and so on, but the real reason, maybe the ONLY reason, we are in the disaster we are in right now is that after the collapse of the junk bond system, the merger & acquisition industry began using high-risk derivatives to fund leveraged buyouts.
Bain Capital was a pioneer not only in funding LBOs with collateralized debt obligations, but also in the "consortium" leveraged buyout, where a LBO is transacted by a group of raiding firms. The advantage here is twofold: it cuts down on bidding competitions (if you have eight private equity firms in your consortium, you have seven fewer competitors for your target) and by joining forces with other firms you can use their borrowing power to go after larger companies than any one PE firm can attack alone. Most of this shit was invented while Romney was still running the place.
To me, if there's money to be made in fixing something, you don't give the job to the guy who broke it. Romney is that guy.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)Now he wants to be the fox that guards the hen house where he stole all his eggs...
jmowreader
(50,529 posts)You get your standard henhouse-guarding foxes together and life is simple: They eat the chickens and leave.
Foxes like Romney are a different story.
They first eat all the chickens because they're foxes and...well, that's what foxes do.
Next, they sell chicken-backed securities (CBS)--bonds whose underlying securities are chickens. Specifically, the ones they ate.
Very few people buy the CBS because the investing community knows the issuers are foxes. So the foxes tranche the CBS into chicken debt obligations (CDO--any resemblance to the other kind of CDO is completely coincidental), which they then tranche with non-chicken debt obligations into CDO-squareds. These they can and do sell because the CBS are buried so far inside other securities that no one can tell the securities at the base of the whole pyramid--the chickens--were turned into fox shit many months ago.
When the whole house of cards collapses because someone realizes its foundation is a henhouse full of chickens Romney and his buddies ate the first day they were on duty, the investors (which, in a rational financial system, would be better known as 'marks') go straight to the government and demand to be bailed out. After they get bailed out, they immediately go to Fox News (sorry) and complain about how the government is throwing good money after bad bailing out Wall Street.
Tonight we're running an AP story on Romney's plans to build up the Air Force and Navy, add 100,000 troops to the military's endstrength, increase military spending to 4 percent of GDP, and cut taxes at the same time. We heard this one before--in 1981 through 1989--and the problem Romney has is, he isn't starting with a 70-percent top rate like Reagan was.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)
