• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is more ADMIRABLE, the POLITICIAN or the BUSINESSMAN?

Who is more ADMIRABLE, the POLITICIAN or the BUSINESSMAN?

  • Total voters
    43
Patria Antiqua said:
Nobody is perfect, but he's more good than bad. Can't say the same of any notable businessman I've heard of. Bismarck is worthy of my respect in the way a snake like Henry Ford is not.

Maybe Bill Gates, but he also happens to be a monopolist, or at least he was.
Click to expand...

Anti-trust laws do more harm than good to the economy of this country, based on globalizing factors.
 
UtahBill said:
I think businessman and entreupeneur (spelling?) are not always the same thing. Someone can create something new, or innovate, or invent, or build, all things related to producing a product. The average businessman is just a salesman, making a commission off the creativity of others. Not saying it is bad, just that selling isn't really something special.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did spell entrepreneur incorrectly. Businessmen are free (in this country) to both create ideas and to peddle them to others. Merchandising a product is often more admirable than a politician's job. Merchandising helps to distribute the products and services to those who wish to buy them. They facilitate the process which helps to drive down prices and improve quality.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Wow! Two people! Keep going...
Click to expand...

I could name plenty more, but I doubt you would agree with me. Since your expectations are extremely high (from my perspective) I was looking for some that would pass your muster. There probably are few.

However, from my perspective we have:
Clinton
Obama
Reagan
JFK
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt
Lincoln
Eisenhower
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I could name plenty more, but I doubt you would agree with me. Since your expectations are extremely high (from my perspective) I was looking for some that would pass your muster. There probably are few.

However, from my perspective we have:
Clinton
Obama
Reagan
JFK
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt
Lincoln
Eisenhower
Click to expand...

Darn it! I was hoping you would name Calvin Coolidge. :)
 
ElijahGalt said:
Governments can set a standard of weights and measures, and this was the Qing Dynasty's greatest achievement. But it is not required in order to create society.
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was. But, when it comes to commerce, it helps.

ElijahGalt said:
A taxation system does not allow for the construction of basic infrastructure. It allows for the rule of law to be enforced. Taxation, in largely other forms, simply takes away the earnings of one set of citizens in order to distribute largesse to another set of citizens. Taxation NEVER builds, it only takes away.
Click to expand...

So tell me why private enterprise would be better at providing something like flood control? How would a private company get the money (perhaps hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars) to acquire all of the necessary land to build a system of channels, dams, and reservoirs in order to keep a city or region from flooding? Where would they get the money from to maintain the system, and how would they make a profit? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Ahlevah said:
I never claimed it was. But, when it comes to commerce, it helps.



So tell me why private enterprise would be better at providing something like flood control? How would a private company get the money (perhaps hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars) to acquire all of the necessary land to build a system of channels, dams, and reservoirs in order to keep a city or region from flooding? Where would they get the money from to maintain the system, and how would they make a profit? :confused:
Click to expand...

That last paragraph, you bring up a delightful question. Just reflect on WHO rebuilt S.F. following the devastating quake in 1906 that left the entire city destroyed. Was it government, or rich, greedy, profit-driven N.Y. bankers?

And btw, you said setting a standard of weights and measures allows society (or the infrastructure of society) to be built, implying there is no other way. And yes, it does help. I'm not completely against government setting certain standards (like mint and weights and measures). But the rate at which the federal government dictates our life is not headed in the right direction, IMHO.
 
Ahlevah said:
So tell me why private enterprise would be better at providing something like flood control? How would a private company get the money (perhaps hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars) to acquire all of the necessary land to build a system of channels, dams, and reservoirs in order to keep a city or region from flooding? Where would they get the money from to maintain the system, and how would they make a profit? :confused:
Click to expand...

Only a company that could buy up a lot of the surrounding land and so make money by keeping up those dams and resovoirs. Otherwise, people would live in other areas.
 
phattonez said:
Only a company that could buy up a lot of the surrounding land and so make money by keeping up those dams and resovoirs. Otherwise, people would live in other areas.
Click to expand...
When the transcontinental railroad was built, the govt gave away alternate sections of land to the builders. Imagine if we did that today, give some private road builder half the land adjaceant to it.
 
UtahBill said:
When the transcontinental railroad was built, the govt gave away alternate sections of land to the builders. Imagine if we did that today, give some private road builder half the land adjaceant to it.
Click to expand...

Or imagine if the states allowed companies to toll their roads as they like. What the government did to the Dulles Greenway is a shame.
 
phattonez said:
Or imagine if the states allowed companies to toll their roads as they like. What the government did to the Dulles Greenway is a shame.
Click to expand...

This could be an issue if someone is charging way too much for a road and its the only effective route between two places. We both don't trust the government, I trust private corporations even less than I trust the government.
 
the makeout hobo said:
This could be an issue if someone is charging way too much for a road and its the only effective route between two places. We both don't trust the government, I trust private corporations even less than I trust the government.
Click to expand...

I need to dig it up, but there was a case in the 1800s where a trade dispute over a rail line seriously hurt a city and caused some major suffering due to backlogged shipments.
 
the makeout hobo said:
This could be an issue if someone is charging way too much for a road and its the only effective route between two places. We both don't trust the government, I trust private corporations even less than I trust the government.
Click to expand...

And I always wonder WHY, considering the track record of both. Governments, throughout history, have made things more complicated for the common man and woman and they simply make life more difficult. Private corporations have consistently offered us newer, better, cheaper products that make our lives easier, and we continue to hate them more than government.
 
ElijahGalt said:
And I always wonder WHY, considering the track record of both. Governments, throughout history, have made things more complicated for the common man and woman and they simply make life more difficult. Private corporations have consistently offered us newer, better, cheaper products that make our lives easier, and we continue to hate them more than government.
Click to expand...
Politics/government breeds people with more invasive power/control and better skills at spin.

Even the US constitution was/is no guarantee against such - no document/law will ever be.

But really, business can be (and in some cases probably is) the driving force behind political corruption.

By the same token, political corruption can be (and in some cases probably is) the driving force behind abuses by businesses.

Personally, I wish there were a way to separate money and power, at least for the countries leaders.

The two are far too closely linked for me to fully trust any politician.
 
Last edited:
ElijahGalt said:
And I always wonder WHY, considering the track record of both. Governments, throughout history, have made things more complicated for the common man and woman and they simply make life more difficult. Private corporations have consistently offered us newer, better, cheaper products that make our lives easier, and we continue to hate them more than government.
Click to expand...

I would argue that you are giving a simplistic, nerfed down, innacurate view of things that grossly glosses over things both sides have done.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I would argue that you are giving a simplistic, nerfed down, innacurate view of things that grossly glosses over things both sides have done.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I can't write a book on the subject so that it's detailed enough for you. But I am a public history major. Can you please give an in-depth analysis of why you favor government over business?
 
ElijahGalt said:
I'm sorry I can't write a book on the subject so that it's detailed enough for you. But I am a public history major. Can you please give an in-depth analysis of why you favor government over business?
Click to expand...

I favor government in some things, businesses in others. Can you not resort to straw men, and maybe take a logic class along with those history courses?
 
the makeout hobo said:
I favor government in some things, businesses in others. Can you not resort to straw men, and maybe take a logic class along with those history courses?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you completely forgot. You said, in general, you favor government over business. Why?
 
ElijahGalt said:
Perhaps you completely forgot. You said, in general, you favor government over business. Why?
Click to expand...

Because we have more control over the government. I can vote for my elected representatives, i can write them letters, I can usually arrange a meeting with my congressman without too much fuss. They need me, directly, to stay in power, and the two parties are always looking to beat the others, so it leads to a degree of investigation and transparency. Not enough, but a start. Furthermore, since their purpose is to serve the people, certain fields work better at utilities.

On the other hand, business I have a lot less control over. I can't usually directly interact with anyone in power. The only way to get their attention at all is a massive boycott, which is almost impossible to put together (Trust me, I've tried.) If it's a company like PG&E, you can't even boycott them. Their main goal is to make money, and MANY businesses have shown they have no issues intentionally harming people with dangerous products or practices to make money. There isn't nearly as much investigation or transparency in business practices... the thing that most keeps businesses from harming the public is regulations, which the government puts on.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Because we have more control over the government. I can vote for my elected representatives, i can write them letters, I can usually arrange a meeting with my congressman without too much fuss. They need me, directly, to stay in power, and the two parties are always looking to beat the others, so it leads to a degree of investigation and transparency. Not enough, but a start. Furthermore, since their purpose is to serve the people, certain fields work better at utilities.

On the other hand, business I have a lot less control over. I can't usually directly interact with anyone in power. The only way to get their attention at all is a massive boycott, which is almost impossible to put together (Trust me, I've tried.) If it's a company like PG&E, you can't even boycott them. Their main goal is to make money, and MANY businesses have shown they have no issues intentionally harming people with dangerous products or practices to make money. There isn't nearly as much investigation or transparency in business practices... the thing that most keeps businesses from harming the public is regulations, which the government puts on.
Click to expand...

In regards to local governments, you do have a lot of control over them. In terms of state and U.S. reps, you have less control, but still more control than U.S. senators and the president. Since we are a federalized nation with high amounts of presidential authority, your REAL control is quite limited.

Please explain, with evidence, ANY field that government does better than private citizens. Please note, that question is not the same as what do you support as a government function. I personally support governmental function in certain instances, with the beforehand knowledge that their competency will be less than that of a private entity (ie military, police enforcement, environmental protection).

You do hit upon a good point. Lawmakers are constantly interested in the political struggle, and will do whatever it takes to get elected. In terms of real investment, the only thing the politician must satisfy is the vote. Politicians CAN be voted out, but bureaucratic institutions created by them take decades or even centuries before citizens realize their harm. And you have ZERO control over any bureaucratic institution.

Businessmen and women, on the other hand, must satisy a heck of a lot more factors in order to stay in business. For politicians, it's the vote. For Businesses, it's the customer, it's the financial market, it's the cleanliness, the safety, the profit motive, the losses, the thought of bankruptcy, the risk, the innovation, etc. Businesses are forced to please us in order to stay in business. Nearly all businessmen who currently heap the greatest amount of profit in this country were once faced with total bankruptcy and total failure. Edison patented a few hundred GREAT ideas. But he hundreds more failures.

I'm also looking at business models and political structures as they CURRENTLY stand. There have been companies who were foolish and did not care about occupational or consumer safety. But in any rational sense, those companies DO NOT exist for long.
 
Also, a boycott is not always necessary. The majority of small businesses fail in the first year because they could not keep up the competititon and/or consumer demand. They fail, not because of a loud boycott, but because of quiet withdrawal. You don't need Walmart to exist, and if you really hate Walmart, you can stop shopping there and attempt to influence your friends to stay away. Walmart will probably still exist, because the majoity of people don't mind their existance.
 
We do no have more control over government than business. How often do we vote for government? How often do we pay for something from a business? It's not even close. Business is much more closely aligned to what we want because they face a referendum all the time from consumers.
 
ElijahGalt said:
You don't need Walmart to exist, and if you really hate Walmart, you can stop shopping there and attempt to influence your friends to stay away. Walmart will probably still exist, because the majoity of people don't mind their existance.
Click to expand...

But the majority of people no longer can borrow money to drive Wal-Mart's growth. In September, 2000, Wal-Mart stock sold for $52. Today it's selling for $51 and change. An investor would have done better with less risk putting the money in a bank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom