The Differences Between Government and Industry

posted at 3:32 pm on February 1, 2010 by

People who support socialist programs harbor some incorrect assumptions about the nature of government agencies. Politicians and bureaucrats don’t automatically become more intelligent or virtuous than private-sector business owners and employees. It’s also dangerous to assume government is the same as the private sector – a delusion politicians like to encourage when trust in the State has cratered, and they believe they can regain some credibility by posturing as the CEOs of America, Inc.

Recent events have illustrated three vital differences between government and private industry. The first is that government does not face consequences the same way businesses do. The President just rolled out a budget with a deficit of $1.3 trillion dollars. The federal government has been running gigantic budget deficits for decades. The national debt has passed $14 trillion. Even if Enron had hired Bernie Madoff to replace Paul Krugman, it could not have endured such incredible fiscal irresponsibility for so long. Businesses faced with budget shortfalls make hard decisions in order to remain competitive. If management fails to do so, it faces bankruptcy, the wrath of shareholders, and the loss of vitally needed credit.

Government doesn’t make tough decisions like that. It simply raises taxes or runs up the deficit. It does not view itself as “competitive” – it would use its power to crush private-sector competitors who threatened its interests, as the medical insurance industry will discover to our collective sorrow, if anything resembling ObamaCare is passed into law. For the State, competition ceases when legislation is signed. No matter how badly the Barack Obama People’s Health Insurance Company performs, it will never go out of business… at least, not until the entire economic system has collapsed around it.

Individual politicians are likewise insulated from consequence. It’s extremely rare to see a powerful politician’s career end because of a single mistake. No matter how poorly Obama performs as the CEO of Government Motors, it will not be the sole, or even primary, reason he loses his job – and his job is almost absolutely secure for another three years, regardless of how unpopular he becomes.

Politicians even enjoy significant protection from outright criminal wrongdoing, which they occasionally sell to favored businessmen. No level of corruption seems capable of rousing Eric Holder’s Justice Department from its long afternoon nap. Some states don’t mind voting for politicians they can barely see through the ethical clouds swirling around them, as long as they bring home enough pork for key constituencies. The political class is simply immune to the aggressive law enforcement that purges the worst fraud from the private sector, when the hungry roots of politics are kept from digging too deeply into the soil of industry.

A second difference between the private sector and Big Government is the nature of accountability. When you hear someone pontificate about bringing more “accountability” to government, always remember this is a relative scale, which ends far below the point where it begins for private businesses. The government is the primary source of information about itself, and it feels entitled to suppress what it can’t be bothered to distort, such as the SEC documents covering the AIG bailout. Much of the news we receive about the government comes from leaks and background talks, given to a media deeply sympathetic to its goals. The federal government is also entrusted with the task of policing itself, a job it feels very relaxed about performing. The government could not begin to pass the kind of accounting audit it requires from businesses.

Even if the government was meticulous about reporting on its performance, and the media dutifully passed along this information without filters, how could ordinary citizens hope to analyze the performance of an incomprehensibly huge super-State? If your auto mechanic consistently overcharged you for shoddy work, you’d find a new mechanic. What would you do if your auto mechanic was also your doctor, grocer, chief of police, and principal of your children’s school? The idea that citizens influence government with their votes presumes a level of awareness and informed response that simply cannot exist, when the State becomes as bloated as ours. We seem to be on the edge of a political earthquake in 2010, but look at what it took to get us here. Voters won’t display the passion and organization necessary to “fire” an immense national government until it has failed comprehensively… and very expensively.

The other obvious difference between government and the private sector is the government’s monopoly on the use of force. The closest a private industry can come to compulsion are monopolistic practices, which government polices against, but is also willing to perpetrate itself. Every action taken by the government involves compulsion: the collection of taxes and the enforcement of regulations. Those little targeted tax cut ideas salted through President Obama’s first State of the Union address are another form of compulsion – you have to do what the government wants, in order to enjoy those tax-cut crumbs, and everyone who refuses to comply with the designs of the State will subsidize you.

Few people would be eager to do business with a company that somehow acquired the government’s combination of insulation from consequence, unaccountability, and compulsive force. Allowing the government to pretend it’s a giant corporation is a terrible mistake. Those who make that mistake tend to underestimate the difficulty of running a business, and the intense competitive pressure which leads to the innovations behind our material abundance. Ask a small business owner or corporate executive about the tough choices and risks he or she must undertake on a regular basis, then ask if they would subject themselves to such pressure if they didn’t have to. They would laugh and tell you how much they’d like their mistakes to be subsidized, their credit to be effectively unlimited, or their competition to be held off at gunpoint.

If the State is immune to the restrictions and hardships that lead to innovation and efficiency, isn’t it completely foolish to expect it to match the performance of private industry? Any politician who asks you to believe the State can do better deserves to be laughed off the stage.

Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Well said, Dr. 0.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270DP%2BP%2CO%3E%23%40%20%20

This link will give a breakdown of congressional demographics including some previous work experience for the DC crowd, 110th Congress, published November 2008. It is interesting in that although there are some folks with prior work experience, it doesn’t describe the majority. An excerpt follows:

According to CQ Today, in the 110th Congress, law is the dominant declared profession of
Senators, followed by public service/politics; for Representatives, public service/politics is first,
followed by business and law.8

Perhaps this would explain 2000 page documents such as Obamacare. These folks should be replaced with a cadre of small business owners. Their way of doing things would be to start excising the fat, particularly wordiness, followed by a review of all pre-existing laws with an eye towards streamlining. Imagine someone who currently opens their own business every morning, starts the coffee, checks for leaks in the roof, or emails, voice mails, and greets everyone as they arrive, encountering an agency such as the Energy Department. Good luck surviving his first week in charge of that one.

Apparently you have roots that give you the vision to write this post. Maybe it’s time we sent the DC set packing, looking for replacements with some real background in economics.

Robert17 on February 1, 2010 at 6:18 PM

Out. Of. The. Park. Once again, Doc. Sadly, a required economics and liberty lesson for a nation ill-educated, and for a political class without virtue.

publiuspen on February 1, 2010 at 8:26 PM

I enjoy your concise way of explaining free market economics, zero. As a general dentist, i live the struggle of a small business owner. Recently, the American Dental Association touted an excited marketing campaign to convince Congress to increase funding to Medicaid for dental services. This was my letter back to them…hope you enjoy.

The recent developments around the country in Virginia, New Jersey and in Massachusetts have been astonishing to behold. The message is clear: when leadership is out of touch with its constituents, the reaction may be swift and painful. When I read the last ADANews main article, “ADA launches Capital Hill advertising campaign”, I began to empathize with those who felt frustrated that we are moving in the wrong direction.
The ADA’s pursuit of greater coverage for dental services through Medicaid and sCHIP runs into direct conflict with its stated mission of advocacy and promotion of dentistry and public oral health. No matter how noble its intentions are, there is no excuse for promoting policies that, in the long term, have the direct opposite effects to what the “label on the bottle” promises. Promotion of government-run entitlement programs harms not only the dental practitioner, but it also harms “our friends and neighbors in need”. I believe a restoration of basic economic common sense will restore the ADA, its members, and indeed the nation to a state of greater prosperity for all and better oral health for the people who desire to do so. Let’s look at this foolhardy policy from a micro- and macro-level.
ADA leadership desires greater funding to government programs to help the poor and needy. Does it not realize where the money for such programs comes from? It comes from the taxation of its members. It comes from the taxation of the payrolls of its members. It is a cost and burden to the dentist that the ADA is supposed to represent. What is the ADA’s answer for promoting programs that allow the forcible seizure of the hard-earned assets of it’s members and their employees? Government run entitlement programs are not voluntary charitable organizations. Indeed, one can easily argue that the moneys the ADA is so willing to volunteer out of our wallets would be better spend by the charitable contributions of it members. Or does the ADA believe it’s members would not give back to the communities they serve if they did not have to worry about the ever increasing appetite of all levels of government?
Asking for larger entitlement program spending will harm economically its members; the ADA then goes on to indicate that it believes these programs are “the most important step toward improving the oral health of the underserved”. Does the ADA really believe this and does it thinks it’s members advocate this as well? Did they sleep through the debates between economists John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman over half a century? Do we have absolutely no members of the ADA leadership in charge with any concept of the the principle of “you can never spend other people’s money as well as they can spend their own”? Since it appears there may not be, let me introduce a radical thought; the best and most moral way to improve the oral health of the underserved is to create the conditions to let them help themselves and allow dentists the ability to help them by lowering their fees or though voluntary charitable action.
We already see what happens when countries around the world seize greater and greater control of dental programs. Dental services are great…until they run out money. What are the first services to be dispensed with? You guessed it; dental services. Is it any wonder we hear stories of lack of dental providers and services in government run programs throughout the world? Is the ADA not aware of this?
The ADA should be advocating the completely opposite policy if it wants to help people. Let employers and employees keep more of their money. Advocate legislation to provide significant tax credits to dentists who work for the underserved. Reductions in income taxes, regressive payroll taxes and costly regulations that inhibit the dentist’s ability to assist more people. Reductions in all levels of government spending and promoting the voluntary contributions of its members to the needy. The money people save can then be used for them to take responsibility for their own lives, instead of creating and extending wealth-destroying dependencies that we see stagnating once vibrant economies.
The federal government spend over $300 billion a year just to service the interest on it’s bloated debt. That is $822 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY. You could give the poorest 20 million American heads of households $15,000 each to be specifically used for medical health. Instead, you advocate for programs that, depending upon who you read, are looking at 30 trillion dollar liabilities over the next 50 years.
I agree with helping the poor and needy. However, as Milton Friedman once said, “having a soft heart doesn’t mean having a soft head as well”. As for me, this ADA member believes the leadership is out of touch. While I’m sure you won’t have the courage to publish this letter, I want them you know this is a very real view amongst its members.

DrRich on February 1, 2010 at 8:45 PM

The only scenario for accountability coming to DC would be a massive rejection of incumbents in November. That is the only way to get the point across that they (are supposed to) work for us.

A prescription of good ol’ shock therapy is in order, Doc Zero.

hillbillyjim on February 1, 2010 at 8:51 PM

With Big Government currently getting a ‘pass’ by the liberal factions of the MSM in matters of communicating to the public using fuzzy math and linguistic legerdemain, the image being supported and even touted by the MSM of a beneficent federal government is hard to overcome.

Thank heavens for people like you, Doc, and Ed and Allah and Michelle, and all of the other bloggers, who are dedicated to reporting on crucial issues that impact our daily lives. For this reason alone, along with other alternative media sources like talk radio, plus Fox News, the American public is far more informed than at any other time throughout US history.

KendraWilder on February 2, 2010 at 2:56 PM