The businessman is more effective at securing interests and assets than the politician. Prove me wrong

The businessman is more effective at securing interests and assets than the politician. Prove me wrong

>protip: you can't.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-11-10 at 1.13.45 PM.png (597x598, 347K)

politicians are just lying businessmen

politicians write the rules which dictates what interests and assets a business man can obtain. A business only grows because it is allowed to.

>politicians write the rules which dictates what interests and assets a business man can obtain
>implying a businessman can't "influence" a politician

>A business only grows because it is allowed to
not when the government limiting it has a say in the matter. a business can do whatever, whenever, given the resources, of course. A businessman can hire mercenaries while the politician relies on the often involuntary conscription of soldiers.

the government can pass an obscure tax law just to shut down one specific business.

while a business can lobby for the removal of said tax, or at least dampen its effects on the corporation in question.

true, but once it has been decided. I doubt that the business will survive long enough to have the tax repealed.

but this is where a business shines. versatility. governments rarely survive sudden and unexpected environmental change since their power is stemmed from one source. a business can have assets repealed here and withdrawn there. it can better adapt to new environments. a corporation can even make deals with other corporations to keep itself afloat.

All forms of government oversight turn into organized crime.

by tax law I mean that The IRS/Feds arrest the owner for wire fraud, seize all assets and forces the people in question to accept a plea deal of 7 years in prison.

>The IRS/Fed
>implying the IRS and the Fed are not privately owned corporations
what do you think will happen if a government decides to throw someone like the CEO of windows or google in jail? chances are, the companies the CEO's represent will back them harshly to keep them out of the water. in any case, i don't think I need to explain to you all the "illegal" things companies have done in the pursuit of progress (to the full knowledge and realization the company is operating under.

They would only throw a CEO that powerful in jail if they suspect he/she is using company resources to promote a right wing agenda (Essentially treason to them). and if that were to happen, the media will be fully on board to help with making a public example out of that CEO. This is how the government works

>if they suspect he/she is using company resources to promote a right wing agenda
but that's not what a company's goal is. an effective and functional corporation has no interest in any agenda, only profit for the shareholders. if a company is using its resources to further an agenda of any kind, then it deserves to go defunct.

A company's purpose is to further expand the political agenda and in return receive venture capitol. those who do it well are rewarded with less over-site and government contracts. those who do less than pay lip service are made into public examples. This is literally elementary business 101

>A company's purpose is to further expand the political agenda and in return receive venture capitol.
A company won't back any agenda if it doesn't secure profits. Companies are really good at predicting the future, especially when there's money involved. In a day and age such as this, I don't see how a company promoting a right-wing agenda will benefit it in any way. When it comes to the political spectrum, companies more or less go with the flow to appease any current and future customers.

>Technocracy

Only successful business people and/or well-educated should be allowed into politics.

Those involved with bribery and deception, or just plain morons, should be removed from politics. People need to be able to remove politicians from any office at any time.

>Those involved with bribery and deception...should be removed
>Only successful business people...should be allowed
Good one.

The company has no need to secure profits of it's own production, So long as it carries water for the agenda it will receive bailouts if need be.

>Only successful business people and/or well-educated should be allowed into politics.
you're thinking about this all wrong. businessmen, or at least the successful ones, see no benefit in excessive (keyword) meddling with politics. they'll sway them in their favor should any law threaten their interests. most businessmen would rather stay separate from the government

successful business owners are by default political agents.

and not vice versa? politicians have to keep secrets, sure, but they also have to let out little bits of information to keep the public happy. a business has no incentive to make it's operations even vaguely known. (apple is a brilliant example of this)

true, there is always the threat of internal competition.

>there is always the threat of internal competition.
which is often beneficial to the company. if a corporation sees the threat of internal competition realized, it can act accordingly to test either side, and for the shareholders to do what they see fit. the company is nothing without shareholders, just as a government is nothing without the politicians that run its operations. difference is, when a company faces internal competition, it's normally resolved quite quickly in favor of whatever earns the most profits. in a government, if internal competition is a thing, let's just say the results aren't gonna be pretty. (i.e south sudan)

yes, they have a code of civility amoungst themselves.

Lol. Yeah, it was a long day

After obtaining enough resources, what's only left to go after is power. That's the benefit. A politician would not necessarily make a good businessman, although a good businessman would likely thrive at politics.

Let out little bits of information to keep the public happy? Lmao. Not like public allowed them in office in the first place, yeah?

depends on the businessman and the politician

>After obtaining enough resources, what's only left to go after is power
No such thing as "enough resources". only more. A quadrillion dollars sitting in a bank doing nothing is money that can be spent investing in other startups that will return an even greater sum of money. This is what business is. To a company, money is money while power is power. The two are separate since power implies that a group of people will be unwillingly incentivized to do something they wouldn't otherwise do (like pay taxes).

>Let out little bits of information to keep the public happy? Lmao. Not like public allowed them in office in the first place, yeah?
You're pretty damn naive if you think the way a politician acts in front of the public is the exact same way the act in office.

>No
>Thinks his *opinions* are facts

Having loads of money can be perceived as powerful characteristic. Although at some point, when you get to gather so much resources and money, that you and your family wouldn't be able to consume in dozen generations, what you then seek, is POWER.

>power implies that a group of people will be unwillingly incentivized to do something they wouldn't otherwise do

Kek, truly a sound definition of power in the context.

>You're pretty damn naive if you think the way a politician acts in front of the public is the exact same way the act in office.

Where did I even say that I think so?

name some things trump has actually done for the usa since being in office

>Although at some point, when you get to gather so much resources and money, that you and your family wouldn't be able to consume in dozen generations, what you then seek, is POWER.
A business isn't designed to simply fund the CEO's or even the shareholder's family for the next generation. It's designed to heed a profit here and now for the current shareholders. What the shareholders do with the money they earn is up to them.

>Where did I even say that I think so?
you saying that "Not like public allowed them in office in the first place" implies that you think a politician public-face is indifferent to his office-face since all a politician needs to do to be elected by the public is to be charismatic and/or have a bunch of victories for the nation under his/her name.