[BurningFrog]

Private business has much longer term perspective than government.

Typically, governments are run to make things look good by the next election. That's a planning horizon of 2 years on average, assuming 4 year terms.

Meanwhile, forestry companies routinely plant trees that won't be harvested for 50 years.

[gamblor956]

Government routinely plans projects on horizons spread over decades. See for example, the MTA, the Big Dig, LA's Metro system, pretty much everything handled by NASA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the NPS, the Dept of Transportation, DARPA, etc.

Private business has trouble seeing beyond this quarter's financials... especially when said business is publicly traded.

Meanwhile, forestry companies routinely plant trees that won't be harvested for 50 years

Depends very heavily on the type of tree. Red Oak is on a 50-year timeline, but Douglas fir is usually on a 5-10 year timeline (depending on whether it's grown for Christmas trees or for lumber), most big box store lumber is on the 10-20 year timeline, and bamboo is frequently harvested the same year it's planted (but is also technically not a tree...). This is a matter of necessity, not far-term vision. If they could get away with not thinking long-term they would, but the modern lumber industry has learned from the excesses of the colonial and pre-Industrial lumber industry.

[BurningFrog]

> Private business has trouble seeing beyond this quarter's financials... especially when said business is publicly traded.

I know that's the snarky cliche, but where is the empirical evidence?

I see major public corporations staying competitive for decade after decade.

It's hard to understand how organizations that bet everything on the 2020 Q1 results while ignoring 2020 Q2 accomplish that.

> This is a matter of necessity, not far-term vision.

I'd say the far-term vision is a necessity to flourish far-term. therefore surviving companies have it.

[AndrewBissell]

> I see major public corporations staying competitive for decade after decade.

Not sure what "competitive" means in this context, but there is no shortage of examples of large companies which have been run into the ground for the sake of short term payouts for executives and insider stakeholders: Lehman Brothers, AIG, PG&E, Boeing, likely IBM, any number of the drained husks left in the wake of private equity like Toys R Us and Payless, etc.

Corporations can be run well or badly, and governments can be run well or badly. It's just a question of the competence and moral character (or lack thereof) of decision-makers.

[BurningFrog]

By competitive I just mean that they keep performing well decade after decade. Many Fortune 500 companies have been on that list for decades.

> Lehman Brothers, AIG, PG&E, Boeing, likely IBM, any number of the drained husks left in the wake of private equity like Toys R Us and Payless, etc.

I doubt all of those were victims of shortsightedness. Sometimes, it's time for institutions to die and leave room for new things.

But of course you're right that this happens. I wasn't claiming that all private companies are run perfectly with epic time horizons and no executive ego involved etc. I was just arguing against the idea that they never think beyond the next quarterly result report.

> Corporations can be run well or badly, and governments can be run well or badly.

Sure!

> It's just a question of the competence and moral character (or lack thereof) of decision-makers.

I'd focus a lot more on what incentives the decision-makers are under. And I claim the politician who will be fired in 2 years unless he makes himself look awesome on Election Day has more short term focused incentives that a company CEO.

[avmich]

> And I claim the politician who will be fired in 2 years unless he makes himself look awesome on Election Day has more short term focused incentives that a company CEO.

Here's where the disagreement starts. We have insufficiently different facts on the table, but those unspoken are on the different sides. So you decide that governments are under more short-term pressure to demonstrate results, while I think modern corporations have shorter periods when shareholders can allow CEOs not to bring them tangible results. And for corporations existing for decades I have examples of governments existing at least as long.

I guess we have to keep disagreeing.

[BurningFrog]

Agreed. I don't mind disagreement at all.