| 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. |
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.