Does having business experience dictate whether you will be a good POTUS?

[John Connor]

It seems to me that running a business gives you the skills and aptitude necessary to lead a country. I say this primarily on three aspects. They are,

1) Fiscal responsibility.

2) Leadership.

3) Successfulness.

What's say you?

 

[Blue_Max]

I would imagine it certainly counts for something... look at our Canadian prime minister "Little Potato" for example. He lived off family money and barely worked a day in his life. Part time ski instructor, part time substitute drama teacher. That's IT. What's it resulted in? A leader who's pissing away money like there's no end to it, blowing way past any surpluses and putting us into debt at a record pace - faster than any PM before him. Ridiculous self-indulgences and huge handouts to his "friends".

I can only hope the USA doesn't go the same path. A business can't survive this way, neither can a country.

 

[John Connor]

I would imagine it certainly counts for something... look at our Canadian prime minister "Little Potato" for example. He lived off family money and barely worked a day in his life. Part time ski instructor, part time substitute drama teacher. That's IT. What's it resulted in? A leader who's pissing away money like there's no end to it, blowing way past any surpluses and putting us into debt at a record pace - faster than any PM before him. Ridiculous self-indulgences and huge handouts to his "friends".

I can only hope the USA doesn't go the same path. A business can't survive this way, neither can a country.

That is just unbelievable.

 

[Brainonska511]

They can help, but those skills are not exclusive to those that run a business. And arguably, some of those are not necessarily the most important ones when talking about the head of the executive branch. For example, you list 'successfulness', but I'd wager that the measures of success in a business setting and a government/public policy setting are also quite different.

Plus, people like to tout running a business as if running the government is like running a business, ignoring the fact that they exist for different reasons, can function quite differently, and can do quite different things.

 

[glenn1]

It seems to me that running a business gives you the skills and aptitude necessary to lead a country. I say this primarily on three aspects. They are,

1) Fiscal responsibility.

2) Leadership.

3) Successfulness.

What's say you?

Necessity and sufficiency are two separate things. You could have successfully demonstrated all those traits in business, politics, or many other settings and still be successful in running a country or fail miserably and vice versa. By virtue of extensive experience, etc. Hoover should have been one of our best Presidents. By virtue of limited experience, etc. Obama should have been one of the worst.

 

[John Connor]

They can help, but those skills are not exclusive to those that run a business. And arguably, some of those are not necessarily the most important ones when talking about the head of the executive branch. For example, you list 'successfulness', but I'd wager that the measures of success in a business setting and a government/public policy setting are also quite different.

Can you cite some examples as to why this is the case?

Plus, people like to tout running a business as if running the government is like running a business, ignoring the fact that they exist for different reasons, can function quite differently, and can do quite different things.

Isn't running a government like running a business though? You said the key word: executive branch. There is also the key word: business executive. I would argue the Presidency is like an office job. Except your corporate empire is comprised of totally different departments.

 

[pauldun170]

It seems to me that running a business gives you the skills and aptitude necessary to lead a country. I say this primarily on three aspects. They are,

1) Fiscal responsibility.

2) Leadership.

3) Successfulness.

What's say you?

No.

Running a small to medium size business or large global business? Public or family business? What type of business?
Priorities of running a business are very different than running a country.
The "I ran a business therefore I know blab blah blah" talking point has been around for ages and proven to be just another bullshit talking point that doesn't always translate to leading a country.

Running any large organization, profit\not for profit\private\public\governmental is whats helpful.


http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/the-wrong-resume/?_r=0
https://www.entrepreneur.com/slideshow/224122
https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company

 

[John Connor]

Obama should have been one of the worst.

He IS the worst. LOL Worse than Carter.

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't think there's really any one particular thing that you can point to that is a "must have" on the resume in terms of job history to be a good (or bad) potus. It all comes down to leadership, the ability to get others to trust and follow you and get things done for you.

 

[PokerGuy]

By virtue of limited experience, etc. Obama should have been one of the worst.

Well, considering he's one of the worst ever, that lends credence to OP's contention.

 

[John Connor]

I don't think there's really any one particular thing that you can point to that is a "must have" on the resume in terms of job history to be a good (or bad) potus. It all comes down to leadership, the ability to get others to trust and follow you and get things done for you.

Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all had sheep followers, but ultimately failed at their cause. Point I'm making here is that having the ability to gain followers doesn't mean you have skills necessary to run a country successfully.

 

[Brainonska511]

Can you cite some examples as to why this is the case?

What is the goal of a business? Making some product or providing some service that makes your business money.

What is the role of government? It's definitely not about making money. It's about providing services to its citizens, creating a regulatory environment that benefits both businesses and citizens, handling criminal justice, issuing currency, etc...

Isn't running a government like running a business though? You said the key word: executive branch. There is also the key word: business executive. I would argue the Presidency is like an office job. Except your corporate empire is comprised of totally different departments.

So? There are certainly some overlapping soft skills, but as paldun170 pointed out, it's mainly a bullshit talking point. You can get many of those skills from an assortment of activities and career choices, as they are not exclusive to running a business.

He IS the worst. LOL Worse than Carter.

Well, considering he's one of the worst ever, that lends credence to OP's contention.

I'm sure y'all have some metrics to support these assertions.

 

[zinfamous]

It tends to be a terrible qualifier, iirc.

What is actually more important, however, is to not be easily triggered by the slightest insult or criticism and run right off in an attempt to shred the constitution in order to persecute and imprison every individual with the slightest desire to insult you, your family, and your following generations of spawn, which is exactly what Trump has expressed time and time again.

The White House simply is not a large enough safe space to contain the fragile pussy-ego of an orange muskrat like Trump.

 

[John Connor]

What is the goal of a business? Making some product or providing some service that makes your business money.

What is the role of government? It's definitely not about making money. It's about providing services to its citizens, creating a regulatory environment that benefits both businesses and citizens, handling criminal justice, issuing currency, etc.

You just made the case of why running a business is important.

Metrics? We don't need no stinkin' metrics.

 

[John Connor]

but as paldun170 pointed out, it's mainly a bullshit talking point.

So these there points are bullshit?

1) Fiscal responsibility.

2) Leadership.

3) Successfulness.

 

[Brainonska511]

So these there points are bullshit?

1) Fiscal responsibility.

2) Leadership.

3) Successfulness.

No. The talking point of 'being a successful businessman' translates to 'being a good president' is bullshit.

You just made the case of why running a business is important.

Not really. Different goals, different means to achieve those goals. They're only the same if you ignore everything.

Metrics? We don't need no stinkin' metrics.

So, you've got nothing. That's fine, I guess. You're free to make choices solely on emotion instead of using your brain to think critically.

 

[IronWing]

Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all had sheep followers, but ultimately failed at their cause. Point I'm making here is that having the ability to gain followers doesn't mean you have skills necessary to run a country successfully.

Stalin was one of the most successful leaders in history (and one of the bloodiest, of course). He took the Soviet Union from basket case to superpower in less than a generation, defeating the Germans enroute. Stalin absolutely had the skills of leadership and knew how to run a country. Since you mention metrics, maybe you should define "success".

 

[pauldun170]

So these there points are bullshit?

1) Fiscal responsibility.

2) Leadership.

3) Successfulness.

Go ahead and clearly define each point to ensure everyone is on the same page.

 

[Humpy]

No. The talking point of 'being a successful businessman' translates to 'being a good president' is bullshit.

"Being a successful businessman" can have so many meanings that it's meaningless. China has a lot of successful businessmen. The Civil War era South had a lot of successful businessmen. In general, Women aren't very successful at running businesses.

It's indeed bullshit.

 

[dank69]

To put a nice fine point on it that even Conner SHOULD be able to understand: A business is successful by taking as much money from customers as possible. If we extend that to government, would you say the best government is the one that takes as much money from citizens as possible?

 

[alien42]

the answer to this question is no, even if you are a successful business person.

of course not a single Fortune 100 CEO is supporting Trump this year, as opposed to nearly a third support Mitt Romney, which is quite telling...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-fortune-100-ceos-back-republican-donald-trump-1474671842

 

[pauldun170]

Taking a guess at what OP thinks of "Fiscal responsibility" and countering with reading material

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/14788/debt/definition-of-fiscal-responsibility/
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/14/why-public-debt-is-not-like-credit-card-debt/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/business/economy/03view.html?_r=0
http://www.aei.org/publication/what-does-fiscal-responsibility-mean/
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...of-government-focus-on-stability-not-spending
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...between-monetary-policy-and-fiscal-policy.asp
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/index_en.htm

 

[Humpy]

My sense of it is that the people who have the skills and personality to be a good President would never take the job.

 

[boomerang]

the answer to this question is no, even if you are a successful business person.

of course not a single Fortune 100 CEO is supporting Trump this year, as opposed to nearly a third support Mitt Romney, which is quite telling...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-fortune-100-ceos-back-republican-donald-trump-1474671842

It tells me that Fortune 100 CEO's like the system the way it's rigged. They fear a change with a Trump presidency and that's because they're intelligent enough to understand the changes he's based his candidacy on. What they do know is that a Hillary presidency will mean their rackets, their tax-breaks, their influence will experience little change. They like that.

What's truly interesting is to see Dem voters who have no qualms about berating big business so fully embrace a candidate that they know will continue the status quo when it comes to big business. It's an interesting window into the minds of people who believe they can think so well but in reality, can't. You say you want change but will vote to keep it the same.

But hey, maybe this time, should Hillary win, poverty will be dealt with. Ha, just kidding. Why would the Dem's want to put themselves out of business?

 

[alien42]

It tells me that Fortune 100 CEO's like the system the way it's rigged. They fear a change with a Trump presidency and that's because they're intelligent enough to understand the changes he's based his candidacy on. What they do know is that a Hillary presidency will mean their rackets, their tax-breaks, their influence will experience little change. They like that.

What's truly interesting is to see Dem voters who have no qualms about berating big business so fully embrace a candidate that they know will continue the status quo when it comes to big business. It's an interesting window into the minds of people who believe they can think so well but in reality, can't. You say you want change but will vote to keep it the same.

But hey, maybe this time, should Hillary win, poverty will be dealt with. Ha, just kidding. Why would the Dem's want to put themselves out of business?

wow, you can clearly convince yourself of anything, no matter how crazy it is.

you just suggested that if Trump was elected, it would be bad for American businesses and that somehow Trump will be against his own self interests as a Billionaire business person and that he will help the poor.

interesting window into your mind of ignorance and insanity.