Could a government be run as a public 'company'?

[prawn_86]

A thought i have had a few times,

Could a government (lets say state level) be made into and run as a public 'company'?

Each taxpayer gets X amount of shares (how they are allocated would be difficult).

Politicians have the vast majority of their pay linked to performance of the 'stock' price.


If it could work this would encourage both efficiency and transperancy, both which are severely lacking in Australian governments currently.

Discuss...

 

[Smurf1976]

Politicians have the vast majority of their pay linked to performance of the 'stock' price.


If it could work this would encourage both efficiency and transperancy, both which are severely lacking in Australian governments currently.

Discuss...

Would it not also encourage short termism so as to push up the stock price in the same way that so many companies, banks etc have been ruined recently?

Also would it not encourage generally poor government in order to pursue whatever maximises short term profit?

I can see the point in running government-owned entities as profit making corporations but for government itself I see far too many conflicts between profit and the proper role of government both in terms of the law etc and its role in economic development. What is in the best interests of the community generally isn't profitable for the government that is doing it - that's why government needs to be the one doing it in the first place otherwise it wouldn't happen at all.

 

[prawn_86]

I do agree Smurf, but is there a way that some form of indicator could be developed so it is not a 'profit' and 'price' driven stock, but rather satisfaction or objectives completion? Possibly some form of index 'traded' online, so its not actually related to the gov making profits, but them meeting critical needs and objectives for their constituents.

I have to admit its just a fleeting thought i have had before, i have not considered it seriously, but i still think it is interesting.

 

[prawn_86]

Not much interest?

Perhaps it isnt a good/realistic idea at all... :

 

[Gspot]

Government should follow the private sector and be more accountable for the taxpayers money.
Ex Comm Bank Dave Murray for PM, to rationalise our public service/ governance. Then we would see tax cuts that would make a HUGE differance.
"WHO'S WITH ME!"

 

[DJZ]

Governments are meant to be representation of the people (in a free country that is), not some separate entity that controls everything to do with your life, thats dictatorship, which I supposed is government, but aren't we talking about governing within a free country?, If so, in principle it cannot work, as it would not portray a true representation of the people.

But, at the moment governments across the world resemble more of a private companies than anything else, so yes It can work, as long as the people in general don't realize that they are in fact being ruled by a private entity.

The USA is actually a Federal Corporation right now, I stumbled across this website a while ago that outlines the difference between the two systems

http://www.usavsus.info/

Where the USA is the USA of old created by patriots striving for freedom and the US is a corporatised system of control, which now dominates the landscape of America.

 

[glenn_r]

Yeah it sounds good to me, cut the pensions to the bone, only build infrastructure where the major taxpayers/shareholders are located, raise the fares on public transport so they run at a profit, charge more duty on imports and maybe pay a franked dividend to the taxpayers/shareholders........

Maybe the Government would then become proactive and not reactive with factions and public opinion driving its policies.

 

[prawn_86]

Governments are meant to be representation of the people (in a free country that is), not some separate entity that controls everything to do with your life, thats dictatorship, which I supposed is government, but aren't we talking about governing within a free country?, If so, in principle it cannot work, as it would not portray a true representation of the people.

Yeah it sounds good to me, cut the pensions to the bone, only build infrastructure where the major taxpayers/shareholders are located, raise the fares on public transport so they run at a profit, charge more duty on imports and maybe pay a franked dividend to the taxpayers/shareholders........

Ok im kinda making this up as i go so there are bound to be a few bugs. And i know it will never happen, but its just an exercise in theory more than anything.

As i said previously instead of focusing on profits, the 'share price' could be based on some sort of performance index (IE - how happy people are with the govs performance). Politicians pay is then linked to this index.

Also to create fair representation, people in lower population areas receice more 'points' (stock) which they can buy and sell. This also means those with no interest in politics can dispose of their stock/points to those that do care. I did say in my first post that the allocation would be very difficult to get right.

I think the points/stock/index system would have to be determined by $ value though as it is the only universal motivator (across the majority of our country).



Sounding any better/fairer?

 

[DJZ]

As i said previously instead of focusing on profits, the 'share price' could be based on some sort of performance index (IE - how happy people are with the govs performance). Politicians pay is then linked to this index.

Hey prawn, Something along the lines of Bhutans GNH (Gross National Happiness)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness

Sounds reasonable, but I believe that within whatever governmental system the people should have complete control over there own lives. Freedom should reign supreme and Government should be there to protect those freedoms, all laws should be based upon basic human rights, Life, Liberty, the right to the fruits of your labour/The Pursuit of Happiness. The American constitution does a great job at providing for these freedoms, those founding fathers where very smart men, just a pity it has been destroyed by overreaching government and Greedy Robber Barons.

I suppose it doesn't matter what system you run, as long as it is based upon human rights and the people have majority control.

As Thomas Jefferson said When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

For Freedom to be ensured, the Government needs to be constrained by the people (not the other way round).

 

[prawn_86]

Something along the lines of the GNH would work. But once the gov was 'floated' then all sorts of different factors would determine the 'price', as what happens in the stock market.

I personally think that it would put people even more in control rather then now where we all just have 1 vote and thats it for 3 yrs, pollies can virtually do what they want.

This way those interested could buy more stock and have more votes etc. Would prob need a cap on ownership somewhere though so the rich dont just buy it all up...

 

[doctorj]

I really doubt it could.

A public company is meant to maximise profits, a government redistributes income and provides public goods (roads, schools, parks, lighthouses, street lights, defence forces etc).

 

[nunthewiser]

can see a russian soccer team owner and a chinese syndicate having a major takeover battle to own WA

 

[Spanning Tree]

Buying government bonds is similar to holding shares in the government except the yield is fixed, not variable.

Currently in the democratic system the government is accountable to the voters. If Government were a public company, most of it may be foreign owned, and with foreign ownership comes fewer voting rights. Currently about 91% of Australian public companies are foreign owned. Poor Australians may have to sell their shares to feed themselves or pay off the mortgage. Government will primarily be controlled by the rich.

 

[prawn_86]

Ok, remember its a kind of hybrid public company im proposing.

Objective is not to maximise profits, but rather to meet the goals/needs/hapiness of society. This would be determined by an index, which fluctuates as people buy and sell the 'stock'.

To stop foreign ownership, only citizens can hold 'stock'. Each gets issued with X amount on their 18th birthday (voting age) or when they become a citizen if older than that. This stock can only be bought and sold by other citizens.

I agree that a cap would need to be in place to stop the rich owning all the stock.

And im guessing there would be an inflation problem, as people would sell it before they die, meaning that stock stays in the system and more comes in as others reach 18. Hmmm....

 

[brettc4]

As a state public sector employee, I would have to say no. A part of our Department does generate revenue and is supposed to be cost nuetral. We have private competitors in the same space. But we as the government need to also do the socially responsible thing. Which means providing our goods and services into a market were we can never and will never make money.

If anything, I could see the State Government wanting us to get out of the areas we do make money and leave that up to business, but then the cost of the socially responsible areas would increase greatly as we would lose out economies of scale.

In terms of transperency and governance, I think government is more transparent than public companies.
We have to provide financial statements and annual reports to Treasury, which are freely available, and it the minister is questioned on something in parliment, you better be ready because by the time they are done, you will be red and sore. The only issue is that you need to be in parliment or read the minutes from it.

With these things in mind, I don't believe government can generate to types of returns an investor would want, considering the majority of tasks they perform are in the socially responsible area.

If you were happy with Hospitals only accepting patient who are rich or have health insurance, schools that once again only taught the rich. A police force owned by a corporation (can anyone safe Mafia) arresting and prosecuting people.

Has anyone seen Death Race. You could have prisons that sell death as entertainment.

I think the culture would need to change considerably for it to happen here.

If however, a private company, say Virgin takes their space plan a bit further and has a permenant settlement on the moon as the company. They would then need to effectively provide a large portion of these services, so it could sneak in that way.

Brett

 

[pk76]

As a public sector health employee, I say no.

Trust me, last thing you want is 'efficient' (as in private sector) treatment protocols when you are sick. Once the hospitals see patients as nothing but numbers to be processed 'efficiently', the quality of care drops exponentially, much further than it is now!

Let me give you an example. Old-time, hospital trained nurses will tell you how the overall care in the system has suffered dramatically over the years, yet the universities are churning out young, ambitious and supposedly better trained, therefore, efficient nurses.


I think the government's role is to provide stability and order. This means that the due process must be ensured at the cost of speed and efficiency.