I'm going to start off with a rough analogy: imagine Netflix is similar to our government. We as the "constituents" pay subscription fees (like taxes) and we elect the members of Netflix leadership (for the purposes of this example). We receive the benefits of Netflix quite happily ... for a while. Pretty soon, though, someone starts thinking Netflix should start having an expanded movie selection. So they phone up their local representative and that representative, desiring heavily to be re-elected, does their best work to ensure they get what they want. Things continue to work fine until someone again decides they don't get enough from Netflix. "I want music too," someone thinks and soon calls their representative, demanding that music be added to the services. The representative tentatively replies that he can push that, but subscription fees might rise. The caller slowly decides that that would be acceptable and, eventually, music would be added to the services. This process would repeat and after prices have risen a decent amount, someone would start complaining. Add in a few prices rises brought about by necessity (rising hardware costs, inflation, etc.) and people would be livid. Netflix would be forced between raising prices to accommodate all the features that the people want or cutting features--a lose-lose situation. Years down the line, people have become accustomed to Netflix providing their meals for them, forgetting what Netflix was meant to do in the first place. The company, meanwhile, finds itself in a rapidly sinking ship. In desperation, it tries to cut features--only to find a wall of opposition from the people. Finding a greater fear of suggesting to raise prices, Netflix instead simply continues to comply with the wishes of the people, hoping salvation might come later ... when new leaders are elected. This myth is to remain such, though, and Netflix crashes and burns in a big way.
My analogy above is a bit strange, as a synthesis of government and pure business would be, but it illustrates the idea I want to convey: government could learn a lot from smart business practices. Part of the flaw of government is an innate flaw in mankind--those who are in a position desire to remain in that position. Those we elect into office will make promises and do things to appease their constituents that have ill effects on the state as a whole. The other part of the flaw resides in the people, who demand that the government render an increasing amount of services. In our analogy, if Netflix was behaving as a business should have, it would have refused to offer music as a service. Netflix is a movie service, not a music service. Even further down the line, Netflix could have cut certain features in order to maintain prices. People would have complained, but in the end it all works out. When the government attempts to cut funding for something, we end up with this:
We grasp on to every little thing like pathological hoarders, unwilling to part with even the smallest, most insignificant things. The government, afraid of insulting or angering people, complies and nothing changes.
Smart businesses do not find themselves in the situation the U.S. government currently finds itself. This is partly because of the cold efficiency businesses can have in consideration to money, but also because they know how to maintain a balance. The U.S. government can and direly needs to learn something from businesses, or it will meet the same fate as our fictional Netflix.
Just to be safe, the picture above came from Josh Ciesla on his Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment