TED Conversations

Creative Programmer

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why countries have less money than companies?

According to:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-14340470
Why USA has less cash to spend than Apple?
Why countires couldn't be managed as companies?
Why countries couldn't be as innovative as companies ?

+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • Apr 2 2012: The main reason corporations in these times we live in have more cash (or rather, capital) than countries is because of thier priorities. All corporations make decisions based on a single purpose, to make money. A corporation's end-goal will always be to maximise profits and gain as much capital as possible.

    Countries SHOULDN'T be managed like corporations because a country's governement should focus on the overall well-being of its citizens, not profit. I'm not economics expert, but I believe in my lifetime I will see a change from a country being measured on how well it's doing not based on GDP but rather the overall well-being of its citizens. This will render the first question "Why countries have less money than companies?" completely moot, since money is not a priority.

    As for the final question, why countires cound't be as innovative as companies? I don't believe it should be the government's responsibility to innovate, but provide a platform on which innovation can stem. Provide education to children and affordable tuition fees so those children can grow up to be innovators. Set up incentives for business to have nicer working environments and good flexible working hours to keep the working population happy. If you provide the means, people will innovate. And that itself (in my opinion) is worth more than all of the gold in the entire world.
    • thumb
      Apr 7 2012: Oh that our politicians would think of the good of the country over the good of their jobs and retirements. We need to be innovative in how we handle national issues like illegal immigration, poverty, joblessness, welfare dependence, and crime. There we can innovate and will need to in order to survive. It is my belief that people do not want the country to act like IBM or apple but to have an eye to fiscal responsibility, not spend more than they take in , not take out loans they cannot pay, and not give away money they do not have. This is a responsible business view of a country I think. We do not have that in congress, the executive branch, or the judicial branch and if it is not taken up soon we will follow Greece and other failing countries quickly.
  • Apr 7 2012: Not sure they do. At least not those mentioned. Plus expected revenue streams, ability to alter structures for such. Print money if desired. For example the entire global information technology, even coupled to telecommunications, industry probably doesn't have a global market capitalization, or value, let alone what these companies have in cash, that even equals the "social security trust fund" where even values of such are related to policy choices of governments, etc.....really not the best question where premises are even close to the truth, let alone worth evaluating.

    Etc...
  • Apr 4 2012: Government is trying to "manage" every aspect of a nation and the needs of it's people. It holds to core values, the constitution, But it's purpose is utterly different than that of a company. A country is an union of people banded together for the common good. The purpose of a country is to allow people the freedom to live out their lives and prosper. A company has razor focus and looks after the bottom line. If a company was pulled in as many directions with such indecision and inefficiency as the US Govt. It would fail. Govt is meant to enable the people to live free independent lives, not rule over them and take from them. Lastly, the government would have plenty of money if it controlled and managed it's growth and spent less. It's called fiscal responsibility. The American people have lost their protestant work ethic, and backbone. People are more concerned about not offending one another and entertainment than they are about truth and reality.
  • thumb

    R H 20+

    • 0
    Apr 4 2012: Oh, if only the country could be run with the efficiency of a well-managed corporation. If only the president could fire the senators and the reps and the governors, and the governors fire the mayors and the judges and the school boards. If only the board (us) could fire the president - at will. If only the stockholders (again us) could demand a return on our investment (taxes), and call a special stockholders emergency meeting and say: "You want to spend a billion a day in WHAT country?!" We could say: "What do you mean our books don't balance? What do you mean a large percentage of our 'employess' (citizens) are living in squalor, have no food, and no health care? How do you expect them to work and be productive for the country?" We could demand the resources we, the stockholders, provide would fulfill the tenants and mission of the country, not some stupid narrow interest from some small facet of the country (agribusiness, pharmacorp, munitions providers, international construction behemoths, etc) By your own admission, corporations are taking over the world with their efficiency. I wonder what the 'happines quotient' is of those employees who all are relatively prosperous and employed. People 'invest' in well-run companies. People complain, take advantage of, and mooch off of poorly run governments. A well-run company knows it has invested heavily in an employee and will do whatever it can to place that employee in a better suited position than one they're failing in. In a current country, your just fired. Instead of 'our taxes' being wasted by govenment inefficiency, special interest, and dubious efforts, let every single citizen's net worth be reduced by the errors of the officers of the company. We'll see how long they last.