

Silicon Valley hubris watch, Mary Meeker edition - cwan
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/02/25/silicon-valley-hubris-watch-mary-meeker-edition/

======
anon808
The goals of countries and companies are usually very different. Company's
maximize their owner's financial returns, countries (should) maximize their
citizen's happiness (standard of living + freedom + etc. etc.). Different
tools for different jobs.

------
protomyth
The second paragraph strikes me as hubris of a totally different sort. I get
the feeling this guy would be writing "how can a group of commoner think they
can not only create a new government but run it better than the King" in 1776.

In general and ignoring party affiliations, why wouldn't we want a successful
business person running for office? They have experience in hiring people and
tax policies. Who is not full of hubris when they run for office?

Once of the many problems with Medicare has been fraud. The government has not
dealt with it like a business would. The government doesn't have the same
incentive. It seems that if the government had a lot more business like
tendencies in its governance, it might be a lot more efficient. The reasons
businesses exist are that they are a pretty efficient organizational tool (not
perfect, but nothing is).

The prejudices laid out in that second paragraph really make it hard to really
look at what the rest of the article says. He may be right in this instance
about this report, but it seems like an opinion piece of poor value.

------
alexophile
At first I thought Mary Meeker was delusional - to think that the US budget
problem is one of _identification_ is completely missing the point. But then I
realized she's just pushing the underlying link between technology and
politics: promise radical forward progress through tough decisions (made by
you) and sacrifices (made by nebulous _other_ people).

------
Cariapa
@protomyth, re: "why wouldn't we want a.."because the criteria to be
successful in business and government are completely different! In business
the ONLY goal is to create value for your shareholders.

In government the goal is to serve your people. If you're in government and
lose sight of this goal, then you end up like Ben Ali, Mubarak, Gadafi etc :-)
All of them created value for their "shareholders", be they foreign oil
companies or the domestic businesses that were run by the local oligarchy.

~~~
protomyth
The goal of a business is to return value to the people who own it. This is
really no different than what the goal of government should be. Government
needs to return value or it should be tossed to the street. If a government
sees foreign oil companies as its "shareholders" then then the local populous
needs to get rid of the government.

All this being said, I still want to know the qualifications of a person who
should run for office that isn't seen as hubris by this author. It is a
serious sign of problems and out of touch politics when we have a professional
political class divorced from participation in commerce. If a government
leadership has no or little understanding of commerce than how the heck can
they make rules that economically work? It is like asking a non-techincal
manager about coding standards.

~~~
Cariapa
You're saying the goal of government is to "return value" to the people. I'm
saying its goal is to "serve" the people. I think we can agree we're saying
the same thing.

Here's the thing about your second paragraph: There is self-confidence, which
is an absolute requirement if you want to start/run a business, a political
campaign or even a war.

Then there is hubris. Hubris is when you haven't bothered to vote (the most
basic civic duty) for 28 years, and then run for Governor of California based
on the fact that you've been CEO of a Silicon Valley company. To me this is
worse than asking a non-technical manager about writing coding standards.

Its like a non-technical manager TELLING you how to write a coding standard.

~~~
protomyth
I guess I can agree on that. My point is that the both companies and
governments are organizations formed by people without much difference in
goals.

I get your definition of hubris, and go along with that in one case, but read
the writing in the article makes it very much sound like all business people
should stay out of politics. I am very sure that is not and has been shown to
be a bad idea.

~~~
Cariapa
Hmm..when I read the article the first time I didn't get the impression that
he was saying business people should stay away from politics. But I was
closely following the 2008 election in CA and assumed that's what he was
referring to.

I think business people should definitely be involved in politics. I think
everyone should be involved in politics, as a matter of fact. Democracy is a
wonderful thing.

But I don't think being successful at business automatically means you're
going to be successful in politics as well.

------
Corvus
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was Meeker not the arch cheerleader for dotcom
bubble compaines such as Netscape, 360 degree Networks, Aol, and many others?
I recall her sending "buy" and "outperform" letters to clients for companies
who lost from 90% - 100% of their values.

