|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
Did you ask how upper management incentives differ from private to government? Doesn't the need to turn a profit answer that?
I did. Government agencies do all sorts of things and operate under various financing and operating budget models. Typically, even when they create goods or services they aim for a neutral operating budget, that is, they don't aim for a profit. This doesn't mean their performance isn't monitored and audited, and that they're not penalized for poor performance. The profit incentives are, while not to the same extent as in the private sector, still there.
That was looking at things from a organizational perspective. When looking at personal level, the directors, their performance is quite identical to a corporation's director, and their incentives and motivations are largely exactly the same. At the very least, saying that profit incentives only apply to private sector is simply untrue.
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
In that situation, sure. Some other situations would have shareholders making more.
Then you'll surely have no problem coming up with one that sounds even remotely viable. The only one I can come up with is that if you're self-employed, it would make sense to give half of the company to someone provided that it would more than double the profits. The more people you add to the mix, the less likely it is that a shared ownership is more profitable.
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
You mentioned that you think the economist thing is to ignore some externality and pay attention to money things. I responded with the economist thing is handling externality in terms of money. It would be bad news if economics ignored relevant factors. Economists tend to do their best to denote what they can in terms of money, because it allows an objective measurement.
Exactly, and ignore everything they can't. Or is there a typical monetary value that economists tend to attach to eg. personal development and self-respect?
|