Originally Posted by Dickprinter
Tell that to Mike Bloomberg. He seems to be doing pretty good with his City.
New York is a mess and Bloomberg is an idiot, although, at least he's not afraid to tackle the important issues... like large sodas.
While being successful in businessman doesn't necessarily preclude being good at political governance, there's no reason we should think it particularly qualifies someone to be a political leader.
It's the job of a business leader to make his own company successful, and if he does that by laying waste to dozens of companies around him, putting more people out of work than he employees, and generally causing more harm than good, that's OK. His stock price went up and he's a "successful businessman".
That however, I think, is not the model of a successful political leader, who is responsible for creating conditions that will lead to optimal success for the broadest segment, for all businesses, not just a single business.
That's just one difference between the two jobs. There are hundreds, thousands, more. So, no, the idea that we ought to have businessmen running things because, "they understand how to get the economy working," isn't sensible. Quite the contrary.