ideas

Manisha Thakor : You’re A Dead Woman…In The Pink Ghetto

September 9, 2010

“So far in 2010 The New York Times has published 698 obituaries. Only 92 of those were of women.” I came across this startling statistic on Catalyst’s blog (a must read for anyone who is interested in global women’s economic empowerment). They in turn were highlighting a moving and thought-provoking article in the Harvard Business Review written by Bill Taylor , co-founder of Fast Company magazine. What’s the cause of this obit gap? At first blush you might say – well, women live longer. But, nope, that’s not it. It comes down to the money, honey. As Bill succinctly put it, “As a society and business culture, we still tend to equate money with success… Which helps to explain why so many wealthy males get New York Times obituaries, while women who died with smaller bank accounts, but who may have led richer lives, don’t get the attention they deserve.” It’s been three days since I read Bill’s excellent article, and I still can’t get this statistic out of my head. One could argue that with the passing of a few more years, the ranks of women who will have had enough time to climb high enough on traditional ladders of corporate success to have “earned” an obituary in The New York Times will have risen. But will the passage of time really solve the problem? Bill states, and I concur, that he’d “much rather read about the passing of a gifted educator, or a committed neighborhood leader, or a beloved nun, than yet another starched-shirt banker or lawyer. These unsung heroes and grassroots innovators don’t live forever — even if their ideas and impact do.” However, my concern is that for too long women have been the unsung and UNPAID heroes during key periods of societal change and transition. Our nation is clearly in the midst of one of those defining moments. As we reboot, reset, and restart – my dream is that we don’t, once again, leave women to live out their years in the pink ghetto … giving it our all, working our backsides off, and yet still struggling to make ends meet at the end of the day. What’s the answer? That’s a big question that will require a multi-faceted response. But one piece must be increased financial education. I meet entirely too many fantastic women doing incredible work for a pittance of pay. If more women (and men) grasped the enormity of the havoc brought about by pay inequality (on both a gender and career basis) we’d see some seismic societal shifts. Where to start to get money smart? Three websites I love are DailyWorth.com , LearnVest.com *, and SmartAboutMoney.org . * FTC Disclosure: I currently serve as the “Investing Expert” for LearnVest.com Want more financial love? You can follow Manisha on Twitter at @ManishaThakor and sign up for her email updates here . Starting in Fall 2010, Manisha will teach an innovative online course on “Financial Literacy 101″ for woman though www.Sympoz.com . Manisha Thakor, personal finance expert for women, can be reached via her website, www.ManishaThakor.com .

Read the full article →

Angela Haines: Commutes, Cats and Cakes: Enterprising Ideas!

September 3, 2010

After a couple of decades as a computer programmer who commuted every morning an hour across the Potomac to work in Maryland, Carol Covin began to notice as she stalled in traffic that there were as many cars driving in the opposite direction each morning towards Virginia. Why commute, she wondered? If there were good jobs closer to home, she wanted to find them. Her search led her to a publishing career. Her first edition of The Computer Professional’s Job Guide for the Washington, DC Area sold out its 5000 copy print run in four months. Her next step was to learn the publishing business so she could expand her guide geographically. Over the next few years Carol wrote computer jobs guides for New England, the Midwest, the Southeast and eventually a second updated edition for the Washington area. Then she published a national edition, 20 Minutes from Home: The Best Computer Jobs in America , under her own imprint, Twenty Minutes Press. Her next foray followed her 50th birthday. “I decided to create a 50-year plan with a task for each decade. I needed to think about other things I could do with my life outside of computers.” At the top of her list was to help find a cure for cancer. But that motivation was not as grandiose as it sounds. One of her friends with inoperable stomach cancer had stumbled upon an alternative therapy developed by a scientist in the late 1970s that he claimed had shrunk his tumor. Wondering if that protocol — a mineral salt currently sold over the counter — had legs, Carol spent a couple of years learning everything she could on the therapy, including experiences of other patients. By 2008, she felt confident enough to create Sky Blue Pharmaceuticals, LLC with the participation of a pediatric oncologist with FDA experience to advise her on regulatory matters. Currently, Sky Blue is seeking funds and approval necessary to proceed with clinical trials. And Carol still has a couple of years left to reach this decade’s goal — before going on to planting forests in desert countries! Dr. Phyllis Scalletar also wanted a new focus. After a couple of decades as a manager in several government agencies, including a stint as chief operating officer for the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, she turned to her cat for a business idea. “As you know, cats are picky eaters and it killed me to serve my cat those awful dried pellets they call cat food. So I decided to try developing cat sauces.” Through the Department of Food Sciences at a local university, she isolated a byproduct from the extraction of oil from algae, in the former of essential biomeal for her sauces, to jazz up the dried pellets. “I know a lot of people want to solve the world’s problems, but I just wanted to create more palatable cat food.” But her Waterloo arose in the manufacturing process: every time she received a shipment of the biomeal, it varied in color, consistency and composition. Eventually she pulled the plug on that business, but not before learning “never to rely on another party for your product’s key components; you can outsource a lot, but you have to keep control of your key ingredient.” Now what she plans to do is to return to her roots in chemical safety and hazardous materials. With increasing public interest in workplace safety and environmental hazards, she sees new opportunities arising out of her former experience. For Jennifer Whitlock, the leap was, well, sky high! With advanced degrees in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from Stanford, Jen signed on as a senior engineer scientist with Boeing to design jet aircrafts. For her work as the chief designer of the Blended Wing-Body (BWB) project, a passenger aircraft with 100 -800 seats with a military capacity to be a tanker, freighter, bomber, and combat support vehicle, she was awarded two patents. Then her personal life dictated a move. Her husband, a rocket scientist, lost his job and moved back home to the Midwest to work for Rolls Royce in Indiana, close to their families in Illinois. By then Jennifer had two children and wanted a more flexible schedule. So to satisfy “a creative artistic instinct” she moved from designing jets to designing cakes and cookies, starting a business called Posh-Pastries in 2009. Her most recent accolade: first place and grand sweepstakes prize for cakes and cookies at the 2010 Indiana State Fair. Any crossover benefits from her engineering days? “Sure,” Jen says, “at Boeing I had to learn all about business, the importance of branding and selling your designs to top management, how to manage expenses. All that helps because I realize that baking a pretty cake doesn’t mean you can run a business.” Next step: well no plans for a moonshot this time, but maybe moon cakes, for which, Jen admits, she might use her aircraft drafting tools to decorate. What these entrepreneurs have in common are a couple of traits: flexibility and creativity. And business ideas often start very close to home. Please share where your ideas come from. Seems like they can crop up anywhere, even when you’re stuck in traffic!

Read the full article →

Chris Guillebeau: How to Stand Out in Any Job

August 31, 2010

Regardless of what kind of work you do, it’s usually not difficult to set yourself apart by going beyond the status quo of being average. All too many working environments are filled with all kinds of people who are just ambling through their jobs. Many don’t want to be there at all, and never miss a chance to let everyone know how much they’d rather be somewhere else. Others are embarrassingly opportunistic, focused entirely on themselves and “what’s in it for them.” Their every move is built on pleasing the people they think will determine their future. Still others in most workplaces base their time and energy on the goal of just getting by. They do what they need to do, for the most part, but they rarely take risks and rarely excel. Sadly, these characterizations are true even in a lot of “helping” professions — in academia, in non-profit organizations, in the clergy, and so on. Setting a goal of doing the least amount expected of you may have started in the corporate cubicle world, but the norms of mediocrity have since spread throughout most professions. Fortunately, there is a clear alternative to ambling through your workday. The alternative is to be excellent, to make a huge difference in your working environment, help others do better, and increase your own workplace stock along the way. Focus on these eight principles to become a superhero in pretty much any job: Never turn down a project by saying, “That’s not in my job description.” We’re often taught that high achievers carefully select the tasks and projects that they work on. This is true in the long run, but when you’re getting established somewhere, you shouldn’t be so selective. Instead, do the things that need to be done but that no one wants to do. You can always point out later that you’ve done everything you’re supposed to do and a lot more, but don’t whine about your projects while they’re underway. If someone asks you to do something, it’s usually because they think you’ll do it well. Impress them and do it even better. Focus externally and continually ask for feedback. Ask your boss, your colleagues, and your subordinates the same question every couple of weeks: “What can I do better?” If they don’t give you a straight answer, they’re usually just being polite. Ask again. Also ask all of these people, “How can I help you?” Spend time every day focusing on the people around you. Think about their needs and preemptively help them. Make it clear you’re not helping them so they can help you later; just make their lives easier and help them look good to others. Build a strong team even if you’re not the boss, and be a leader no matter what your title is. You don’t need to be in charge to be a team-builder. Just start doing it. Take notes at meetings and email them out to the participants. Begin asking follow-up questions: “Who will take responsibility for this? When will it be done?” Leadership rarely involves telling people what to do. Instead, it’s usually about helping people and teams create synergy and accomplish great things by working together. You can do that without any title at all. When the time comes where you do need to tell someone what to do, they’ll listen to you if you have taken the time to build the team well. You know you’ve been successful when people start looking to you for the answers even when more experienced or more senior people are around. If you’re not at a meeting and people notice your absence, that’s a good start. If they wait to begin the meeting until you can be located, that’s even better. Propose and Support Amazing Ideas… Think about how you can make your organization or your workgroup great. Think really big, but also think small–sometimes the most effective changes require relatively small shifts in behavior or perception. Ask others for ideas. Most people have them, but they often don’t know how to present them, or they feel shut down from a previous negative experience. Get the best ideas out of the best people, and start pitching for them. …but don’t pitch your biggest ideas in a group meeting. Your ideas will “travel” further if they have the support of others, and it’s much easier to get buy-in through individual meetings. This is why the “meeting before the meeting” is usually more important than the meeting. Test out your best ideas. Give them time to settle with others. Go to each key decision maker to share your idea before the real meeting starts. Then at the meeting, introduce the idea by saying, “I mentioned this to a couple of people earlier…” Everyone you talked with earlier will feel validated that they were involved before the big meeting, so talk to as many people as possible. After you’ve established some credibility, start a small but meaningful rebellion. Make sure you pick something that is easy to win but still makes a positive difference for most of your colleagues. Good ideas are dress codes, mandatory but useless meetings, and any long-standing practices that don’t make sense. Start violating these norms, slowly but boldly. Because you’ve taken the time to establish credibility, your rebellion will be closely watched. And because you’ve picked something that’s easy to win but meaningful to others, you’ll have good support for it. After you achieve the change you were seeking, share the credit and plan your next rebellion. Don’t get tangled up in long email threads. Never be a slave to your Outlook folder. Check it twice a day, turn off the “ding” sound that alerts you to new mail, and set up an Action folder to process important items instead of continually looking through your Inbox. As an inexperienced leader who derived too much self-worth from my Outlook addiction, someone said to me once, “Chris, don’t try to be the fastest person to reply to these long email threads. Just take your time, listen to other people, and then contribute something meaningful.” Work smarter and harder. Yes, you should find ways to work smarter and avoid repetitive, monotonous tasks. But you should also work really hard. Show up early and leave late. After you’ve established some authority, you can get back to pacing yourself. It’s a lot better to have a reputation as a hard worker from the beginning. When you relax a little later, no one will notice. If you feel threatened by someone, don’t show it. Most people who lead by intimidation are quite insecure. Don’t reinforce their insecurity by pandering to it. Even when it’s working for them and you feel intimidated, never let them know. Instead, do your job, keep excelling, keep looking out for others, and eventually the tide will turn. You may even end up as their boss one day — it happens all the time. *** These general tips below will also help: Share Credit, Accept Blame. Many people try to pass the blame to others. It’s very different to say, it’s my fault. I’m sorry. Try sending an email with the subject “Hey everyone, I’m sorry” sometime and see what happens. Compliment others every day. Do it by email, phone, notes, any way you can. Find out how people like to be complimented and do it the same way. Don’t make it trite. Most people know when you’re being genuine. Go above and beyond. Deliver more than what’s expected. Don’t do it to be rewarded; do it because it really adds value. *** Be excellent, and a remarkable thing will happen: by helping others look good and improving your overall environment, you’ll look good as well. You’ll do it without backstabbing and without doing stuff that has no real value. Instead, you’ll inspire others. And then you’ll be a leader, just like John Quincy Adams said: “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” This is real leadership for any generation and any workplace. If you don’t yet know how you’ll change the world, this is a great way to start.

Read the full article →

Marshall Auerback: The Real Lesson From the Great Depression: Fiscal Policy Works!

August 31, 2010

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . If the US government had a dollar every time someone proclaimed to learn the lessons of the Great Depression, we probably wouldn’t have a budget deficit. Usually, these debates turn on the question of fiscal policy and whether in fact, FDR’s New Deal had a discernable role in generating recovery. ” Fiscal austerians ” have done much to dismiss the economic achievements of the New Deal, some even suggesting that FDR’s fiscal policies worsened the crisis. For a brief period during 2008, the views of neo-liberals like Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin were shunted aside. But the FDR revisionists, who disapprove of fiscal policy measures of any kind, have come back. Now they’re brandishing the old arguments that “excessive” government spending risks “crowding out” private spending, making it impossible for the US government to deal with the recession (because it has run out of money) and hindering the capacity of the private sector to recover because of too much government interference in the “free market”. These complaints are usually accompanied by a wave of rhetoric condemning the “business un-friendly” policies of the current Administration, along with dire warnings of a “national solvency” crisis. After all, fiscal austerians are nothing, if not fully predictable. Was the 1937 Relapse Caused by Increased Taxes and Unions? In that context, we have to give some credit to Professors Thomas Cooley and Lee Ohanian, who have taken a more novel approach in their critique of the New Deal. In some respects, they actually validate the case for fiscal policy expansion (although the two authors might not see it that way). Cooley and Ohanian argue that: The economy did not tank in 1937 because government spending declined. Increases in tax rates, particularly capital income tax rates, and the expansion of unions, were most likely responsible. Unfortunately, these same factors pose a similar threat today. The OMB numbers suggest that spending actually DID decline in 1937 and 1938 (see here ) and, contrary to the assertions of Cooley and Ohanian, that decline had a very deleterious impact on economic activity and employment. I will address the tax issue presently, but let’s first deal with the “excessive unionization” canard. An objective observer looking at the US in the 21st century would hardly conclude that unions have any real power in the American economy today, any more that we have a “socialist” government dedicated to the promotion of a vast left wing agenda which enhanced union power. Obama has not addressed Labor Law reform and wages haven’t risen in a generation; in fact, last year they fell. True, the President occasionally does display a social democratic rhetoric, but so far, redistributive policies have primarily benefited financial institutions. Social security benefits are under threat via a new “bipartisan commission” on long term deficits, public health care insurance proposals were eviscerated in the “health care reform” bill, and trade unions outside the public sector have withered over the past 30 years. Cost of living adjustment clauses have largely disappeared since the early ’80s (although some government benefits like social security retain them), average hourly earnings are virtually flat, and I would not be surprised to see wage deflation before the unemployment rate peaks this time around. US households are paying down debt on a net basis — even credit card debt — and creditors remain reluctant to make new loans. So the odds of a wage/price spiral taking root as a consequence of excessive union power look decidedly low – in fact, close to zero. On the other question of taxes, I actually have some degree of sympathy with the arguments of Cooley and Ohanian, but largely because functionally, a tax increase works as a countercyclical policy which mitigates the impact of fiscal policy expansion. Let’s go back to basics. Under a fiat currency regime, such as we have in the US, when the Federal government spends, it electronically credits banks accounts. Taxation works exactly in reverse. Private bank accounts are debited (and private reserves fall) and the government accounts are credited and their reserves rise. All this is accomplished by accounting entries only, but the main point is that spending creates new net financial assets and taxation drains them. So in one sense, Cooley and Ohanian are right. Tax hikes do cut aggregate demand, much as government spending cuts do. In economic terms, both serve to depress economic activity. We agree with the authors: tax rises at this juncture are a dumb idea. They won’t serve to “reduce” the deficit, because the resultant impact on private sector activity is likely to diminish it and thereby increase the gap between government expenditures and revenues as the economy slows down. The broader issue of government spending versus tax cuts is a political/distributional argument, and economists (and others) can legitimately argue about the respective multiplier effects of one versus the other. But at least this kind of discussion shifts the debate in the right direction -toward increasing economic activity and, hence, job growth and away from wrong-headed discussions of fiscal austerity and deficit reduction as a primary policy goal of government. FDR ran into trouble only when he moved away from fiscal expansion toward austerity in 1937. At the outset of the Great Depression, economic output collapsed, and unemployment rose to 25 per cent. Influenced by his “liquidationist” Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, then President Hoover made comparatively minimal attempts to deploy government fiscal policy to stimulate aggregate demand. Further, the Federal Reserve actually sold bonds to push up interest rates in a mindless effort to stem the gold outflows that we occurring as the rest of the world lost confidence in the US economy. So much for the halcyon days of the gold standard! FDR’s Employment and Wage Strategy Worked This all changed under FDR. The key to evaluating Roosevelt’s performance in combating the Depression is the statistical treatment of many millions of unemployed engaged in his massive workfare programs. The government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York’s Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown. It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country’s entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock. So much for the notion that government jobs are not “real jobs”, as we hear persistently from critics of the New Deal! The reasons for the discrepancies in the unemployment data that have historically arisen out of the New Deal are that the current sampling method of estimation for unemployment by the BLS was not developed until 1940 (for more detail see here). If these workfare Americans are considered to be unemployed, the Roosevelt administration reduced unemployment from 25 per cent in 1933 to 9.6% per cent in 1936, up to 13 per cent in 1938 (due largely to a reversal of the fiscal activism which had characterized FDR’s first term in office), back to less than 1 per cent by the time the U.S. was plunged into the Second World War at the end of 1941. In fact, once the Great Depression hit bottom in early 1933, the US economy embarked on four years of expansion that constituted the biggest cyclical boom in U.S. economic history. For four years, real GDP grew at a 12% rate and nominal GDP grew at a 14% rate. There was another shorter and shallower depression in 1937 largely caused by renewed fiscal tightening (and higher Federal Reserve margin requirements). This economic relapse has led to the misconception that the central bank was pushing on a string throughout all of the 1930s, until the giant fiscal stimulus of the wartime effort finally brought the economy out of depression. That’s factually incorrect. Most accounts of the Great Depression understate the effect of the New Deal job creation measures, because they don’t show how much of the decline in official employment was attributable to the multiplier effect of spending on direct job creation. Also, the “work relief” category does not include employment on public works funded by the Public Works Administration (PWA) nor the multiplier effect of PWA spending. The figures tell the story indirectly, however, in the path official unemployment followed — steeply declining in periods when work relief spending was high and either declining more slowly or increasing in periods when work relief spending was cut back. In fact, by the end of 1934, more than 20 million Americans (one out of six!) were receiving jobs or public assistance of one form or another from the “Welfare State”. Yes, 9.6% unemployment at the end of 1936 was still a big number. But it’s hard to imagine the Democrats being in political peril for the midterms, or witnessing the current abysmal state of Obama’s popularity ratings, if today’s Administration could reduce unemployment by two-thirds in one term in office, as FDR did under any honest measure of unemployment. Suffice to say, unemployment reduction was the singular focus of the Roosevelt Administration; by contrast, today we have “the new normal”, in effect, a faux intellectual argument to justify why we can’t generate higher job growth. It’s a testament to political failure. In reference to the criticism of FDR’s “high wage” policy by Cooley and Ohanian, it is worth noting that the wage “inflation” which they decry was in reality a product of a deflationary environment in which the general price level fell faster than the money wage level. During the outset of the Great Depression, output generation collapsed in the face of the US federal government’s fiscal inaction and central bank interest rate hikes. This had the strange result of generating a counter-cyclical real wage increase, which in fact was nothing more than a product of depressed nature of the economy, in which overall prices were deflating prices faster than wages (for more information see here ). Overlaying the wage data with the true reduction in unemployment between 1933 to the end of 1936, makes it difficult to mount an empirical case that FDR wage improvements during the Great Depression were damaging to overall economic growth and increasing employment. Even if some sectors were disadvantaged (and that isn’t proven by Cooley and Ohanian) the evidence actually suggests that the rises in real wages were associated with rising overall employment. Relapse Caused by Austerity Measures What about the relapse in 1937/38? By 1936 many economists and financial experts (notably FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau) feared the country would go bankrupt if the government kept deficit-spending (sound familiar?). And after all, they argued, the government deficits had “pump-primed” the economy. The private sector could now take off on its own and get back to close to the full employment level of 1928-early 1929. Consequently, Roosevelt ran (in 1936) on a platform that he would try to reduce, if not eliminate, the deficit. He won the election by a landslide — understandably, as the U.S. was out of depression by 1937. True to his campaign promise, government spending was cut significantly in 1937 and 1938, and taxes were raised to “fund” the new Social Security program. By 1938 Roosevelt submitted a budget in which the deficit was virtually eliminated (0.1% of GDP). The resultant economic relapse, based on efforts to balance the budget, exacerbated by a nonsensically tight monetary policy brought on by the Fed, duly followed. This is unsurprising. Any type of fiscal austerity during a period of economic slowdown, whether via government spending cuts or higher taxes, will indeed depress economic activity. But the other lesson of the Great Depression is that properly targeted fiscal policy which focuses on job creation can work. The Great Depression was indeed a disastrous human calamity but FDR’s New Deal (including the high wage policies) attenuated the disaster. There is nothing to the claims that the interventions made things worse, other than when Roosevelt himself capitulated to the tired old forces of financial conservatism and fiscal austerianism, and the economy paid the price. Thankfully, FDR was not ideologically wed to the ideas of fiscal austerity and quickly reversed course. It helped, of course, that his Cabinet was well represented by progressive figures such as Frances Perkins, Henry Wallace, Harold Ickes and Harry Hopkins, who overcame the forces of economic conservatism embodied by FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau. We need these kinds of progressive forces in current Administration, especially given the recent resignation of CEA head, Christina Romer. It’s time to let go of the old ideology, which created today’s crisis. Here’s hoping that President Obama, like FDR before him, changes course quickly. America is ready for a new New Deal. Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Read the full article →

Marshall Auerback: The Real Lesson From the Great Depression: Fiscal Policy Works!

August 31, 2010

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . If the US government had a dollar every time someone proclaimed to learn the lessons of the Great Depression, we probably wouldn’t have a budget deficit. Usually, these debates turn on the question of fiscal policy and whether in fact, FDR’s New Deal had a discernable role in generating recovery. ” Fiscal austerians ” have done much to dismiss the economic achievements of the New Deal, some even suggesting that FDR’s fiscal policies worsened the crisis. For a brief period during 2008, the views of neo-liberals like Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin were shunted aside. But the FDR revisionists, who disapprove of fiscal policy measures of any kind, have come back. Now they’re brandishing the old arguments that “excessive” government spending risks “crowding out” private spending, making it impossible for the US government to deal with the recession (because it has run out of money) and hindering the capacity of the private sector to recover because of too much government interference in the “free market”. These complaints are usually accompanied by a wave of rhetoric condemning the “business un-friendly” policies of the current Administration, along with dire warnings of a “national solvency” crisis. After all, fiscal austerians are nothing, if not fully predictable. Was the 1937 Relapse Caused by Increased Taxes and Unions? In that context, we have to give some credit to Professors Thomas Cooley and Lee Ohanian, who have taken a more novel approach in their critique of the New Deal. In some respects, they actually validate the case for fiscal policy expansion (although the two authors might not see it that way). Cooley and Ohanian argue that: The economy did not tank in 1937 because government spending declined. Increases in tax rates, particularly capital income tax rates, and the expansion of unions, were most likely responsible. Unfortunately, these same factors pose a similar threat today. The OMB numbers suggest that spending actually DID decline in 1937 and 1938 (see here ) and, contrary to the assertions of Cooley and Ohanian, that decline had a very deleterious impact on economic activity and employment. I will address the tax issue presently, but let’s first deal with the “excessive unionization” canard. An objective observer looking at the US in the 21st century would hardly conclude that unions have any real power in the American economy today, any more that we have a “socialist” government dedicated to the promotion of a vast left wing agenda which enhanced union power. Obama has not addressed Labor Law reform and wages haven’t risen in a generation; in fact, last year they fell. True, the President occasionally does display a social democratic rhetoric, but so far, redistributive policies have primarily benefited financial institutions. Social security benefits are under threat via a new “bipartisan commission” on long term deficits, public health care insurance proposals were eviscerated in the “health care reform” bill, and trade unions outside the public sector have withered over the past 30 years. Cost of living adjustment clauses have largely disappeared since the early ’80s (although some government benefits like social security retain them), average hourly earnings are virtually flat, and I would not be surprised to see wage deflation before the unemployment rate peaks this time around. US households are paying down debt on a net basis — even credit card debt — and creditors remain reluctant to make new loans. So the odds of a wage/price spiral taking root as a consequence of excessive union power look decidedly low – in fact, close to zero. On the other question of taxes, I actually have some degree of sympathy with the arguments of Cooley and Ohanian, but largely because functionally, a tax increase works as a countercyclical policy which mitigates the impact of fiscal policy expansion. Let’s go back to basics. Under a fiat currency regime, such as we have in the US, when the Federal government spends, it electronically credits banks accounts. Taxation works exactly in reverse. Private bank accounts are debited (and private reserves fall) and the government accounts are credited and their reserves rise. All this is accomplished by accounting entries only, but the main point is that spending creates new net financial assets and taxation drains them. So in one sense, Cooley and Ohanian are right. Tax hikes do cut aggregate demand, much as government spending cuts do. In economic terms, both serve to depress economic activity. We agree with the authors: tax rises at this juncture are a dumb idea. They won’t serve to “reduce” the deficit, because the resultant impact on private sector activity is likely to diminish it and thereby increase the gap between government expenditures and revenues as the economy slows down. The broader issue of government spending versus tax cuts is a political/distributional argument, and economists (and others) can legitimately argue about the respective multiplier effects of one versus the other. But at least this kind of discussion shifts the debate in the right direction -toward increasing economic activity and, hence, job growth and away from wrong-headed discussions of fiscal austerity and deficit reduction as a primary policy goal of government. FDR ran into trouble only when he moved away from fiscal expansion toward austerity in 1937. At the outset of the Great Depression, economic output collapsed, and unemployment rose to 25 per cent. Influenced by his “liquidationist” Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, then President Hoover made comparatively minimal attempts to deploy government fiscal policy to stimulate aggregate demand. Further, the Federal Reserve actually sold bonds to push up interest rates in a mindless effort to stem the gold outflows that we occurring as the rest of the world lost confidence in the US economy. So much for the halcyon days of the gold standard! FDR’s Employment and Wage Strategy Worked This all changed under FDR. The key to evaluating Roosevelt’s performance in combating the Depression is the statistical treatment of many millions of unemployed engaged in his massive workfare programs. The government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York’s Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown. It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country’s entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock. So much for the notion that government jobs are not “real jobs”, as we hear persistently from critics of the New Deal! The reasons for the discrepancies in the unemployment data that have historically arisen out of the New Deal are that the current sampling method of estimation for unemployment by the BLS was not developed until 1940 (for more detail see here). If these workfare Americans are considered to be unemployed, the Roosevelt administration reduced unemployment from 25 per cent in 1933 to 9.6% per cent in 1936, up to 13 per cent in 1938 (due largely to a reversal of the fiscal activism which had characterized FDR’s first term in office), back to less than 1 per cent by the time the U.S. was plunged into the Second World War at the end of 1941. In fact, once the Great Depression hit bottom in early 1933, the US economy embarked on four years of expansion that constituted the biggest cyclical boom in U.S. economic history. For four years, real GDP grew at a 12% rate and nominal GDP grew at a 14% rate. There was another shorter and shallower depression in 1937 largely caused by renewed fiscal tightening (and higher Federal Reserve margin requirements). This economic relapse has led to the misconception that the central bank was pushing on a string throughout all of the 1930s, until the giant fiscal stimulus of the wartime effort finally brought the economy out of depression. That’s factually incorrect. Most accounts of the Great Depression understate the effect of the New Deal job creation measures, because they don’t show how much of the decline in official employment was attributable to the multiplier effect of spending on direct job creation. Also, the “work relief” category does not include employment on public works funded by the Public Works Administration (PWA) nor the multiplier effect of PWA spending. The figures tell the story indirectly, however, in the path official unemployment followed — steeply declining in periods when work relief spending was high and either declining more slowly or increasing in periods when work relief spending was cut back. In fact, by the end of 1934, more than 20 million Americans (one out of six!) were receiving jobs or public assistance of one form or another from the “Welfare State”. Yes, 9.6% unemployment at the end of 1936 was still a big number. But it’s hard to imagine the Democrats being in political peril for the midterms, or witnessing the current abysmal state of Obama’s popularity ratings, if today’s Administration could reduce unemployment by two-thirds in one term in office, as FDR did under any honest measure of unemployment. Suffice to say, unemployment reduction was the singular focus of the Roosevelt Administration; by contrast, today we have “the new normal”, in effect, a faux intellectual argument to justify why we can’t generate higher job growth. It’s a testament to political failure. In reference to the criticism of FDR’s “high wage” policy by Cooley and Ohanian, it is worth noting that the wage “inflation” which they decry was in reality a product of a deflationary environment in which the general price level fell faster than the money wage level. During the outset of the Great Depression, output generation collapsed in the face of the US federal government’s fiscal inaction and central bank interest rate hikes. This had the strange result of generating a counter-cyclical real wage increase, which in fact was nothing more than a product of depressed nature of the economy, in which overall prices were deflating prices faster than wages (for more information see here ). Overlaying the wage data with the true reduction in unemployment between 1933 to the end of 1936, makes it difficult to mount an empirical case that FDR wage improvements during the Great Depression were damaging to overall economic growth and increasing employment. Even if some sectors were disadvantaged (and that isn’t proven by Cooley and Ohanian) the evidence actually suggests that the rises in real wages were associated with rising overall employment. Relapse Caused by Austerity Measures What about the relapse in 1937/38? By 1936 many economists and financial experts (notably FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau) feared the country would go bankrupt if the government kept deficit-spending (sound familiar?). And after all, they argued, the government deficits had “pump-primed” the economy. The private sector could now take off on its own and get back to close to the full employment level of 1928-early 1929. Consequently, Roosevelt ran (in 1936) on a platform that he would try to reduce, if not eliminate, the deficit. He won the election by a landslide — understandably, as the U.S. was out of depression by 1937. True to his campaign promise, government spending was cut significantly in 1937 and 1938, and taxes were raised to “fund” the new Social Security program. By 1938 Roosevelt submitted a budget in which the deficit was virtually eliminated (0.1% of GDP). The resultant economic relapse, based on efforts to balance the budget, exacerbated by a nonsensically tight monetary policy brought on by the Fed, duly followed. This is unsurprising. Any type of fiscal austerity during a period of economic slowdown, whether via government spending cuts or higher taxes, will indeed depress economic activity. But the other lesson of the Great Depression is that properly targeted fiscal policy which focuses on job creation can work. The Great Depression was indeed a disastrous human calamity but FDR’s New Deal (including the high wage policies) attenuated the disaster. There is nothing to the claims that the interventions made things worse, other than when Roosevelt himself capitulated to the tired old forces of financial conservatism and fiscal austerianism, and the economy paid the price. Thankfully, FDR was not ideologically wed to the ideas of fiscal austerity and quickly reversed course. It helped, of course, that his Cabinet was well represented by progressive figures such as Frances Perkins, Henry Wallace, Harold Ickes and Harry Hopkins, who overcame the forces of economic conservatism embodied by FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau. We need these kinds of progressive forces in current Administration, especially given the recent resignation of CEA head, Christina Romer. It’s time to let go of the old ideology, which created today’s crisis. Here’s hoping that President Obama, like FDR before him, changes course quickly. America is ready for a new New Deal. Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Read the full article →

Michael Sandel: Obama Must Assert Democratic Control Over Economic Forces

August 30, 2010

From the Spring Democracy: A Journal of Ideas symposium, “What Happened?”: Obama can still redefine liberalism, but he must bring economic power to heel. Imagine a president, or a presidential candidate, taking on Wall Street in blunt language such as this: “We have been dreading all along the time when the combined power of high finance would be greater than the power of the government. Have we come to a time when the president of the United States or any man who wishes to be the president must doff his cap in the presence of this high finance, and say, ‘You are our inevitable master, but we will see how we can make the best of it’?” Or this: “The supreme political task of our day is to drive the special interests out of our public life.” Or this: “Through new uses of corporations, banks, and securities,” a privileged economic elite has “reached out for control over government itself,” rendering political equality “meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group [has] concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor — other people’s lives.” Today, mainstream commentators and editorial writers would disparage such talk as irresponsible populist rhetoric. But American political leaders have not always been as deferential toward economic power as they are expected to be today. The statements quoted above were not made by far-out radicals, but by Woodrow Wilson (1912), Theodore Roosevelt (1910), and Franklin D. Roosevelt (1936). It is striking to notice the difference between their liberalism and ours. For these icons of twentieth-century liberalism, the first question of politics was how to subject economic power to democratic control. When Louis D. Brandeis spoke of “the curse of bigness,” he meant that monopolies and big banks posed a danger to democracy. Today, we still worry about bigness, but not in the same way. When we say that Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and AIG are “too big to fail,” we mean that their failure would wreak havoc with the economy, so the government must bail them out rather than let them go down. The problem with having banks that are too big to fail is that it violates the rules of the capitalist game. When times are good, they make outsized profits, but when things go badly, the taxpayer has to pick up the tab. …. During the second half of the twentieth century, the focus of liberalism changed. Liberals stopped regarding bigness as a curse, and they made their peace with concentrated economic power. The agenda of postwar American liberalism was set out by FDR in 1944, when he called for an “economic bill of rights.” True individual freedom required more than the political rights enumerated in the Constitution, he argued. Under modern conditions, it also required basic social and economic rights, including “the right to a useful and remunerative job…the right of every family to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care…the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment” and “the right to a good education.” Unlike the anti-bigness liberalism of the progressive era and early New Deal, the social-welfare liberalism of FDR in 1944 is recognizable as the liberalism of our time. The great liberal causes of the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s — civil rights, Medicare and Medicaid, racial and gender equality, federal support for education, a more generous welfare state — were about using government to provide equal opportunity and a social safety net, not about using government to rein in the political influence of big banks and corporations. Social-welfare liberalism seems a more practical doctrine than the anti-bigness version of earlier progressives. It is hard to imagine how to break up the large financial institutions and corporations that dominate modern economic life. And yet I believe it’s a mistake for contemporary liberals to give up on the old progressive project of exerting democratic control over economic institutions. In fact, it’s a mistake that has backfired on the Obama presidency. The initial reluctance of Barack Obama and his economic advisers to take a tougher line on the banks has led to a populist backlash that now threatens his agenda. Click here to read what Obama needs to do to live up to this tradition.

Read the full article →

Americans Pay $140 Billion, Spend 7.6 Billion Hours A Year Just To File Their Taxes, Report Finds

August 28, 2010

Any attempts to simplify the complicated U.S. tax code will produce lower taxes for some people and higher payments for others, including some of the middle-class families President Barack Obama has promised to shield from tax increases, a new report says. The Washington Post flags these eye-popping figures from the report that illustrate what a painful ordeal filing taxes has become under America’s labyrinthine tax code: American taxpayers spend 7.6 billion hours and roughly $140 billion a year to comply with the bewildering thicket of requirements in the federal tax code. Obama asked his Economic Recovery Advisory Board, led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, to review the pros and cons of three tax issues: simplifying the tax code, getting people to pay up and overhauling the corporate tax structure. He specifically asked the board not to consider policies that would increase taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year, or for individuals making less than $200,000 . But the report by the board’s tax subcommittee said the panel took Obama’s request to mean that “not every option we considered must avoid a tax increase on such families” but rather that the options together should be “revenue neutral” for this particular income category. So while taxes would not increase on the group as a whole, the report says some families would end up paying more and others less if the tax code is simplified. But higher taxes on any family earning less than $250,000 a year and on any person making less than $200,000 annually could prove dicey for Obama, given his promise not to raise taxes on them at all. The report does not recommend any options over others, but rather lays out the pros and cons of all the ideas it considered. The board voted Friday to send the report to Obama. Volcker said the goal was to set out as clearly as possible all the competing considerations and hope that the administration and Congress will draft legislation or put in place practices that can help make navigating the tax system easier. “That’s all we can hope for,” Volcker said. Meanwhile, the White House and Congress will have to grapple with a more immediate tax issue in the run-up to the Nov. 2 midterm elections. A series of tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush are scheduled to expire in January. Obama wants to renew only those tax cuts that apply to middle-class and lower income taxpayers, those whom Obama says have suffered the most during the recession and could use the break. Republicans want the tax cuts extended for all, including the highest wage-earners. Some of the options in the report for simplifying the tax code include consolidating multiple benefits for children, education and for savings and retirement. The panel also looked at options for overhauling the corporate tax code and for getting more taxpayers to pay what they owe.

Read the full article →

Lloyd Chapman: Double Dip Recession Could be Prevented with Silver Bullet Bill

August 27, 2010

Today it was announced the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) numbers for last month were lower than originally estimated. Home sales and consumer confidence are down, and unemployment claims are up. Many of the world’s top economists are now acknowledging that a double dip recession is a distinct possibility. Despite President Obama’s claims that the nation will avoid a double dip recession, it’s hard to argue with the numbers, and they are not encouraging. There is hope for the nation’s economy in a little known bill titled the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act, H.R. 2568 . Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson (GA – D) introduced H.R. 2568. The bill currently has 26 co-sponsors, including Joint Economic Committee (JEC) Chair, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D – NY). H.R. 2568 is just seven and a half pages long. The heart of the bill is one sentence that would put more money into the middle class economy than any bill or stimulus program discussed to date. H.R. 2568 simply states the federal government can no longer give federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms, and thousands of other large businesses in the United States and Europe. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t 99.9 percent of all Americans agree the government should not be giving federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms? Since 2003, over a dozen federal investigations have found many of the largest firms in the world have received U.S. government small business funds. ABC, CBS and CNN have covered the story. (ABC, http://www.asbl.com/abc_evening_news.wmv ; CBS, http://www.asbl.com/cbs.wmv ; CNN, http://www.asbl.com/showmedia.php?id=1170 ) Some of the corporate giants in America that have received billions of dollars in federal small business contracts include Bechtel, Xerox, Dell Computer, John Deere, Boeing, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, SAIC, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, General Dynamics and Titan Industries. According to the most recent data released by the Obama Administration, the largest recipient of federal small business contracts in fiscal year (FY) 2008 was Textron. Textron is a Fortune 500 defense contractor with 43,000 employees and over $14 billion in annual sales. Textron received over $775 million in federal small business contracts in a single year. The diversion of federal small business funds to corporate giants is not limited to those companies in the United States. Other firms that received federal small business contracts included Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace (BAE), French firm Thales Communications, Ssangyong Corporation headquartered in Seoul, South Korea and Finmeccanica SpA, which is located in Italy and has 73,000 employees. H.R. 2568 is a free and easy way to create jobs with no new spending and no new taxes. The bill is deficit neutral and will solve a federal contracting scandal that has gone on for more than a decade. H.R. 2568 would even allow President Obama to keep a campaign promise he made when he released the statement, “It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” ( http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/26/the_american_small_business_le.php ) H.R. 2568 could redirect over $100 billion a year in existing federal infrastructure spending into the hands of the nation’s 27 million small businesses. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, small businesses create over 97 percent of all net new jobs in America. (http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200708/data.html) A report by the Kaufman Foundation found that firms that are less than five years old create nearly 100 percent of net new jobs. I know President Obama has some of the nation’s top economic advisers, but so far their ideas do not seem to be working. Let’s see if we can’t figure this out, and come up with some new ideas. 1. Small businesses create virtually all the net new jobs in America. 2. Over 12 federal investigations found the federal government is giving billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to many of the largest firms in the world. 3. The government needs to create jobs to stop the nation’s economy from sliding over the edge into a double dip recession. Ohhh, I think I have a crazy idea that we haven’t tried. Why don’t we try not giving billions of dollars a week in federal small business contracts to some of the biggest companies in the world? I know it’s a wild and wacky idea, but what have we got to lose. Let’s just say this, there is no downside to passing H.R. 2568. Compare H.R. 2568 to President Obama’s $30 billion small business lending bill; what do you think will create more jobs? A one time shot of $30 billion in loans to small business, or over $100 billion a year in federal contracts every year, year-after-year.

Read the full article →

Arin Crumley: YouTube, Not TheirTube

August 24, 2010

In 2006, Time Magazine named “you” Person of the Year. “You” are the individual users who create content for the internet, and post it on websites that host photos, videos, music and text–sites like YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, Vimeo, and Flickr. But your ability to create and post original content online is being threatened. Viacom sued YouTube in 2007 for $1 billion, claiming that YouTube should be responsible for policing its users’ content for copyright violations. The court found that YouTube expeditiously responds to copyright holders’ requests to remove infringing content and complies with the law. But the media giant has now appealed, seeking to subject YouTube (and other websites that host content) to billions of dollars of liability. If successful, the vibrant era of user-generated content as we know it could come to an abrupt end. If it is not enough for YouTube, MySpace and Flickr to respond within minutes to copyright holders’ requests, then what standard must these websites meet? According to Viacom, these sites must review, research and investigate the origins of each of the hundreds of thousands of videos uploaded to their sites each day and approve each individually in advance. Today we can post media online in mere minutes. Under Viacom’s proposed rules, however, it could take days or weeks, and if YouTube can’t figure out if the poster actually has all the rights (via license or otherwise), it should not be posted at all. We call ourselves the Sideshow Coalition because Viacom has called us a “sideshow.” In fact, we are today’s creators, distributing to the world an unprecedented quantity and variety of art and building our careers through free online distribution channels such as YouTube. Viacom apparently considers us marginal and irrelevant. Or perhaps it views our success as a threat to its business. We believe the public wants and values creative expression unfiltered and unmediated by major media corporations. Our work is not simply some distraction to be viewed on the way to the big show. Our videos have collectively been viewed about three billion times – and we are only a few dozen out of millions of users who have posted original content on YouTube. This enthusiasm for our work has enabled us to pursue careers in entertainment, and through YouTube channels we earn revenue from the videos we create. We emphatically support the protection of intellectual property; creating intellectual property is how most of us make a living. But our goal is to ensure that everyone has the ability to share and profit from their intellectual property, not just big corporations. We love the Web because it levels the playing field. Anyone with talent, internet access and a video camera can present his or her ideas. Before the internet, you either did business with major media companies on their terms or you did not earn a living from entertainment because you could not reach a mass audience. The internet has liberated us and millions of others from gatekeepers who control the traditional distribution channels for our work. We can now be our own television stations, our own record labels and our own publishers. We can also be our own newsmakers and non-profits, using sites like YouTube to achieve social change. People have used YouTube to increase voter turnout and registration in the United States, to spread awareness about the Iranian government’s human rights abuses and to raise money to feed the hungry. The “protections” Viacom seeks would benefit itself at the expense of “us”–millions of independent media producers and billions of consumers. To foster creativity, innovation, free expression and economic opportunity, we will continue to urge the court to preserve the freedom of the internet. The authors are part of the Sideshow Coalition, a group of creative individuals unaffiliated with a major corporation who post original content on YouTube.

Read the full article →

Curtis Valentine: The Economic Crisis: Is There a Silver Lining?

August 15, 2010

The Great Recession of the 20th century may very well have a silver lining. Once upon a time the notion of troubling a neighbor for a cup of sugar or flour was an everyday occurrence in America. During and after the only other economic crisis to be given the designation of “Great”, Americans utilized the informal system of bartering to supplement sparse foodstuffs they couldn’t afford themselves. The idea of borrowing and sharing created a communal system that fostered trust and reinforced interdependence amongst groups from similar socio-economic backgrounds. Over the past twenty-five years, the exorbitant increase in the American standard of living has had an inverse affect on our tendencies to borrow and share. With millions of Americans enjoying a flourishing economy, the idea of Keeping up with the Jones’ was given new meaning and the term community development was reserved for poor neighborhoods filled with America’s underprivileged. For all the Americans migrating to major cities and the immigrants arriving on our shores over the past century, this sense of community was the expectation not the exception. The recent age of overconsumption has caused the middle class to become less dependent on one another creating a level of independence that altered the traditional idea of community as we all envisioned it. For decades we have debated the role and importance of the middle class. Ironically, while we debated, countries around the world have sought to replicate the model of a middle class we have yet to perfect. The recent 2010 Ideas Festival sponsored by the Aspen Institute, thought so much of the subject that it assembled a panel of experts [including Huffington Post co-founder and Editor-in-Chief Arianna Huffington] to discuss Is America The Land of Opportunity: Taking a Hard Look at the Middle Class . One “Great Idea” emerging from the discussion was the notion that though the current economic crisis has brought devastation to millions of Americans, it can very well be the means by which America returns to the very system of community that formed the foundation for the country’s first middle class. For all the stories about the devastation brought on by the crisis millions of Americans are going through, there very well may be a silver lining awaiting them on the other end. In small towns and major cities around the country, Americans are choosing to use the institutions that were historically established to develop and strengthen communities. Formal institutions like the Community College are, for some, a way to better prepare for a 4-year college, but for many it’s a cost saver. The Pew Research Center and U.S. Census Bureau have reported a continuous increase in Community College enrollment due, in part, to the decline in household income brought on by the crisis. Approximately 11.5 million students, or 39.6% of all young adults ages 18 to 24, were enrolled in either a two- or four-year college in October 2008. Informal institutions, like carpools, often overlooked but incredibly important to building and sustaining community relations, are on the rise as well. The rise and fall of the American carpool: 1970-1990 , suggested that the most important factors associated with declines in carpooling to and from work in the US included increasing household vehicle availability, falling real marginal fuel costs, and higher average educational attainments among commuters. The economic crisis has reversed each of these indicators and, invariably, aided in the re-establishment of an institution on the decline. Necessity is still the mother of invention and the motivation to do more and invest further in one’s community has traditionally come down to need. Budget cuts in public schooling and policing has brought with it an increase in the need for volunteerism in our schools and in Neighborhood Watch groups. As cuts in the number of classroom teachers will invariably increase student-teacher ratios, already overworked teachers will have additional demands placed on them. In cases like these, the community will be called upon to fill in the gaps. Fortunately, in the case of public safety, we have seen how effective ordinary citizens can be if integrated into a larger system. Increases to participation in community institutions like Neighborhood Watch have resulted in a decrease in the crime rate as much as 41% in places like Orlando, Florida. With all the talk about preserving the institution of marriage and strengthening the American family, there has been little discussion about creating communities and institutions that can act as a support system or safety net for the families in times of need. The need is even more pronounced in single-parent homes that depend on extended family members, friends, and neighbors for emotional and financial support. The early 20th century American concept of community exists in the developing world and South Africans have even given it a name: Umbuntu. South Africans believe a person is a person , through other people and that only through strong personal relationships do we create and sustain community. The long-term benefits of a resurgence of America’s community-based institutions like Community Colleges and Neighborhood Watch can very well usher in the revival of community. Americans will rebound, the unemployment rate will improve, and if we’ve learned from our past, what will remain will be a middle class less preoccupied with overconsumption and more prepared to live a lifestyle of moderation and interdependence. If America can sustain the community institutions that have been built during this crisis, America will in fact stronger for it. Ultimately, Americans will be better prepared to support themselves and, most importantly, one another through the next economic crisis. Curtis Valentine is a humanitarian aid professional, community organizer, and political consultant. A 2010 Aspen Ideas Festival Scholar Fellow, Curtis is currently drafting a memoir documenting his experience as a Peace Corps Volunteer in post-apartheid South Africa.

Read the full article →

Kevin O’Connor: Seven Secrets to Raising Venture Capital

August 10, 2010

Venture Capital firms screen through hundreds–if not thousands–of investment “opportunities” each month. To differentiate yourself from your competitors, it’s important to avoid the classic mistake companies make while trying to sell themselves to VC firms–not presenting a solution to a consumer need–and to learn what steps you can take to have VCs wanting to invest in your idea. As both an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve sat on both sides of the table. Here are the seven secrets to what VCs are looking for as they consider who to invest in: 1. Track Record Which team would you bet on if the LA Lakers played a Division III team? The same holds true for venture capital firms; VCs prefer to bet on experienced winners. This means that if you’re a kid right out of college, even if you have a great idea you’ll most likely be written off as “likely to fail.” This is because already established winners tend to win, while unknowns are far more likely to lose. But even if you are an unknown just starting out, there’s still a chance that you could score VC money — but the hurdles are going to be higher. 2. Market Size Matters Most VCs want to see a $1 billion dollar market opportunity where a $100 million dollar company can be developed. VCs have finite time and resources so they prefer to focus on big home run opportunities. If you find yourself in a smaller market, focus on getting money from angel investors who will be quite happy building a $10 million dollar company. 3. Ideas are Cheap Entrepreneurs believe the value is in their idea, but every VC knows that ideas are cheap. To really sell your idea to a VC, have at least a tangible prototype that the VC can touch and feel before asking for funding. And if you can reference 10 happy–and paying–customers, VCs will be much more inclined to want to fund you. 4. Rule of 10s VCs want to know that your product is going to solve the market’s problems in the best or most efficient manner. Are you 10 times better or 1/10th the cost of your competitor’s product? Being 20% better then a Microsoft product isn’t going to convince a Fortune 500 company to bet their future on an unknown startup that probably won’t be around next year. A “little better” won’t cut it. 5. Go Local VCs have finite time so they don’t want to spend all their time traveling to see the companies in which they have invested, and they’re even less interested in traveling to see a company in which they probably won’t even invest. Look for VC firms in your region that actually care about your market space. In the same way that VCs on Sand Hill Road — notable for the concentration of venture capital firms in California’s Menlo Park — have tended to invest close to home, there are a lot of regional VC firms sprouting up to take advantage of entrepreneurial ideas in their area. 6. Beware of Brokers Most entrepreneurs hate the thought of having to go out and raise money, so they can’t believe their seemingly good fortune when a broker offers to raise the money on their behalf. But beware — I guarantee there will be an upfront fee, a monthly retainer fee, success fee and stock warrants. As a venture capitalist myself, I have never seen a VC conduct a deal through a broker. VCs want a direct line to the principals, and that’s you. 7. Do Your Homework VC funds are often very focused on certain industries and company stages. Don’t waste your time — or the VC’s — by pitching your hot Internet company to a VC firm that only invests in biotechnology. Similarly, if you have an early-stage company, don’t pitch to a VC firm whose stated purpose is expansion finance. Look for VC firms who care about your industry and company size. Kevin O’Connor, a graduate of the University of Michigan, has been on both sides of the VC table. As an entrepreneur, he was founder and CEO of DoubleClick, founder and vice president of research at the Intercomputer Communications Corporation and was the initial investor for Internet Security Systems. O’Connor previously headed his own VC firm, O’Connor Ventures, where he has reviewed hundreds of opportunities but has only invested in a few companies. O’Connor, who is an avid skier, is currently the founder and CEO of a new startup called FindTheBest.com, which is an objective comparison engine. Over the past ten years, he’s balanced his time between family and venture investing in next wave technology companies like Meet-Up, 9Star and Travidia. He also completed “The Map of Innovation, Creating Something Out of Nothing,” a book that outlines his process to find the next big idea.

Read the full article →

Daniel Dworkin: Creativity and Madness

August 4, 2010

My parents (both psychologists) frequently attend a conference called Creativity and Madness hosted by Los Angeles-based psychiatrist Dr. Barry Panter. Mental health and medical professionals share presentations with titles like “Tragedy, Loss, and Transformation within Bruce Springsteen’s Work” and “Iggy Pop, Narcissist, Shaman and Wounded Child.” The theme of much of the research discussed is the relationship between creativity and mental pathology–or at least periodic anguish. From Van Gogh, to Virginia Woolf, to Kurt Cobain, society now embraces the romanticism of the tortured artist. We expect the most creative among us to be the most unstable. Business innovators, by contrast, are not afforded the same cushion of understanding. The likeliest consequence of “eccentric” behavior in the workplace is an uncomfortable conversation with HR. Our need for innovation in today’s over saturated marketplace is greater than ever, yet most organizations are poorly oriented to spot and develop break-through innovators. Think about the real game changers of the past few decades: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Richard Branson for example. They’re college drop-outs. That means they wouldn’t even get through the resume screeners at the companies they went on to found. And big thinking leaders who do go on to finish school aren’t the type to slug it out for 15 years working their way up the corporate ladder until they’re positioned to call the shots. They start their own companies. Are all creative people unstable? No. But they do tend to be iconoclasts, and rogue behavior is not smiled upon in most organizations no matter how progressive they fancy themselves. It takes a certain amount of gumption to propose something that’s never been considered before, and driving a revolutionary concept through to fruition takes more than tenacity. It takes real political skill. Consider the myriad stakeholders a corporate idea generator has to consult, the alliances to be formed, the risks to consider, the brand to protect. It’s enough process to take the wind out of anyone’s sails, and leave a potentially great idea dead in the water. There’s something sweetly just about the fact that the largest, flushest companies are not typically the ones to introduce the ideas that flip the world on its head. Who doesn’t like a good underdog story anyway? In the same breath, it’s the giants of industry with the resources to create, scale, and market the groundbreaking products and services society needs. What if we’re missing out on a cure for cancer or an economically viable clean energy solution because the titans with the funds to develop them are too big and complex to harness their own creative potential? It’s a frustrating paradox–enough to drive anyone mad.

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Come on Down — It’s Time to Play "Social Security Survivor"!

August 3, 2010

A broad coalition of groups has been formed to defend Social Security, and the videos announcing it are all worth watching. Of all the ideas proposed, my personal favorite comes from AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee: A new reality show starring the people who want to cut Social Security. He suggests having John Boehner, billionaire benefit-cut advocate Peter G. Peterson, and Deficit Commission chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles live for a year on the average Social Security benefit of $14,000. “They won’t get a COLA (cost of living increase,” says McEntee, “but they’ll still have to deduct $100 a month for Medicare Part B and still have to pay $200 a month for Medigap insurance.” (The video of his comments is below.) Great idea, Mr. McEntee! Mr. Peterson should be more than happy to take you up on your offer. He likes games, having funded one called “Deficitball.”(1) Alan Simpson seems like a playful sort of fellow, too. It sounds a lot like I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! , where the famous and well-to-do are dropped in a jungle and forced to do icky things like eat bugs and snakes. But in this case the jungles will be our own cities and towns and contestants are more likely to eat Purina than piranha. But why limit ourselves to only four contestants? Why not invite those Senators who have pushed for these sorts of cuts, too, like the senior Senator from California ? Dianne Feinstein, come on down! And let’s not exclude economists like Alice Rivlin, a member of the Simpson/Bowles Commission who wants to cut benefits for all the wrong reasons. Let’s meet our newest contestant! Dr. Rivlin thinks it’s “absurdly unlikely” that “widows living on the edge of subsistence” will have their benefits cut – but then, she doesn’t tell us where she thinks that edge lies. That’s a shame because, as women, our last two contestants will be asked to survive on less than the men. The average Social Security benefit for older women is $11,900, so that’s what our female contestants will receive. Unfair? you say. Outrageous? Sure it is, but this is a “reality show” and that’s the reality. “When do you think they’ll stop calling for benefit cuts?” asks McAfee. “Probably in the first episode.” He’s probably right. Chances are that our contestants live in pleasant communities, surrounded by the nearness of family and friends. That’ll be the first thing to change. There may be tearful farewells to children and grandchildren and lifelong friends, as our contestants move to urban slums or the distant and fading outposts of the American dream. Our next dose of reality: Our male contestants will be living on $1,166 each month, and the women will have $991. After those premiums are subtracted they’ll have $866 or $691 for all their monthly needs. (And let’s hope they don’t have out-of-pocket medical expenses.) Rent? Food? Transportation? These amounts will have to cover everything. Our contestants may not know what it’s like to live like this, but here’s their first lesson: Monthly budgets are too long-term when you’re subsisting at this level. If they’re lucky enough to pay no more than $500 per month for rent and utilities, our male contestants will now have $85 per week for all other expenses and the women will have $44.27. Is our reality show “real” enough for you yet, contestants? Are we “living on the edge of subsistence” yet? Eating bugs and snakes for a few weeks is probably starting to look pretty good by comparison. What would we call this reality show? Survivor ? The name’s been taken. The Real World ? Taken. Extreme Makeover ? That one’s taken too. American Chopper ? Not quite right, although would be a good name for what the Deficit Commission is trying to do right now with our benefits. Here’s the reality: Generations of Americans benefited from a three-legged system that ensured their financial security in old age. The first was the pension system, which has been gutted by employers. The second was savings and personal assets, which for most households have been decimated in the last several years. And now the only remaining leg, Social Security, is under attack. “It’s not a benefit cut,” proponents claim. “We just want to raise the retirement age.” But many people who live in the reality show we call “life” can’t work until we’re seventy. Their jobs are physically demanding, or there aren’t any jobs to be had. Raising the retirement age means less money for them. (Of course, it also means less money over a lifetime for those who retire at seventy, too.) Social Security’s the most conservatively managed, financially stable public program we have. It has survived multiple economic downturns. Its greatest threat right now comes from our would-be contestants. Some deficit cutters will promise that lower-income people will not see benefit cuts. But any cuts will break the covenant under which workers have paid payroll taxes for a lifetime. And the question remains: Where will you cut? If you say you won’t do it for people living on $44 per week, what about those whose total income adds up to $65 a week? $75? $100? What will satisfy you? And what assurances will we have that you won’t break your promise again someday? When it comes to tampering with Social Security, millions of Americans are already living the reality we just described. The next one to “play” it may be the teacher who taught you to read, or the nurse that brought you back to health … or your mother and father … or you. Hey, look! The show’s about to begin. Some of the faces look awfully familiar .. . Hey, America! It’s time to meet our newest contestants! ____________________________________ (1) I thought “Budgetball” sounded like a cross between The Fountainhead and Death Race 2000 , but if Peterson plays this game I promise to reconsider. (click here to send a message to every Washington politician on the campaign trail: Hands off Social Security!) (The reality show remarks occur at 2:30.) ____________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

April Rudin: Reframing Yourself and Your Business: Take a Page from a Master Who Evolved into an App

August 2, 2010

“Constancy is the hobgoblin of little minds,” says Ralph Waldo Emerson. Sometimes we are in need of the “refresh” button. The ability to morph and change our ideas is essential for personal and business growth. For maximum personal growth, it is healthy to evolve and change. Like an unused muscle, we will soon atrophy without evolution. The goal is to keep some of our “old” ideas and integrate some of the “new technology.” We should be open-minded and looking for new ideas which can refresh existing business when it comes to keeping pace with today’s consumers. We must think of increasing revenue by extending our brands and even doing good in the community. It is a “feel-good” experience for our minds, souls and bank accounts. Recently, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting a man who is the epitomizes the sort to whom Emerson was referring. Let me begin by “framing” this man for you. He is an “old master” in the middle of New York City. He is the type of guy who really is a modern-day maverick but in a simple and quiet way. He is a true Renaissance man. For me, he has the vision to take his “old master” expertise and catapult it into the digital age and with a great non-profit spin to boot! He is someone in whom you should be quite interested. His name is Eli Wilner. What man can have one foot planted so firmly in each world so to speak? Read on… Eli Wilner’s fascination with painting began at a very early age. By the time he was 9 years old, he gave his paintings and pastels to his great uncle, who was a prominent collector in New York City. His uncle would frame Eli’s work in antique 17th and 18th century Italian frames. He would then hang Eli’s paintings on his wall next to a collection of masters like Chagall, Modigliani, and Utrillo. When Eli saw his paintings installed in his uncle’s collection, he began dreaming of being a great artist. His “art” evolved into establishing himself as the premiere framer in the world. Probably the most universally recognizable painting ever framed by Wilner is Emanuel Leutze’s iconic Washington Crossing the Delaware for The Metropolitan Museum of Art. At the Museum’s request, Wilner reviewed it continually for many years, seeking a perfect new frame for this masterwork. The opportunity arose in the summer of 2006 when a photograph taken by Mathew Brady in 1864 was discovered in the archives of the New York Historical Society. This photo showed the painting in its original frame! The obvious answer was to copy the original frame. The money for this project was raised very quickly and the work proceeded for 2 years. The frame is now completed and resting safely at the Met. The grand opening is slated for January 2012. Although the exact price for this frame is unknown, Wilner says it would be fair to say that the price would be anywhere from $800,000 — $1,200,000. Eli Wilner is fortunate to have been asked to frame two of the most expensive paintings ever sold at auction: Dora Maar au Chat for Sotheby’s (May 3, 2006), and Nude, Green Leaves and Bust for Christie’s (May 6, 2010). What can we learn from Eli? How did this guy who studies the old master’s paintings, antiques and historical frames get interested in an iPhone app? The story of his iPhone app really began many years ago. According to Wilner, he had originally conceptualized a way in 1988 to “share the joy of his work” with the public. It began with the invention of a magnet frame, a photographic print of a frame from his collection adhered to a magnetized backing. It didn’t pan out. Fast forward to the present, when Wilner read a cover article on “apps” in Business Week in November 2009 which triggered an immediate response. In that instant, he began to understand the value of the 1 billion images which are uploaded to Facebook each day, and the billions of images which are stored in Flickr, etc. He knew that his dream of sharing work with millions of individuals was attainable through this new technology. After much hard work, the app went live on June 19th. Now, Eli Wilner frames are available in an iPhone and iPad app which allows the “masses” to frame their own “masterpieces” or photographs based on over 100 styles which are derived from Eli Wilner’s past and present inventory. This is just as he had dreamed as a little boy. In fact, there is a great enthusiastic boyishness about Eli and his vision for his new brand extension. Outside of this blatant “commercial” for Eli and his frames, what are the business lessons that we can learn? How can we benefit from the brand extensions and forward thinking of Eli Wilner? First, he was able to be focused on a dream and then he achieved it. He imagined and produced a world-class digital product from a world-class “bricks and mortar” product. He takes old antique and historical frames and makes them new again. He continually reinvents and moves easily between the old world and the new. One of the most important lessons to be learned about this app (and Eli’s business model) is the “give back” to non-profit organizations which is essential for someone as passionate as Eli. Eli insisted on creating a way to use this product for viral fund raising by all kinds of groups. The non-profit component to this product is the “feel good” part of the “look good” frame. Successful businesses today must carefully consider their own social responsibility. At the bottom of this blog, there are links for free Wilner iPhone/iPad app products. Tell them April sent you. Free version for the iPhone Free version for the iPad

Read the full article →

Marty Zwilling: Are You Too Old to Start Being an Entrepreneur?

July 30, 2010

I continue to see stories of really young entrepreneurs, like this article on Business Fastlane , with kids as young as 9 years old who have successful businesses. This makes me wonder what sets that entrepreneurial drive in kids, and how early parents and schools should start teaching the basics. There are already a couple of good books out there for youth entrepreneurs, such as a new one from my friends Adam and Matthew Toren, Kidpreneurs: Young Entrepreneurs with Big Ideas . They assert, “It’s never too early! Even children can be introduced to basic business principles and the rewards of entrepreneurship”. Another one is The Little Entrepreneur by Michael H. and Jay Arrington. Even if you are not sure that your child is a budding entrepreneur, there are several practical reasons to introduce him or her to the basics of business. Here are a few facts from the National Council on Economic Education emphasizing the need for more business training, starting much earlier: Only 34% of teens can balance a checkbook The average teen thinks they will earn $145,000 per year 62% of 18- to 24-year-olds are saving very little or nothing at all The average college student graduates with $27,600 of debt 79 percent of high school students have never taken a course on personal finance As early as grade school, with parental guidance and resources like these books, kids can gain some valuable experience in starting, managing, and growing a successful business venture. The positives include: Learn to make money. Even young children (ages 5-10) can and need to understand the concept of: income – expense = profit . They need to understand that having money is not an entitlement, and not related to the volume of their demands. Start a summer business. The best way to learn is a “hands-on” approach like creating a simple business to sell lemonade or deliver newspapers. In this context, parents can explain how their own business works, and where the family income comes from. Bring the family together. All parents need to do things with their kids. A family that grows together, builds character and achieves financial success. The entire family can be active in the business venture. Understand how business works. A place to start may be a reality game like ThriveTime for Teens Board Game , where they will be faced with money and life decisions like buying cars, managing expenses, paying for college, using credit cards, buying stocks and starting businesses. Able to invest money wisely. Several companies, like Charles Swaab, offer programs like Money Matters: Make it Count , which teaches the financial basics to teens through Boys & Girls Clubs across the country. If your child is old enough to get on the Internet, he or she is old enough to start learning business skills. Sites like MySpace already allow teens to customize their home base with graphics, blogs, and music to make it more attractive to their peers — that’s marketing. It’s not a big jump to e-commerce and the costs and decisions of running a business. We all know that technology comes naturally and early to this generation. Gen-Y is already showing us new ways to use it to grow and profit in business. I can’t even imagine what the next generation will bring. You better start your business now, and have fun while you can, before we all are branded as ancient relics.

Read the full article →

Marty Zwilling: Eight Reasons to Create a Startup While Job Hunting

July 27, 2010

If you are one of the many people who lost your job during these tough economic times, you should be working on starting your own business, in parallel with looking for that ideal replacement job. Let me explain why this is a win-win deal, no matter what the outcome. You have probably secretly always wanted to run your own show, but with a full-time job, never had the time to consider a startup. Then there was always the risk of failure, which of course doesn’t apply now since your real job is gone. Also, for most of us, not having done it before, we have no idea where or how to start. Here are my recommendations on how and why initiating a startup while looking for a job is the right thing to do: No gap in your resume. Instead of an embarrassing gap in your resume for your period out of work, you have an entry for your startup business, showing initiative, leadership, and breadth of experience. Fun learning experience. It’s more fun tackling the challenges of a startup in between job search activities, than sitting around feeling sorry for yourself and waiting for status callbacks on interviews (which seem to have gone out of style). Find a partner. Unless you are a true loner, you need someone like-minded but complementary in skills to help you with the startup plans. It’s always good to have someone to test your ideas, keep your spirits up, and hone your business skills. Now you have a reason for talking to people who may become lifelong friends. Incorporate an LLC. First, pick a name for your company and do the paperwork on starting a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). Almost anyone can handle this without professional help, and the cost is less than $100 in many states. It shows everyone you are serious, and limits your liability on any mistakes. Develop low-cost plan. Pick a startup business that you can do for minimal cost, like a services business with the skills you have. With simple software available today, pick a domain name and implement your own website. Use social networking and blogging to get your message out. You don’t need an investor for this approach. Get business cards made. Nothing says you are serious about a business like handing out professional business cards at local events and Chamber of Commerce meetings. Do them on your home computer for a few dollars. Offer to help a couple of customers free, just to get your act together and your presence known. Highlight your startup efforts in job interviews. Work your startup efforts into every job interview and application. It will definitely show off your energy and vision, and will make you a more competitive candidate for any role. Make the decision — job or business. Obviously, at some point you will need to decide whether your startup business is better than the job opportunities. That’s good because it’s always nice to have an alternative, rather than feeling that you just have to take the first dead-end job offered. There are other startup related points I could make here, like joining an existing startup as a “volunteer” for a time, just to learn more about what is required. Also, in most geographies, there are organizations springing up, and university workshops, to mentor people out of work and contemplating a startup. Get some help from them if you need it. Just remember that problems are really just opportunities in disguise. Don’t miss out on what may be the best opportunity you will have in your lifetime for a new career. Start up now.

Read the full article →

Matt Wilson: Ten Rules Every Entrepreneur Should Live By

July 27, 2010

Entrepreneurs come in all shapes and sizes, from all different backgrounds and are involved in all different business models. There are however many lessons that every entrepreneur needs to know. Characteristics like determination, creativity and poise will outlast flashy get rich quick schemes time and time again. Take a look at these ten rules every entrepreneur should live by, courtesy of Under30CEO the resource for young entrepreneurs … America has always been a beacon of entrepreneurialism because it is so deeply rooted in our history. Our country was founded and then settled by innovators willing to sacrifice old certainties for new opportunities. The people who came to America a few hundred years ago looking for a better life were risk takers in every sense. Do not mistake being a risk taker with being reckless. Risk takers must also become risk analyzers — evaluating the pros and cons, then trusting their instincts and recognizing and seizing an opportunity to create their own businesses. We, as a nation, must regain our appetite for risk in order to embolden the hearts of our entrepreneurs. You may have recognized common traits that bind these entrepreneurs. We don’t believe these shared traits are merely a coincidence; we think they are the keys to their success. We hope you’ll apply these traits to your own strategy for success for your future or existing business. We’ve highlighted them in every chapter throughout the book and now present them together, along with examples of their application by our entrepreneurs. 1. Trust Your Gut Successful, independent-minded entrepreneurs know when to trust their gut. An expanding body of research from a number of fields — including economics, neurology, and cognitive psychology — confirms that intuition is a real form of knowledge. It’s a skill you can develop and strengthen — one that’s particularly valuable in the most chaotic, fluid business environments, when you must make critical, high-pressure decisions at a moment’s notice. At such times, intuition usually beats rational analysis. Trusting your instincts also emboldens you to carry out new, untested ideas and ventures, even when nobody else believes in them. It’s about seeing the need for a product or new service and just knowing you can make it happen. You may not have the cash on hand to commission a market study or conduct a focus group, but you’re still willing to stake your reputation and money on that idea. Why? Because that’s what your gut tells you to do. 2. Buck the Conventional Wisdom Ignore those who say, “It won’t work” or “It’s never been done that way.” Our profiled entrepreneurs succeeded in large part because they veered away from established formulas and ways of thinking. Don’t just blindly accept the so-called best practices of your industry. Look at them with a hypercritical eye. Dissect them, slice and dice them, contemplate different what-if scenarios. Challenging convention can open the door to competitive advantage. 3. Never Let Adversity or Failure Defeat You Don’t accept the limits that others or circumstances place upon you. The ranks of successful entrepreneurs are filled with men and women who refused to stop believing in themselves, despite the derision of others or heartbreaking failures in their past. As an entrepreneur you’ll undoubtedly experience stressful moments that will test your faith, especially in the beginning when you’re still trying to establish your brand and separate from the pack. Just remember, the antidotes are persistence and resiliency. 4. Go on a Treasure Hunt and Find an Undeserved Niche In the business world, there’s nothing more exciting than finding an underserved niche representing a lucrative market that everyone else has failed to spot and target. That’s like finding gold bullion at a crowded beach — it was there for everyone else to see, but you were the one who took notice of the golden glint in the sand. Even a huge multi-billion-dollar company can’t offer something for everyone. Look for ways to fill a niche — a road even small start-ups can take. Many niches are too small for giant corporations to consider. 5. Spot a New Trend and Pounce Often, a shift in cultural or economic trends will create new entrepreneurial opportunities. Sometimes that shift arises from advances in technology. Many of our profiled entrepreneurs recognized emerging consumer needs and desires that signaled new market opportunities. 6. Hit ‘Em Where They Ain’t Casey Stengel, legendary manager of the New York Yankees, loved to tell the story of baseball great “Wee Willie” Keeler, who stood at just 5′ 4”, weighed 140 pounds, and began a streak of eight seasons with two hundred or more hits. The Hall of Famer’s bat was only thirty inches. Once a sports reporter asked him how such a small guy could get so many big hits. Willie replied, “Keep your eye clear, and hit ‘em where they ain’t — that’s all.” The same holds true in the business world. Whenever possible, set your sights on areas that your competitors have neglected or ignored. 7. Just Start If you have an idea for a business, truly believe it will succeed, and are willing to push yourself harder than you ever have before, then take the risk and just get started. If your gut is telling you this business idea is a winner, take action now. The “perfect” time for a business launch will never present itself. More often than not, waiting just gives would-be competitors the opportunity to beat you to the punch. None of the entrepreneurs we interviewed waited for a sign from heaven or until a long-forgotten aunt died and left them $300,000 in seed money. Many faced tremendous financial hurdles. Nonetheless, they saw a market opportunity and grabbed it. 8. Save Your Bucks and Get Noticed Without Expensive Advertising If your start-up business is on a tight budget, there are plenty of ways to get customers’ attention without spending money on advertising. Get your creative juices percolating and try something different. And when an opportunity arises to expose your brand to the masses, don’t think twice — jump right in. Use your own creativity to make your company stand out in a crowd. 9. Exploit Your Competitor’s Weakness and Make It Your Strength The sharpest entrepreneurs have a knack for viewing the world from the perspective of their customers. That quality can help identify your competitors’ vulnerabilities and shortcomings. If your number one competitor has a reputation for slow deliveries, for example, make certain your deliveries arrive in less time. Engage and listen to customers to identify such weaknesses. 10. Never Stop Reinventing Your Company You know the old adage “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? The problem with that piece of advice is that it invites complacency — and complacency in business is like a slow leak in a tire. You may not notice the damage it’s causing until the thing is completely flat and you can’t move forward. Top-performing entrepreneurs aren’t afraid to take chances and keep expanding their product line. They’re not afraid to give their business a major overhaul now and then to keep pace with changes in the marketplace. And sometimes a complete face-lift is in order. Believe that growth and opportunity for this nation’s economy are inevitable. Look at the world through the eyes of an entrepreneur. Use your imagination to identify market opportunities that others have overlooked. Believe in the power of your ideas and just start the pursuit of your own entrepreneurial dream. It’s up to you to reclaim the American Dream. This post originally appeared at Under30CEO.com written by Don Martin and Renee Martin authors of The Risk Takers .

Read the full article →

Paul Abrams: An Entrepreneur Speaks: No Impact of Tax Rate Increases on New Business Investment. None. Zero. Nada.

July 25, 2010

For nearly two decades I have been an entrepreneur, founding, running and also investing my own money in new technology start-up businesses. Tax rates have never played a role, positively or negatively, in the ability to raise capital or decisions to invest it. Other general economic factors surely have, but not tax rates. As shall be explained below, there are a few tweaks to tax policy that might make a difference, but keeping these tax rates where they are, or letting them rise, is not one of them. Never ones to miss an opportunity to lie about taxes, however, Republican chicken-littles are using the slow-growth in job creation–while far ahead of Ronald Reagan’s at this stage in the recovery–to push rightwing claptrap that the pending rise of 4.6% in ordinary income tax and of 5% in capital gains tax rates is a sword of Damocles ready to fall on January 1, 2010 to choke off new investment. Never ones to miss an opportunity to cower before rightwing claptrap, some Democrats are beginning to swallow those nostrums. Although a larger discussion of the truths and falsehoods about tax policy is being prepared, this one is limited to the subject of the impending tax rate increases to capital formation and investment in new and early-stage enterprises, the place — I do agree (which is why I like my industry) — from which a job recovery is likely to be launched and sustained. Let me be clear. I have a syndrome that, every April 15th, causes the muscles of my right hand to cramp. I would like to pay lower taxes, but I do not want to see people out of work, or denied healthcare, or see teachers or police laid off, or travel over bridges at risk to collapse, or spend an extra hour in traffic, or see my water, food or medications become unsafe, or have the elderly become part of my private health insurance that would raise my rates because of their increased likelihood of becoming seriously ill, nor live in a country that does not take care of basic necessities for those beyond working age,and so forth… just because it would relieve my muscle cramps on that day. Moreover, even if I considered only my individual, financial self-interest, I do far better paying more taxes to build the foundations for a sustained, stronger economy. My salaries are higher, it is easier to attract capital when more people are doing well, and the value of what I am doing is worth more. It is not that my own expertise is better or worse — merely, that I would be playing on a better team. So, it is time for an entrepreneur to speak “the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly” about the relationship of the impending tax rate increases to investment: they will have no impact at all on new business investment. None. Zero. Zorch. Nada. They may begin to heal the deep wounds the disastrous Bush Administration’s tax cuts for the wealthy permanently inflicted on the country’s fiscal security, and, in that sense, improve confidence critical for capital raising, but that would be indirect affects and difficult to measure because so many other factors impact confidence. As this graph from the Center for Public Policy & Budget, based upon Congressional Budget Office figures, shows, the Bush tax cuts were, and will continue to be, devastating to our fiscal health. So, let me explain very simply why these tax changes are totally irrelevant to investment in new and/or growing businesses, the engine for job creation. Entrepreneurs invest in (what they hope are) exciting new enterprises, or those in early-stages of growth. Once companies become profitable, their needs for risky investments recede. An entrepreneur wants to start these new businesses because he/she has an awesome, amazing, neat, cool, nifty, revolutionary, game-changing idea, concept, invention or approach to a market. These people do not care about tax rates, they want to see their ideas flower. What were the tax rates when Bill Gates started Microsoft, or Steve Jobs created Apple? There are two answers to that question. One is the rates — 70% on ordinary income, 28% on capital gains, both far higher than what they will rise to when the Bush cuts expire. The other, more important answer — neither Gates nor Jobs likely knew, and certainly did not care. Investors, for their part, invest because they think the returns on that investment will be many multiples of their initial stake and because they like what the company is doing. The uncertainty of those future predictions dwarfs to the point of irrelevancy the tax changes’ impacts on their ultimate return. These tax effects are, at most, “rounding error”. In fact, the economic climate on the day the investment becomes liquid (either by doing a public offering or selling the company) is a much more important variable than tax rates. That is not to say that there are not some matters of tax policy that impact the ability to raise capital for such investments. Probably the most important is that there is a differential between an ordinary income tax rate and the capital gains rate. The second way to impact short-term capital raising and deployment for rapid growth of job-creating businesses is to provide a short-term benefit for capital deployed, say, in the next 18 months: zero percent tax for investments made in the next 12 months, 6% for those in the following six months. That is because we Americans like ‘deals’ (see, e.g., new homebuyers’ credit and cash-for-clunkers), and it would force idle capital into a decision about how long to remain idle. There are two tax policies changes that could have a long-term impact on increasing investments in American job-creating enterprises. The first is make it more attractive to hire Americans by moving social security and medicare taxes from salaries to a progressive sales’ tax on all goods and services, thus equalizing the tax burden for products/services made in the US and abroad. The second is to provide a differential capital gains rate for investments in newly-issued equity (the money goes to the company) where 100% of the workforce is American than to gains from trading in secondary markets (money is exchanged between investors, no net job creation), say 14% for the former, 25% for the latter. But, the 4.6-5% rate rises that will occur when the Bush tax cuts expire will have no impact whatsoever. They will simply be the new rates people will be paying, and not even be a factor in decisions to invest in our economic future, unless, as indicated above, they indirectly improve confidence that the US can make some hard decisions to improve its fiscal condition. Speaking of those Bush tax cuts, by the way, it might be worth making the obvious point that those tax cuts are in place now . President Obama is actually overly generous to his predecessor when he talks about not “going back” to those failed policies. They do not expire until year-end. And, they have been killing our fiscal security by ballooning our deficits for the last seven years. The most important factor in fostering investments in new industries is confidence. Confidence is a psychological matter, but it has to be based on realistic assessments of the future. Foisting phony assertions about bogus effects on investments in new companies of small tax rate increases upon the public is a major, major disservice to the country.

Read the full article →

Elizabeth Warren Could Head CFPB Without Senate Confirmation

July 19, 2010

Elizabeth Warren could lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without ever having to face a Senate confirmation hearing. The Harvard Law professor and bailout watchdog, beloved by the left and reviled by big banks, is one of three candidates the White House identified Friday as potential picks to lead the new consumer agency. Created as part of the financial reform bill President Barack Obama is expected to sign into law on Wednesday, the agency is supposed to protect borrowers from predatory lenders and centralize the federal government’s role when it comes to extending credit to consumers. Warren conceived of the agency in 2007 and since last year has served as the public face of the campaign to enact it into law. But some have speculated Warren may face an uphill battle to become its inaugural chief. Lenders fear her — particularly given her strong advocacy on behalf of the debt-strapped middle class — and are furiously fighting her potential nomination as she’s viewed as the most consumer-friendly of the candidates. Their friends in the Senate may take up their cause. Proponents and critics agree that the first director will have a lasting impact on the agency, from the hiring of staff to the general attitude it takes towards consumer protection. Some are expected to prepare a Supreme Court-style campaign when Obama names his nominee. During a radio interview Monday, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said there’s a “serious question” over whether she, as Obama’s nominee, could be confirmed by the Senate. “We are confident she is confirmable,” White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. The administration, though, could bypass the Senate entirely — without engendering the ill-will that would result from a recess appointment. According to the bill’s language, the Treasury Secretary has sole authority to build the new agency before it’s ultimately transferred to the Federal Reserve. That includes anointing a person to head the effort on his behalf, and under his authority. The interim head would serve until the President’s nominee is confirmed by the Senate. That person could be Elizabeth Warren. And the legislation doesn’t appear to contain a deadline for a Presidential nomination, experts say, which means Warren could start the agency from scratch, put her people in, begin cracking down on predatory and abusive lenders, and initiate a culture that would put consumers’ interests above those of the nation’s most powerful financial institutions. In short, she could set a tone the agency will follow for the next several years without the administration needing to fight a potentially drawn-out confirmation battle that could stall Obama’s pro-consumer agenda. “The statute gives the Treasury Secretary the obligation to get it done, but doesn’t tell him how to get it done,” Gail Hillebrand, a senior attorney at Consumers Union and manager of the group’s financial services campaign, said about the Secretary’s role in creating the new agency. Picking an interim head is one of the authorities Congress granted him in the legislation. Whomever Geithner hires would be serving that role on his behalf, and would ultimately be his responsibility. So Geithner could, presumably, hire Warren on a contract basis to perform that role, Hillebrand said. Michael Barr, the Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial institutions, and Eugene Kimmelman, a top Justice Department official who worked for various consumer groups prior to government service, are the other candidates for the position, White House officials said Friday. Geithner is said to prefer Barr, a key lieutenant and a noted consumer advocate, for the role. Geithner opposes Warren’s nomination, according to a source familiar with Geithner’s views, though the Treasury Secretary, through Barr and a department spokesman, said Friday that Warren is “well qualified” for the position. Though Hillebrand said she couldn’t immediately pinpoint a deadline in the legislation mandating a Presidential nominee, she added that there must be some kind of deadline that she wasn’t aware of. It wasn’t immediately clear, though. Geithner’s pick would be able to begin protecting taxpayers and consumers “immediately,” Hillebrand said. And the pick could serve for months, if not longer. That’s what the legislation was probably designed to accomplish, the consumer advocate noted. Whenever a new federal agency is created it makes sense to pick someone in the interim “to get things going. Clearly, that would be authorized here,” she said. “Consumers have waiting a long time,” Hillebrand said. “The sooner we can get it off the ground the better.” Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of more than 250 groups organized to fight for strong financial reform, endorsed Warren on Monday to head the new agency. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, and Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, are both asking colleagues to sign letters urging Obama to nominate Warren for the post. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont aligned with Senate Democrats, wrote Obama on Monday asking him to nominate Warren. “No one in our nation could do a better job,” Sanders wrote. Heather Booth, AFR’s director, said proponents of reform should fight for “the strongest, most qualified” candidate to head the consumer agency. AFR endorsed Warren. “If there are people representing the interests of the biggest financial institutions, they can vote against” the candidate, Booth said. “This is the time to vote whether you’re for Main Street or for Wall Street.” Hillebrand added that regardless of when Obama picks the nominee there’s going to be an “ideological fight.” So rather than face that fight now — and potentially stall an agenda — one consumer advocate suggested there’s nothing stopping the administration from installing the candidate most likely to fight back against the big banks on behalf of consumers. On Friday, White House senior adviser David Axelrod told reporters that regardless of whether Warren is picked to officially head the agency, “one thing I know for certain is however we move forward she’s going to be a strong voice in helping shape this and make it the most effective voice for consumers that it possibly can be.” Geithner picking her as the interim choice could be what Axelrod was referring to. Warren declined to comment for this article. It is unclear whether she’d be interested in serving in such an arrangement. A Treasury spokesman said the department is first looking forward to Obama’s signing of the bill on Wednesday. READ Sanders’s letter below: Dear Mr. President: At a time when doubts about Wall Street and its practices are very deep, at a time when many Americans believe that we have not acted as aggressively and rapidly as we might have acted in limiting Wall Street recklessness and greed, it is in my belief imperative that we move to reassure American consumers that the federal government is looking after their interests. A good first step has been the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is part of the Wall Street Reform legislation you will sign this week. But the establishment of the Commission is not enough. We need a strong Director, one who will help convince the many millions of Americans who currently do not trust government that we are serious in standing up to Wall Street and providing the consumer protection they need. This will not be a job for the faint-hearted. I would strongly hope that you will appoint Elizabeth Warren to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She, as you know, was the first to broach the idea of such a commission in an article published in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas in 2007. She has a strong – and very widespread – reputation for looking out for the American people and for American taxpayers. Incredibly, in just the last few weeks tens of thousands of Americans have signed an on-line petition requesting her appointment – a very unusual occurrence for a somewhat obscure job. They know, as I do, that Professor Warren has a proven track-record as a smart and tough consumer advocate. As head of the TARP Oversight Committee she is seen, across the breadth of America, as a champion of open, honest and responsive government. No one in our nation could do a better job as the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I have no doubt that some in the Senate will oppose her confirmation. Good! It will allow for a serious debate as to the role that government should play in protecting the American people against the outrageous behavior we have seen on Wall Street. In my view, those of us supporting Professor Warren, along with massive public support, will win that debate and the confirmation. Sincerely, Bernard Sanders United States Senator

Read the full article →

Caroline Simard: The Myth of the Individual: What Successful Technologists Really Do

July 14, 2010

This week, Fortune published a list of the 50 smartest people in high-tech . This list encompasses amazing people with amazing accomplishments, and I am glad to see this kind of recognition for some of the greatest technologists around. The list rightfully acknowledges not only the usual suspects of entrepreneurs and executives, but also scientists and academics. The focus on individual accomplishments, however, doesn’t do justice to what technologists have to be the best at in order to be successful: creating innovation cultures wherein the brain power of a multitude of smart people can be brought to bear and channeled for success. As high as their IQs may be, none of the smartest people accomplished the listed successes alone. They did so by being good at creating environments where others could contribute, or they were fortunate enough to be a part of such an environment at the onset. As a VC once told me, it’s easy to find smart people with great ideas- it’s much harder to find people who can create high performing teams – rally others around a problem, inspire them to come up with the best solutions, and get them to work together to make it happen. Creating environments where innovation can thrive means: 1. Being open to new ideas – no matter where they come from . It’s amazing how difficult this can be. In order to innovate, you need to listen to all sides of an issue. But the more power you have, the more difficult it is to hear those ideas. Stanford University Professor Deborah Gruenfeld documented how those in positions of power fail to take other people’s vantage point into consideration – this leads to the ultimate innovation killer: failing to hear different ideas, potentially missing out on the contribution that would have created a breakthrough. As human beings, we are all too good at dismissing the ideas of those who aren’t like us – whether they are from a different culture, didn’t go to the “right” college, or don’t have the “right” title. The higher up you are, the more likely you are to act like a jerk and dismiss other people’s opinions. Successful innovators go against this tendency and hear the contributions of those who are not like them, whether they are entry level technologists, those in non-technical roles or those customers whose ideas could make the difference between a market blockbuster and a flop. That new intern in marketing may bring a new perspective, as could the employee that is tasked with emptying your recycling. You may even find the best ideas outside of your company’s walls, as demonstrated by the open innovation paradigm. 2. Making collaboration matter . “Collaboration” is a common catchphrase in high-tech. But while all workplaces boast that they value collaboration, many overwhelmingly reward credit-hoarding over real collaboration. In our Anita Borg Institute research, we documented a disconnect between the stated values of collaboration of many high-tech companies and the existing culture — that is, companies “said” they valued collaboration (and most had the word in their core values) but did performance evaluations by ranking employees on a curve, essentially pitting people against one another. Collaboration is harder to recognize than individual contribution, because credit is less obvious in successful collaboration. Common problems with performance evaluation systems and how they kill innovation are discussed by Jeff Pfeffer in this article . 3. Embracing failure and risk-taking . An innovation culture is one where failing is OK — more than that, it’s encouraged. The current focus on quarterly results and constant pressure to increase short-term shareholder value makes it more difficult for individuals and companies to truly embrace failure. Many organizations experience a disconnect between talk and action here as well — they say risk-taking is valued, but those who are associated with a failure get the axe when the economy gets tough. This, in turn, teaches smart people to avoid taking risks and avoid being associated with any mistakes, encouraging a “CYA” culture that is a killer for innovation. 4. Humility . Even while we boost the egos of the smartest people in technology by putting them on lists, we should recognize that leading innovation is buoyed by a good dose of humility. Humility is important because it leads us to avoid the “Not Invented Here” syndrome. NIH is fueled by arrogance (“this idea doesn’t come from me and my peeps, therefore it couldn’t possibly be worthwhile”), or insecurity (“this idea comes from somebody who isn’t me, hence it doesn’t advance me and should be dismissed”) — two innovation killers. Without humility, you go back to acting like a jerk and ignoring other people’s ideas, missing out on innovation opportunities. 5. An allergy to the status quo . Most individuals, regardless of how smart they are, don’t like change. Yet, successful technology leaders are able to anticipate where the market is going, identify new trends before they happen (by exhibiting the above behaviors) and change the direction of their research project or company products accordingly. In Winning through Innovation, scholars Tushman, Anderson and O’Reilly discuss how successful leaders embrace change and bring about organizational change even in the face of success . I don’t think there can be a tougher sell than convincing others to forge a new direction even when the current way of doing things is profitable. 6. Developing others . Smart innovators know that it’s not all about them — it’s about enabling others to contribute. I don’t think this is taken seriously enough in most organizations, even in academia where a big point of the mission is to develop the next generation. You can’t get the best ideas if you don’t develop people, give them opportunities, and provide them with opportunities to make their best possible contribution to the innovation process. Readers will disagree on whether those on the Fortune list all represent the above attributes, but those with staying power are good not just at being brilliant, but at creating environments where others’ brilliance can come through.

Read the full article →

Jack Myers: Ten Rules for Improved Response to E-Mails and Invitations

July 13, 2010

Republished from Jack Myers Media Business Report-4/12/10 Are your e-mails being ignored and phones calls not returned? Are you inviting clients to your events, parties and presentations and not receiving the simple courtesy of a response… not even a simple “no thank you?” Here are my Ten Rules for Improved Response to E-Mails and Invitations — ideas to improve the effectiveness of your communications and generate increased response to your e-mails and invitations. 1. Get to the point immediately. Include a clear message in the e-mail subject line and get immediately to the point in the first line of your message. Don’t beat around the bush or include extraneous background and introductory information. 2. Assume your message is being filtered by an assistant. Explain why your message is important and relevant. Assume the person reading it does not know you, does not know your company, and is responsible for deleting your message rather than passing it along. Incorporate an issue or opportunity of clear importance to your target and make a compelling case for its relevance. 3. Ask for a response. In Outlook, under “View” and “Message Options,” you can “Request a delivery receipt for this message,” and “Request a read receipt for this message.” While most people simply ignore these requests, you are inserting one more step into the process and sending a small warning signal to assistants and others before they delete or simply ignore an e-mail message. You’re also increasing the odds that you’ll at least know if your message has been received and opened. Additionally, if you receive no response, it provides an excuse to send a follow-up e-mail pointing out your first message was apparently never received. 4. Communicate simultaneously through multiple outlets. If you send an e-mail, reach out simultaneously through LinkedIn and Facebook, if available. Use those supplemental media to reinforce that you’ve sent an e-mail invitation or request to their standard e-mail address and are taking the liberty of also reaching out through their Facebook and/or LinkedIn because you know they are inundated and want to be sure they see your message. Reserve this strategy for important messages and communications. 5. Use Facebook, LinkedIn and Plaxo Outreach If your targets are registered in one or more of the social networks, reach out and invite them to become a friend/contact. While your invitation might be ignored or rejected, it’s one more way to register your interest in a relationship and one more opportunity to communicate. Always include a personal message with your request, explaining your connection and why you are extending an invitation. 6. Use a Cause Related Connection By doing a Google or Bing search on your target, and reading available bios and social media profiles, you can often identify a charity, organization or cause that your target supports. Within your message, incorporate an offer to make a contribution to the organization as “thank you” for their support, for joining you at an event, and/or for sharing their feedback. 7. Find a common connection. If you can identify a common friend or colleague, use that connection to facilitate an introduction. Reach out to mutual associates, explain your interest and request, and ask them to make an introduction or give you permission to use their name in your e-mail. Never use a common connection unless you have permission and know the relationship means something to your target. If you have their permission, use your colleague’s name in the subject line and explain the connection in the first line of the e-mail and why you reached out for an introduction. Always copy your colleague. 8. Impose Responsibility It’s okay to occasionally impose some guilt and let your targets (and especially their assistants) know that you’ve been asked by your boss – or have some form of responsibility — to reach out to them. Ask your target to accept responsibility for what is basically doing their job by learning about an opportunity or offer. Ask them to acknowledge with a response that they at least know of your company’s interest in a relationship. “I’ve been asked by my boss, so and so, to reach out to you and arrange a meeting so we can introduce you to our new service that has been designed especially with you and your company in mind. My performance is being judged in part by my success in arranging a meeting and ultimately delivering to you a service that I believe will be valuable to your company. I know your success is also determined in part by identifying valuable new resources and I’m very confident our meeting will be worthwhile. Can we please schedule a meeting in the next 60-days or, if not, please advise me how to best communicate with someone within your company who can review our proposal. It’s important to me to develop a relationship with (company) and I’d appreciate your feedback.” When you employ this strategy, copy your boss. 9. Copy your target’s boss. If you are not having success breaking through the clutter and capturing the attention of your target, copy their boss. There are many tactics for generating a response and this one needs to be used judiciously and cautiously. In some instances, the message can be sent to the boss and copied to your target, or sent to both. Here’s an example that’s targeted to Robin Young through her boss Anne. “Dear Anne. I’m reaching out to invite you and/or your colleague, Robin Young, to join us for a special private luncheon and meeting with our CEO.” The outreach can be followed up with a phone call to Anne’s office that should either result in a meeting with Anne (best case scenario) or result in a directive from Anne’s office to contact Robin directly. This then empowers you to follow up with Robin’s office and to get through the assistant’s blockade by using the boss’ imprimatur. 10. Use snail mail If you have an important invitation, question or opportunity, send a personal letter – even hand written. If handwritten, use a printed personalized message card. Assuming it’s a “typed” letter, use formal business design with your company logo and appropriate salutations. It’s good to include “From the desk of (name).” Because snail mail letters are often from charitable organizations or are direct mail pieces, accelerate the “snail” mail to “absolutely has to get attention mail” by sending it via Federal Express or UPS. Either fold the letter and place it inside an addressed envelope, ideally marked “Personal,” or place the letter unfolded in the envelope. If you’re sending an invitation, it’s often a good idea to include a stamped response card that requires minimal RSVP effort. If you’re a seller, more than 80% of your business communications typically results in no response. You need to resort to extraordinary measures to break through the clutter and increase the odds of a positive response – or any response. The above ideas and recommendations can help. Share your ideas, experiences and recommendations by commenting at http://www.jackmyers.com/commentary/jackmyers-think-tank/98245919.html . To communicate with or to be contacted by the executives and/or companies mentioned in this column, please email your information and the column headline to Jack directly at jm@jackmyers.com . This post originally appeared at JackMyers.com.

Read the full article →

Marc Stoiber: Mitigation: The Wrong Way to Look at Green Innovation

July 7, 2010

I had the good fortune to sit down with Guy Dauncey this week. Dauncey is an author and speaker on climate change , and always has great insights into the sociological side of sustainability. When I asked his thoughts on green innovation, he said most companies and governments have it wrong. They continue to frame the story of climate change as a problem that they want to make go away — in short, they limit their thinking to mitigation. Mitigation, Dauncey said, is by definition the act of minimizing loss or damage suffered. As he wrote in his recent essay ‘Seven New Ideas,’ the mitigation mindset: …sends a very unfortunate message, encouraging people to think of the world’s current energy, forestry and farming regimes as ‘normal’, and just in need of some adjustments and emissions reductions to make the climate threat go away. This encourages a defensive, unimaginative approach to the climate problem. Losing With the Kyoto Soccer Team Dauncey had a very timely analogy. He asked what would happen if the framers of the Kyoto Protocol were a soccer team. Based on their mitigation mindset, they would likely always play in full defense, hoping they could stop global warming from scoring too many goals. Following this reasoning, a 0-0 draw would be seen as a victory. Certainly, having a strong defensive game is vital. But without exception, winning requires a team to play offense. And that doesn’t happen unless they have a vision of success. Envision the World You Want. Then Start Innovating. Whether it’s soccer, war, the establishment of democracy, or the fight for a sustainable planet, a positive outcome always begins with a vision. Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t change American segregationist politics with a limiting “Let us mitigate the evils of our society.” Instead, he framed his vision with the awe-inspiring ” I Have A Dream ” speech. John F. Kennedy’s vision was just as grand: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.” The clarity, inspiration, and awesome magnitude of Kennedy’s goal successfully launched the Apollo project . Indeed, sustainability leaders have annexed the term Apollo to catalyze a vision of a clean energy revolution. Today, we can see that vision framed in Obama’s call for a rapidly accelerated clean energy policy. It remains to be seen whether his clarion call inspires Americans to the dramatic shift in thinking necessary to get this project into orbit. Grand, Yes. Unreasonable, No. The concept of a world sustained by clean energy and infinitely renewable resources may seem hopelessly optimistic. Until, as Dauncey says, one considers that our relationship with fossil fuels spans a mere 200 year slice of time. If we spent thousands of years prior harvesting energy from firewood, does it seem far-fetched that we might spend thousands of years in the future harvesting energy from clean sources that already exist? Using this analogy, we see why corporations cling to the concept of mitigation. It allows them to hang onto the status quo, or perhaps change it by degrees, which limits discomfort and doesn’t challenge thinking. Although this defensive stance has been proven time and again to lessen innovation, progress, and profit, it is inevitable when there’s no grand vision for the future to take its place. When business leaders dare to proclaim a grand vision, the results can be exhilarating. You only need to look as far as Dupont’s remarkable green transformation, or GE’s Ecomagination , to see proof. Fortunately, the current ‘triple threat’ of recession, health care insecurity, and climate crisis are creating a growing tide of dissatisfaction with the status quo — precisely the motivator executives need to put their foot down and proclaim a new way forward. A Vision That Works for Your Company. To become reality, a bold vision needs to work on a number of levels: Does the vision reinforce your brand? A vision needs to be a projection of both what is possible, and what consumers expect from you. A computer company with a vision for creating zero waste electronics recycling makes sense. A computer company creating green apartment buildings does not. Does the vision engage your entire team? JFK mobilized an army of scientists to bring the Apollo vision to life. Martin Luther King Jr inspired millions to march. Involving your entire team in the creation and execution of your vision will fuel the excitement, and most likely lead to results that surpass your original dream. Does the vision come with a timeline, steps for execution, and progress measurement? A vision should be a reach — but not a prayer. Your team needs to know they have the resources to get the job done. They also need to know their performance will be measured on hitting specific targets on time, and on budget. Without these practical considerations, your team will be quickly demoralized, and your leadership called into question. With these guidelines in mind, corporations can frame their vision, boldly explore new green space and create new innovation. The results will be exciting, profitable, and anything but limiting.

Read the full article →

Makerbots: The Rise Of Inexpensive 3D Printers (VIDEO)

July 6, 2010

Have you ever wanted your very own 3D printer? If so you probably realized the costs for a machine that turned your ideas into reality were exorbitant. Well now Makerbots, a Brooklyn-based company, will send you a 3D printer (in pieces) for less than $1,000. Here’s CBS News on the up-and-coming company. WATCH:

Read the full article →

Sophie B. Hawkins: Solutions to the Gulf Spill Hide Everywhere in Plain Sight

July 1, 2010

Grand Isle, LA – It has been 72 days since the April 20th explosion of BP’s drilling rig Deepwater Horizon that killed 11 people. Since then, roughly 30,000 gallons of oil are spewing into the Gulf of Mexico from a blown-out well every day. Some total the spill at 140 million gallons so far. 30,000 gallons per day is hard to imagine. But for the Americans living on this precious shoreline, it is very real. And it is strangling their livelihood. Fishermen, Haulers, Beach-goers, small business owners and even tourists are having to find alternatives to their normal way of life. The oil spill could send this region into a financial tail spin that would greatly affect all of America and every American in unforeseen ways. Everyday Americans want to help solve this problem but are being denied the access and chance to show their inventions and solutions. We are waiting for our leaders, someone, to tell us what to do and where to go to get to work. But after 72 days, many of us are in the Gulf and beginning to take matters into our own hands. We can no longer just sit around and wait for Washington or BP to act to save our shores. Americans have ideas on how best to solve this problem and clean up the waters. A ton of time is being spent to plug the hole in a way that BP will be able to cap the well and use it again. But as Bill Clinton suggested, why aren’t we blowing up the undersea well? Why do we need to worry about using this well ever again? Blowing the well up would allow BP and the Obama Administration to spend much more time on stopping the oil from reaching our shores and killing the marine life that depends on these waters for survival. Just yesterday, a large pod of dolphins were found dead and floating in the Gulf, an apparent drowning from the oil slick. The Obama Administration needs to start using this dramatic and sad event to educate Americans on the dangers of continuing to rely so heavily on oil. Our reliance on Middle East oil has caused many conflicts for the U.S. Much of our leaders’ time and energy has been spent on the political maneuverings of oil, not to mention the enormous cost of wars and the many lives that have been lost because of it. It is imperative for the President to start explaining the consequences of our dependence on oil. We need to be put on an oil diet immediately. Americans can solve most any problem if we are allowed to tackle the problem. And here in the Gulf of Mexico we are not being allowed to put our ideas to work. Just yesterday, Wisconsin based Monterey Mills’ CEO Dan Sinykin was one of those everyday Americans denied access to oil drenched beaches. Sinykin has spent quite a bit of time and money trying to show BP executives and our politicians his industrial fabric that dramatically soaks up oil. The video of Sinykin’s biodegradable fabric has been racing around the internet because once you see it, you are compelled to help get Monterey Mills access to the Gulf. Why aren’t we allowing people to clean up the oil before it gets to the shore? President Obama needs to explain his decision to deny Americans access to the beaches and therefore allow the oil to sweep onto shore. BP needs to explain why they aren’t reaching out to everyday Americans who have incredible inventions and ideas – and who want to help. If our politicians are unwilling to start leading then we the people need to elect new leaders that will. We don’t have time to waste.

Read the full article →

Robert E. Litan: Entrepreneurial Stimulus Package Can Help U.S. Jobs Shortfall

June 30, 2010

With little taste for new spending programs, America has another option for creating jobs. It’s called entrepreneurship, and polices that promote it can be a low-cost stimulus package that sparks innovation and creates tens of thousands of jobs. The core idea is to build an army of entrepreneurs – the people who take new ideas and move them from the garage (or the lab) to the marketplace as part of businesses that create jobs. Our studies at the Kauffman Foundation show that over the last three decades new businesses five years of age or younger have been responsible for virtually all of our economy’s net new jobs. If our national mantra is “jobs, jobs, jobs,” entrepreneurs are the ones who historically have delivered with a disproportionate share of the disruptive innovations that really drive growth. The automobile, the airplane, the computer revolutions were brought to market by startups, not established firms. Our entrepreneurial stimulus package can begin by leveraging money we already spend, including $90 billion in federal research funding that goes to U.S. universities every year. These schools do outstanding work in training minds to explore new ideas and expand human knowledge. To create jobs for their grads, we also need universities to earn A+ grades for promoting entrepreneurship by helping faculty and students maximize the commercial success of their best ideas. Some say universities’ role is pure research, not its application. But universities aren’t monasteries. If they accept taxpayer dollars for research, it’s fair to expect the findings to be applied to real world needs in return – and commercialization that scales ideas for mass benefit is the most powerful way to get that done. Here are three ideas for getting the most from university-based research: Invigorate the grant allocation process to ensure a sufficient share goes to younger researchers who are more likely to challenge old paradigms as they hunt for true breakthroughs. New federal rules could counter the tendency of existing peer review to direct most funds to the most senior members in the academic club room. Open the intellectual licensing process to market forces by giving researchers the final word on licensing their own discoveries and exploring new licensing concepts. The centralized licensing office that prevails on most campuses tends to stifle the boldness and experimentation at the heart of marketing success. Build a new academic tradition of entrepreneurial education and coaching to help innovators maximize the commercial potential of their ideas and launch business ventures that create and support jobs. An entrepreneurial stimulus package also should include amended laws that open our country to entrepreneurial immigrants with the zeal to bring new innovation and growth to America. Studies show that immigrants account for a disproportionate share of successful high-tech startups, new enterprises generally, and patents. Yet, our immigration laws tend to drive them out when we should be pulling them in. Isn’t it backwards to open our campuses and nurture the brightest young minds from abroad, only to cast them away just as they offer the fruits of that education in return? That’s like planting vineyards only to uproot them when harvest time arrives. Instead of shutting the door, what about revised rules that attach a green card to U.S. college diplomas handed to foreign students or make available a “jobs creator visa” for immigrants who start new businesses, invest in startups, and create jobs for Americans? In political debate, some suggest that immigrants take jobs that Americans can do. But immigration rules that attract the entrepreneurial subset from abroad will create far more jobs than they displace. If just one in ten of foreign students and the highly skilled individuals who now aspire for H1-B visas launch a U.S. business and hire a worker, our economy gains 100,000 new jobs. And, based on our research at the Kauffman Foundation, one of ten is a conservative goal. This type of targeted immigration reform is really a jobs program for Americans – and one that doesn’t require new spending. Entrepreneurial stimulus won’t fix the economy by itself or bring back all 8 million jobs that we’ve lost. Other policy adjustments may well be required. But new ideas, innovation, and the businesses that commercialize them are surely part of the answer. It takes entrepreneurs to make that happen, and America should embrace the policies to assist them.

Read the full article →

Andrew Winston: Nike’s Open (Green) Innovation

June 29, 2010

One of the hottest concepts in strategy and management today is the idea of ” open innovation .” Gone are the highly secluded R&D departments funded by a single company, carefully guarding secrets from the outside and even from other divisions. In its place, in theory, are hubs of collaboration capturing ideas from customers, academia, or some guys in a garage somewhere. Given the simultaneous growth of the sustainability movement, it’s no surprise that companies are starting to combine the concepts and try to create open green innovation. The general idea of this new collaborative approach to innovation has been kicking around since the 2003 publication of Open Innovation by professor Henry Chesbrough at UC Berkeley (see a recent article he wrote with some key examples here ). But it’s been gaining real currency in recent years as (a) large companies such as Procter & Gamble and IBM have embraced the concept, (b) the platforms for accessing many brains through social media have evolved, and (c) companies have looked for low-cost innovation pathways during tight times. The green shade of open innovation has appeared more recently. Earlier this year, Nike, Best Buy, Yahoo!, and a few others launched the GreenXChange , an organization dedicated to sharing patents and ideas that can help companies reduce their environmental impacts. The core non-corporate partner is Creative Commons , the godfather of modern idea sharing and an organization “dedicated to making it easier for people to share and build upon the work of others.” I met some of the key players in the GreenXChange consortium — and saw Professor Chesbrough speak — at the recent Sustainable Brands Conference . Nike managers described how this fascinating agreement to share patents works in practice. Earlier in the 2000s, Nike had developed a “green rubber” that lowered production costs and slashed toxic emissions by 96 percent. The company offered up this technology and the Canadian outdoor equipment company, Mountain Equipment Co-op, licensed it (for what I sense is a nominal fee) to apply to its products. Members of the GreenXChange contribute patents for new methods of production that reduce energy, water, toxicity, and so on. Each company can learn from and build on what has come before. As the Nike managers put it, companies have latent ideas and technologies sitting on shelves, not being used. Why not let others in? Is open innovation a great thing for sustainability? A couple of major points in its favor: First, it certainly represents heretical innovation of the innovation process itself, and I’m big proponent of asking heretical questions. Second, the energy, toxicity, waste, and water challenges the world faces are so great and pressing, we don’t have time to wait for every organization to discover cleaner ways of operating on its own — we need to share information and speed up adoption of new methods and technologies. We need cooperation across traditional boundaries and open innovation to solve the biggest problems, and that means companies sharing much more than they’re used to. But I’ll admit to having one major reservation about this innovation strategy. One of the core arguments for going green is that it creates competitive advantage, a logic that makes sustainability palatable to many corporate leaders. A skeptical executive would be completely right to ask, “Won’t sharing our ideas level the playing field and give away the keys to the candy store?” Imagine getting your patent attorney on board. Well, Nike execs brought theirs to the conference and he talked about his personal journey to seeing the value — to society and to Nike — in exchanging patents. I asked the manager leading the GreenXChange project my core question about giving up competitive advantage. Her logic was interesting. When the company discovers something like green rubber, “people” (meaning, I think, their employees and other key stakeholders) expect the company to do the right thing and spread the word — and so Nike does just that. But there are certain kinds of innovations the company wouldn’t share. The ideal shoe, this manager imagines, would likely be made from one material (which would greatly reduce its material use and lifecycle footprint and make recycling very easy). If Nike could accomplish this feat, the new geometry and design would be all Nike’s, and thus a source of real advantage. In the end, I come down firmly on the side of supporting open green innovation, especially given the scale and nature of the challenges we face. But for each company, the supporting logic for open green innovation will need to be balanced by a good understanding of where and when to share ideas, and which ideas are unique to the company’s core competencies — such as design and branding, in Nike’s case. Those latter ideas will drive profit and advantage. For now, it seems that Nike has this delicate balancing act down. This post first appeared at Harvard Business Review Online

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: The Best Answers to: How Do You Manage?

June 25, 2010

Companies are always looking for people who have the potential to advance within the organization. One of the keys to progressing is being an effective manager. When we’re interviewing candidates we spend a significant amount of time on the management portion, probing several areas. The answers we get vary depending on someone’s management style, but below are some we thought were particularly good. As you read through these, think about your management style and how it applies to each one of these questions. Describe Your Management Philosophy – What we’re trying to learn here is the person’s view on how a team should be managed. This is their overarching philosophy. A VP at Yahoo! had a great answer to this question. She said, “I automatically believe in my people. If there’s a problem, I look to myself first.” A CEO of a start-up gave this answer, “I like to eliminate fear so that people try new things and are not afraid to make mistakes. But, they shouldn’t make the same mistake twice.” What’s Your Management Style? – One VP articulated what we like to hear: “I set out a clear vision, remove any obstacles they can’t remove and then ‘turn them loose’ to accomplish their goals.” Other things we look for are: giving them stretch assignments and credit (especially publically) , being accessible, creating a collaborative environment while holding people accountable, and mentoring. How Do You Motivate People? The best managers empower their teams so that everyone “owns” a part of the business. It’s a big motivator when people see how their part contributes to the overall success of the brand, division and company. Knowing that their efforts matter on a larger scale, incents them to do their best work. Another way to motivate individuals on your team is to find out what makes them tick. One CFO said, “I determine what motivates each individual and then develop a plan that addresses their needs.” Rewards are also great motivators. Make it a point to celebrate the individual wins, but also focus on the success of the group. What Do You Look for When You Hire? – Beyond the expected skill set, we like managers who look for passion, creativity, leadership potential and problem solvers. One senior executive said, “I look for people who complement my skills. Are enthusiastic, ingenious, passionate, and have a sense of humor. It’s hard to work with people who don’t have one.” Give an Example of How You Turned a Problem Employee Around – What we look for is how patient the manager is and how dedicated they are to helping the person succeed. The best answers are ones where the manager demonstrates how they effectively mentored someone to improve their performance. Someone gave a great answer to this question and then added, “When I can’t turn someone around, I look to see if there’s another role within the organization which might better leverage their skills.” Tell Us About Someone You Developed Who Got Promoted – Developing your team is key to your success, the individuals and the company’s. Good answers include assigning projects that mesh with the needs of the individual and those of the company; increasing someone’s visibility to senior management, either by talking them up or having them attend an executive meeting; and appropriately delegating so they get exposure to new things. Ideally, you were the architect of their development plan and their mentor. The combination of these resulted in their promotion. A sales manager told us, “I take a real interest in their career goals and work with them to achieve what they want.” Give an Example of How You Inspired Others – A President of a Cosmetic company put it best, “I inspire by having a collaborative style. Getting everyone to believe in the mission. Listening to my team and soliciting their ideas. I firmly believe that the best ideas can come from anywhere.” Another executive indicated that one of his keys to success was getting people to see that statements about “what can’t be done” were really just highlighting areas of opportunity. People who have “cracked the code” on managing have propelled their careers forward. It’s a basic fact that you can’t get to the top without the success of the people who work for you. Rate yourself on the above areas and if you fall short, take a page from what these successful executives are doing. Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Coast Guard Opens Own Suggestion Box for Oil Cleanup as Well Keeps Gushing

June 4, 2010

By Pat Wechsler June 4 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Coast Guard is creating a panel to look into proposed technologies and products to clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, concerned that BP Plc ’s multistage suggestion box system isn’t working. The new group will evaluate ideas that deal with detecting oil in the ocean, cleaning it up and restoring the environment, said Commander Howard Wright, a Coast Guard spokesman. The panel will be independent of BP’s online efforts to assess ideas. The spill is leaking an estimated 12,000 to 19,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf each day, a government panel said. The decision follows a report by Bloomberg News that London-based BP has so far tested only four of almost 35,000 ideas submitted and implemented none. The panel will bring proposals that may have the fastest impact on the spill to the immediate attention of the government response team headed by Admiral Thad Allen that is handling the disaster, Wright said. “There has been a lot of concern that there are significant ideas not getting full voice,” Wright said today in a telephone interview. “The government wanted to make sure that all the best technology is being applied and there was good oversight of that process.” The new group will include representatives from the Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture, Wright said. April 20 Explosion The spill was caused by an April 20 explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig, which London-based BP leases from Switzerland’s Transocean Ltd. The blast killed 11. The Interagency Technology Assessment Program, as the new group is being called, today will put out a request for proposals from companies, scientists and engineers. The ideas must be summarized in six pages. Wright said the government will be looking for “significant rigor and a significant amount of validation with these proposals.” BP’s effort asked for a 200-word description of a proposed solution. BP spokesmen didn’t immediately return phone calls for comment today. The new panel will be aided by scientists and engineers at the Coast Guard’s Research Development, Testing and Evaluation Program . A representative from the Coast Guard’s research development center will be on site when the panel meets to take ideas of “immediate benefit,” particularly involving cleaning up the spill, directly to the incident command, Wright said. Latest Ideas “We wanted to keep the interagency group plugged in to the command to make sure we are using the latest ideas,” he said. While BP is responsible for stopping the flow, its failure to do so after seven weeks has prompted the government to make more demands and seek its own solutions. Allen in recent days ordered BP to pay for the construction of six barrier islands as buffers to keep as much oil as possible away from fragile coastal marshes and wetlands. The EPA also met with 20 scientists and movie director James Cameron on June 1 in search of potential methods to cap off the oil gushing from the damaged well. Cameron was invited because of his work with underwater remote vehicles for the filming of the 1997 movie “Titanic.” “This is something that has to be dealt with immediately, not sometime later,” President Barack Obama said May 28. Ideas to BP The ideas that have been submitted to BP range from soaking up the oil with human hair to oil-eating microbes to blasting the well closed with nuclear weapons, and while many of them are duplicative, unworkable or even dangerous, about 800 have been categorized as feasible and may be tested. BP set up a four-stage evaluation system that involves dozens of engineers from within the company and some hired on a contract basis. Proposals are reviewed to see if they are feasible and then whether they are proven to work. One of the four technologies to move forward is centrifuge equipment, an example of which was developed by actor-director Kevin Costner . The machines built by Ocean Therapy Solutions Inc., a company owned by the “Waterworld” and “Dances with Wolves” star and his scientist brother Dan, use barge-based turbines to spin as much as 200 gallons of water a minute in such a way that oil is separated out. Costner unveiled the centrifuges at an offshore technology conference 10 years ago, where several of the BP executives working on the spill now were in attendance. After some preliminary testing on land, the centrifuges were given the go- ahead to test in open water this week. To contact the reporter on this story: Pat Wechsler in New York at pwechsler@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Senate Dems Will Fight For Volcker Rule In Conference Negotiations: Merkley

May 24, 2010

The Senate approved its Wall Street reform package on Thursday night without including a critical amendment, cosponsored by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), that would bar banks from trading for their own profit with taxpayer backed money. But the fight isn’t over. Democratic leaders will push to include Merkley-Levin during conference committee negotiations between the House and Senate, according to Merkley. “Our Democratic leadership has said they would aggressively pursue the ideas that are in Merkley-Levin in conference,” Merkley told HuffPost and local Oregon reporters after the amendment failed to get a vote on the Senate floor. “The process is not done.” During conference committee negotiations, the two chambers blend their respective bills, with each side generally fighting for their own provisions. The conference committee is often a shooting gallery for lobbyists, who are able to pick off unwanted provisions under the cover of the opaque deliberations. These negotiations could be different, however, with key Democrats calling for the talks to be televised on C-SPAN. The failure of the Senate to include the amendment is not an indication that it doesn’t have broad support in the chamber. Quite the opposite: the lengths to which Wall Street lobbyists went to make sure it didn’t get a vote is a strong indication they were worried it would pass. Merkley speculated that the amendment was ultimately denied a vote because “it would probably pass and Wall Street doesn’t want it to pass.” He said his whip count had the amendment at well over 50 votes with many others leaning in support of it. Just before the amendment was brought up for a vote, Wall Street lobbyists persuaded the GOP to withdraw the amendment that was attached to it, thus snuffing it out. The bill as written includes language with the same intent as Merkley-Levin, known as the Volcker Rule, but would allow regulators to override the ban on trading. Conference committee negotiators could tighten the language by citing the spirit of the underlying bill. If it’s not done now, said Merkley, proponents will likely have to wait until the next crisis to raise the issue. “If we have another crisis in the next 24 months, people will be taking a second look at what we’re passing now. And if everything goes smoothly for five years, we probably won’t have any momentum until the next crisis occurs,” he said.

Read the full article →

Grant Cardone: No Shortage of Money

May 9, 2010

1 trillion dollars was lost in the stock market yesterday and it didn’t change your life one little bit! This goes to show you just how much money there exist on this planet. 1 trillion dollars was destroyed due to fear, economic reports, bad news, and maybe, some guy on Wall Street with a fat thumb making an incorrect entry. The point is money is not scarce! There are no shortages of it and it is not something to be concerned or worried about. A trillion dollar destruction of wealth and nothing changed for you or your family. It terrified a lot of people but it shouldn’t. Here is the reality, even if the entire economy collapsed tomorrow the fact is we would all be in it together, all equally effected, all shocked by it yet we would all continue on. One of the reasons people have shortages of money is because of their belief in the scarcity of money. You were taught; “don’t waste”, “money doesn’t grow on trees”, “watch your pennies”, “money won’t make you happy”, and on and on. All these sayings, suggested to you, by others that probably had trouble with money themselves, perpetuate a sense of shortage and difficulty around the topic money. Add to that the idea that your parents, mentors, employers and teachers told that you, “you need to go out into the world and make your money.” Even this is a false. It is against the law to ‘make’ money. Money is printed, stored in massive warehouses and distributed into the economy when necessary. Anytime there is a shortage more is printed. Money is created no different than the printing of legal pads, post-its or even toilet paper. You would never say, “oh I have to go make some legal pads.” Money is to be collected, invested and used! Use the legal pad or it has no value. Save the toilet paper and it won’t fulfill its useful purpose. The same with money, understand you don’t make it, go out and collect it, then use it to position yourself to grow your ideas and dreams and advance the goals of your family or company. Quit worrying about money, quit thinking in shortages and start thinking in terms of abundance. Don’t worry about making it’s not your job. Your job, if you would like to control more money, is to go out into the world and get into the flow of it. The bigger the flow you get into and the smarter and more creative you are, the better your chances of succeeding with money. 1) Remember there exist no shortages. 2) You don’t have to make money. 3) Get into the flow of it. 4) Study others that have proven their ability to collect money. If you want to have more money then get your thinking adjusted about the topic and go out into the world and sell your ideas and dreams so and collect as much as you want. And the next time someone says to you, ‘money doesn’t grow on trees”, know that are talking to someone that understands nothing about money. Today’s US dollars are made from cotton fiber paper. When someone says to you “go make some money” remind yourself that money is printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and, since 1914, have been issued by the Federal Reserve. Now get rid of all your false ideas about money, quit wasting your time on conspiracy theories and go out into the market place and sell your ideas, dreams, products and services and collect all the money you want. Grant Cardone, Author and Sales Expert

Read the full article →

Robert Greene: Google and the Napoleonic Model: Business in Revolutionary Times

May 6, 2010

In my book The 33 Strategies of War , I tried to determine what made Napoleon Bonaparte such a strategic genius. After much research, the answer I came up with was not what I had expected. Napoleon was essentially a brilliant organizer. Living in revolutionary times, he determined that what would make an army unbeatable was its speed and mobility–the capacity to adapt faster than the enemy to changing circumstances. To do so he needed a new organizational model, something that had never been tried before in warfare. He would break his large army up into small, fast-moving divisions. He would give the field marshals who led these divisions complete freedom to make decisions in the moment, without having to consult him. This could lead to some chaos, but he enjoyed the room for creativity that came with it. He encouraged soldiers on all levels to show initiative, and gave them the chance to rise from the bottom to the top–as he had done. This army was now fighting for an idea–to spread the French revolution throughout Europe. This mobile, highly motivated fighting force completely overwhelmed its opponents in one major battle after another, utilizing a new strategy–maneuver warfare. Instead of marching to a prescribed place to meet the enemy, Napoleon would throw his divisions into a scattered pattern and depending on how the enemy reacted, he would close in on it from several directions. The gist of the Napoleonic revolution in warfare was not technological, but strategic. He had a superior idea and exploited it to the maximum–until 1806, when age and too much power weighed him down and he came to prefer size to fluidity. I saw in Napoleon a model for success for any group operating in a transitional period in history, where speed and mobility is the key. This means paying supreme attention to how your group is organized and creating a structure that fits the times. While I was doing research for The 33 Strategies of War , I became intrigued by a company that seemed to exemplify–in an almost uncanny way–the Napoleonic model. That company was Google . I initiated an informal study–gathering as much material and contacts within the company as possible. And as I went deeper into this subject, I saw more and more connections. The following is the gist of my analysis: Like Napoleon (who had risen from the bottom of the French army), the two founders of Google, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, came from a radically different background than your average CEO. They were scientists at Stanford, their field being statistics and probability. In founding Google in the late 1990s, based around their innovations in the field of search engines, they came to several important conclusions: the Internet is going to radically alter the business environment. The world is entering a new era–the Information Age. They wanted their company to reflect these changes. They needed to create their own business and organizational model. And so they studied in depth how other businesses operated, particularly in technology, to see if there were lessons to be learned. Most of these companies, like Microsoft, had intense layers of bureaucracy. They would have a giant staff of software engineers to create new products. But before such products could be launched, they had to be integrated with everything else, and they had to be as close to perfect as possible. Once the product was ready, large-scale sales and marketing teams would go into action, making sure they saturated the public. If these companies were creating any kind of content, there was an editorial staff. To keep this all running smoothly, they had to have a very large management staff. To roll out any new product would take years, as this machinery was slow and lumbering. All of the different departments and layers of bureaucracy had to be brought into the process. By the time the product came out, competitors had already appeared, but it was too late to adapt to what was evolving. The sheer size of the company made it difficult to maintain close ties to the public; better to make perfect products and sell them hard than respond to public feedback. Everything was geared towards market domination–using vast resources and muscle to maintain that. All of this bureaucracy created small power bases from within the company, increasing the political games being played and adding to the slowness. A company like IBM once dominated the computer field, but completely lost ground in the 1980s, mostly because it did not believe in the personal computer. There were some from within the company that thought differently, but they could not get their voices heard or influence the entrenched culture. All of the resources that IBM had were useless in the face of such rigidity–proving that structure, strategy and ideas are more important than money and technology. (In war, a similar example would be the Blitzkrieg of 1941 : the French had superior equipment and technology, but their ideas on how to use them were completely outmoded and they collapsed in the face of a superior strategy.) To Page and Brin, a company in this new environment had to be lean and fast, able to stay ahead of the innovation cycle and adapt quickly to trends. They had to build a new kind of structure. This governed most of their key organizational decisions. They would not produce any content; Google would serve as a platform for others to create or move content, enhancing the flow of information. They would have no editorial staff. To make money, they would sell advertising space, but all of this would be automated. Customers would buy through a self-serve platform. This allowed Google to have a minimal sales staff. Any kind of feedback or data on advertising sales could flow directly and immediately to anyone within the company–there were no bottlenecks from within to slow down the flow of information. Google would have a relatively small staff of engineers. They would hire the best but keep the numbers down. They predicated this all on their philosophy of release often, release early. They would not spend months perfecting their latest product–in fact they would release it in a beta version and let the customers help improve it with their feedback. This meant no marketing or sales team to push the new product. This would also help them to develop close ties to their client base and make people feel involved in the process. As a result of all this, the company would need far fewer managers to keep Google running. As far as possible, employees would be self-managed. It is this remarkable lightness of Google that has allowed them to move, adapt and expand at such a rapid rate. This mobility is the foundation of their power, as it was for Napoleon. To ignore this simple truth is to ignore a fundamental principle of strategy. In addition, Google created a completely different culture. The company was broken down into small units that could be self-managed. They created the 20% rule: all employees must devote 20% of their time to creating something of their own–a pet project, an innovative idea that could later fit into Google or, if not, could be taken elsewhere. Periodically small teams of peers would review these projects and critique them. It became possible to rise fast within the company and make a fortune. The culture was centered around the idea that Google was the spearhead of a revolution: this was the company that was going to give the world access to information, to everything going on in the world and allowing people to make what they wanted with it. This sense of being part of a cause created an extremely motivated workforce that does not need to be policed by teams of managers. A degree of chaos is allowed for and even encouraged. With such an organization in place, Google could practice a kind of maneuver warfare. Most companies focus on dominating a particular position in the marketplace, like armies that marched to meet the enemy at a set point. This is old style warfare and business–linear and predictable. In the new environment what matters is putting your company in a position in which it can quickly adapt to the latest trend and get a toehold there before others. To do so, you have to be built for that. As a company that focused on primarily having a search engine as its center, Google could quickly move to other areas– Gmail or Google News , et al–all with the aim of creating a kind of operating system for the Internet. If some new trend appears on the horizon, they are ready to pounce and exploit it. For instance, they saw great potential for YouTube , tried to produce their own version of it and when that failed, they simply bought YouTube. This kind of fluidity is unheard of in business and devastatingly powerful. As opposed to past models, Google does not invent something they think is clever and then figure out how to market it to the masses, with all of the time and money that requires. They work on what is already there–the demand that is palpable. As opposed to the traditional business practice as it evolved in the era of mass consumption, their ideal is to create less and less distance between themselves and their customers. I focus on Google because to me they are the most radical version of a new business model that has succeeded on a large scale. I could also bring in other companies that have experimented as well and had success. A company like Zara, which has adapted brilliantly to the new environment, has based its model on the speed with which it can produce items that respond to the latest trends, giving consumers a much wider choice. The company is structured in a similar loose fashion to Google. There are many other examples as well on smaller scales all around the world. As the tsunami of the global meltdown is receding, these are the companies that are poised to take over. I do not mean to imply that Google is infallible and already we see signs of their limitations. Like Napoleon, they could slowly morph into the enemy, into a slightly more mobile version of Microsoft. This was merely to point out the radical departure they made in the initial structure of the company and the power that brought them. If they are smart, they could dominate the scene for years to come, but nothing is certain. This then is the point that we have reached: What is really changing in the world is not technology, or the globalization of capital, but the relationships between people–relationships that were once hierarchical and based on the force of authority. This has been radically flattened. What matters most now are the connections between people, the interdependencies and networks that can be formed and the unimpeded flow of information. Any kind of obstruction to that flow will be seen as something from the past, someone or some group trying to halt the course of an historic fatality. We are in the midst of a countercurrent. As the new is flowing in, the tide of the old is still there. We see signs of this decrepitude everywhere. Looking at large businesses with their big marketing campaigns, often tied around celebrities, we are simply seeing dinosaurs making a lot of noise before they disappear. The signs of this old order clinging to power are everywhere, and it will be quite a spectacle to see them become extinct in the years to come. Without grasping this wider perspective of what is happening in the world, the crest of a change that began millennia ago but greatly accelerated by the advent of the Information Age, nothing you do will have any kind of lasting effect or power.

Read the full article →

Senate Republicans Say They’re Ready to Debate U.S. Financial-Rules Bill

April 28, 2010

By Alison Vekshin and James Rowley April 28 (Bloomberg) — Senate Republicans said they are ready to let debate begin on a financial-overhaul bill after talks reached an impasse and Democrats threatened to keep the chamber in session indefinitely. Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe , both of Maine, said they will vote to bring the measure to the floor. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement that “bipartisan negotiations have ended” and he hoped “the majority’s avowed interest in improving this legislation on the Senate floor is genuine and the partisan gamesmanship is over.” Democrats declared victory after days of delay. “Senate Republicans have finally agreed to let us begin this debate, which we appreciate, and we hope this foreshadows more cooperation to come,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement. “Now that we’ll be able to begin that process, the American people will finally have the opportunity to watch and weigh those ideas. Kristin Brost, a spokeswoman for Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd , said the Senate would vote on beginning the debate between 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., Washington time. Stronger Oversight The legislation, based on a proposal by President Barack Obama , is aimed at strengthening oversight of Wall Street in response to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Republicans blocked Democrats from starting debate on the measure in three procedural votes this week, including earlier today. Republican Senator Richard Shelby said his talks with Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, had reached an “impasse.” “It is now my belief that further negotiations will not produce additional results,” Shelby of Alabama said in a news release. Senate Republicans held a party caucus to be briefed by Shelby on the talks and how to proceed. Signs of a Republican capitulation came after Democratic leaders said they would keep the Senate in session all night to pressure the minority to give up its objections to starting the debate. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, said the Senate was prepared to “go all night long.” He said, “The Wall Street lobbyists are really controlling this vote.” No Fingerprints Maryland Senator Ben Cardin later said the Senate would remain in session indefinitely. Cardin said Republicans wanted to weaken the legislation in backroom negotiations “and are trying to do it without their fingerprints on the amendments” that they would have to offer publicly in a floor debate. “If the Republicans are going to filibuster it, the American people are going to see what they are filibustering,” Cardin said. “It is time for this debate to begin,” Dodd said in a statement after McConnell’s announcement. Dodd suggested talks broke off with Shelby because of disagreement over a proposed consumer financial protection bureau at the Federal Reserve. “They have been productive talks, but I cannot agree to his desire to weaken consumer protections, given the enormous abuses we have seen,” Dodd said. Collins had opposed starting debate as long as there were bipartisan discussions. More Ideas Earlier in the day, Dodd suggested he wasn’t prepared to complete an agreement with Shelby while Republicans were preventing the legislation from coming to the floor. Dodd said he and Shelby “are not going to write a bill for 98 other senators who have ideas and thoughts.” “There is general agreement” between both parties about the legislation’s objectives, Dodd said. Republicans should “let our members be heard. Let the debate go forward,” he said. Dodd and Shelby had broken off talks in November and again in February. They resumed negotiations last month after the banking panel approved Dodd’s measure on a party-line vote. In his statement, Shelby said Dodd “assured me that he will address a number of concerns I have expressed with respect to ending bailouts.” Shelby said he and Dodd had been unable to “make any meaningful progress on other important components of the legislation,” including oversight of derivatives and the powers of the consumer protection bureau. Earlier today, Shelby had told reporters he and Dodd were close to an agreement on a provision in the bill that would prevent future taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street firms. The bill language would set up a mechanism for unwinding failing companies whose collapse would threaten the economy, with a $50 billion industry-supported fund to cover the cost. The provision has been the target of criticism from Republicans, who said it would set up a perpetual bailout. The bill would limit the Fed’s regulatory authority to banks with assets of at least $50 billion, transferring to other regulators its power to monitor smaller lenders. It would also set up a council of regulators to monitor the economy for systemic risk and ban proprietary trading at U.S. banks. To contact the reporters on this story: Alison Vekshin in Washington at avekshin@bloomberg.net ; James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Obama Cooper Union Speech: Reforming Wall Street Is Good For Main Street

April 22, 2010

Far from the high-pitched partisan rhetoric so prevalent during the health care debate, President Obama’s financial regulatory reform address at Cooper Union in lower Manhattan was significantly toned down. The president opened his address to a crowd estimated to be 700 by reminding the audience that it was his second time speaking at Cooper Union; the first was in 2008 as a presidential candidate. He said it’s good to back at Cooper Union, “where generations of leaders and citizens have come to defend their ideas and contest their differences. It’s also good being back in Lower Manhattan, a few blocks from Wall Street, the heart of our nation’s financial sector.” He went on to deliver a fairly straight address intended less for Wall Street — or to throw stones at bankers for their reckless behavior — than for the millions on Main Street who are bearing the brunt of the Great Recession, including the eight million people who have lost their jobs. Making sure not to get too nuanced with Wall Street argot, the president mentioned the word “derivatives” by name only three times. The partisan jabbing was also missing; Republicans were only mentioned two times, neither of which carried negative undertones. Mr. Obama’s speech, in fact, seemed more like a Power Point presentation without the Power Point screen. The president ticked off in a professorial manner the four main points of the financial reform bill, presenting its components in clear concise layman’s terms: a) consumer protection in the event a financial institution fails; b) bringing transparency to the financial markets, c) the enactment of strong consumer financial protections, and d) Wall Street reforms giving shareholders more power in the financial system. Financial regulatory reform, unlike the contentious health care debate throughout last summer and continuing into the blustery winter, doesn’t really have many cynics. Other than a few sound bites, when Sen. Dodd brings S. 3217 to the floor of the Senate next week, the bill is more than likely to be embraced by a few Republicans and pass without much partisan bickering. If there is any room for debate, it is whether the regulation reforms go far enough, not whether the bill will pass. With the political winds favoring financial reform, there is no question the bill will pass. But others, like David Brady, professor of political economy at Stanford Graduate School of Business, worries that “Congress will overdo the regulation, making the country worse off.” Ever since the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Goldman Sachs with allegedly defrauding investors, voter outrage at Wall Street recklessness has grown more critical. This on top of news that some of the biggest financial firms turned in record profits, including Citigroup which announced this week a $4.4 billion first-quarter profit, while Goldman announced a $3.46 billion profit. A recent Pew poll, moreover, shows that 61 percent of Americans want financial reform. If the Republicans block the financial reform bill, they will most certainly be tagged as the party of Wall Street. In an election year, it will be political suicide, a fight not worth fighting, even if it means giving the president another historic legislative victory. In his speech, Mr. Obama, gave the impression the bill isn’t headed to an ugly floor fight like health car reform, by mentioning that he “was encouraged to see a Republican senator join with Democrats this week in moving forward on this issue.” At this stage of the debate, the main disagreement between the two parties centers on the proposal for a $50 billion fund, paid for by the banks, to keep troubled banks from causing havoc to the entire financial system. Republicans charge such a stipulation would only encourage future bailouts. Another sticking point is the bill’s requirement that most derivatives trading be moved from dealer markets to regulated exchanges. A derivative is a financial agreement between two entities. All indications are that these remaining sticking points are open for horse trading and shouldn’t interfere with a bipartisan agreement. The banking committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Richard C. Shelby, was recently quoted as saying, “I think we’re going to get there. I’m optimistic because I think we’ve got a few days to negotiate, and the spirit is good.” Most, in fact, are expecting the president’s signature on this bill by Memorial Day, which allows for two weeks of healthy debate. While Thursday’s speech might not have brought down the house with thunderous applause, he still got his point across: the president encouraged Congress to finish the job by restoring responsibility – “from Wall Street to Washington.” Much like the health care debate, President Obama has restored his image as the closer.

Read the full article →

Patricia Handschiegel: The New Power Girls: What A Power Girl Needs To Know About… Getting Your Point Across

April 17, 2010

It’s a chilly weekday morning as I zip across San Francisco’s Union Square, dressed head to toe in a new outfit purchased to combat the unexpected weather. A Southern California resident, I left 80 degree temperatures two days earlier, only to find it nearly 50 degrees as I arrived in town. In all the many trips I’ve made to the Bay Area, I don’t think I’ve gotten the weather right once. As I duck into the hotel for the conference I’ll be speaking at that morning, I have two things on my mind: Getting to my scheduled speaking event on time and getting warm. An hour later, I’ve accomplished both and we’re well into a discussion with a packed room of mostly women writers and entrepreneurs. The energy is like nothing I’ve experienced at past speaking events like South by Southwest Interactive and MIT’s Futures of Entertainment 4. For the first time in my career, I’m addressing a room full of women entrepreneurs and executives versus one that’s predominantly male. More than once, people compliment me on my bright pink shirt just before going into a highly technical discussion about some aspect of their business or blog. At one point, the conversation shifts to attracting investor interest and ultimately raising money. Outcry fills the room as people describe being ignored by the Silicon Valley VC and investors. “They don’t ‘get’ women, they don’t understand the women’s market,” one said. Another added that the investment community is an “Old boy’s club.” As a person who has never had any issues with VC or investors taking interest in my work, networking with me, etc, I knew first hand what might be wrong. I share the warm reception I’ve received from some of the top firms in the country, and point to the many firms that specifically exist to support women entrepreneurs, like Golden Seeds. Most of all, I am reminded of the importance of understanding how to convey the message to investors and venture capitalists. “The thing with VC and investors,” I start, “Is that you’ve got to speak their language not the other way around.” It’s something that I’ve learned in my own work as well as in advising startup companies. I talk about the type of things investors like to hear, what key points a company needs to get across. I share anecdotes and examples based on my own experiences, including concrete areas where I made mistakes, many of which were being described by others who have made them as well. I share that I see the same issues among the male entrepreneurs I mentor as much as the women. It’s also something I constantly learn myself. “The key is to always know how to speak to what’s of value to the listener. It changes all the time depending on who you’d like to listen to you.” Here are my three go-to points: 1. Understand your value in their world, not yours. 2. Create concrete message points specific to that value and practice speaking them until you deliver them like a pro. 3. Always, always bullet proof your ideas – take your time and make sure you have every base, every gray area, etc. covered. Getting your point across can be as easy as that. As I head to the airport in the car awaiting outside, I realize it doesn’t just work in business but everywhere in life. My three favorite VC blogs: Fred Wilson, Union Square Ventures Guy Kawasaki, Garage Ventures Jeremy Liew, Lightspeed Ventures This is the start of a new fun series where we’ll be tapping past experiences, experts and all kinds of other cool sources on trends and topics women entrepreneurs face and can benefit from

Read the full article →

Video: David Adelman Discusses Morgan Stanley’s Best Ideas List: Video

April 9, 2010

April 9 (Bloomberg) — David Adelman, an analyst at Morgan Stanley and a member of the company’s stock-selection committee, talks with Bloomberg’s Margaret Brennan about some of the stocks on Morgan Stanley’s Best Ideas list. Collectively, the eight stocks on the Best Ideas list are up 16.47 percent on average since the list was created in October 2009. Compared with the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, the stocks are up 7.35 percent on average. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Richard Laermer: Sorry, Big Doesn’t Get the Job Done!

April 6, 2010

The CEO of a fast-growing software company recently smacked me with a question: Why should he hire RLM PR , a 13-person firm, instead of a so-called name firm that came to him and promised him the moon and stars and the cover of the Wall Street Journal –and slickly so. Having been CEO of a choose-to-be-small service business for 19 years, I was confused by this query. What’s a name? And, never one to say “no” to a challenge, nor take anything to the next level, I am answering him in a public forum. If you are running a service business and your clients are successful, no one questions how big a name you have. We purposely work against the ginormous model. Many of our Account Executives worked at the sausage factory PR firms, and they came to us excelling at glossy reports with little to no substance (though those fonts are gorgeous). We wrangle that habit out of people by the end of week one. People find out quickly that a smaller firm doesn’t say “yes” to make a client happy. We also have dirty hands. We don’t send Guess What You Rock memos every day. Most name-free companies don’t have the manpower or the patience for that nonsense. Soon after a service business like ours is hired by a solid, innovative, and driven client, the company discovers that the once-beloved habit of sharing fine meals with their PR firm is a waste of good talent. They realize they’d rather the folks at our place work their heart outs–in our case calling, Skype-ing, tweeting, SMSing, emailing, carrier-pigeoning, mailing, and stopping over to see the media and other influential types–instead of composing truckloads of memorandums they’re not going to read anyway. Little guys like us also have the luxury of time to drum up well thought-out counsel that often consists of, you got it, arguments. A client with an itch to Do Something Really Big will be told that no matter how much fun the gimmick seems, if it will not make a dent in sales why bother? Our ideas are large and in charge–but they always make the client money. Small firms are composed of highly respected pros, particularly in a space as crowded as ours, who work hard and don’t look to be hand-held (though they all want iPads to hold). They are media junkies who either know it or will discover it all, because their passion for being in PR (and learning every day) is obvious. So it is absurd for me to compare ourselves to better known anythings. Comically, one of the largest PR firms once asked us to partner with them solely because they liked our out-of-the-bun concepts for getting noticed above the noise and recognized they had none. (Their CMO asked me what outside consultant we paid to come up with our ideas. I’m still shaking my head.) When I asked why they called, the manager said: “We don’t have any horses here.” I think he meant people who do real work: maybe he liked ponies. An independent agency can make its own rules. We are lucky. No committees! A young person working here can wake up one day and say “Let’s…” and by noon it’s in process. Large firms do gobs of hourly billings; spend full days on budgeting; do most everything via commitease ; worry about their own business model a lot more than any client’s; bring slick/flashy production values to the smallest presentations; charge two to three times the small- to mid-size fees of firms like mine; and are near impossible to get on the phone when you feel the need. We spend cash hiring the best PR pros on this and other planets; and on budding technology and research tools so that we are in the know 24 hours a day. Oh, and we spend a small fortune on coffee. But we don’t have fancy anything. In short, we deliver substantiated results for a lower cost than name-brand cretins, I mean competitors. If your service firm has the right number of super-skilled folks, and you take an aggressive approach to doing what you do every darn day, then who really cares what size? The larger firms, unlike us, bill clients by the hour and often take months to formulate plans and market a message before any real work takes place. We can’t afford to do that (and are bored too easily). We have to look good quickly. The non-names like us are strategic partners whose CEOs (ahem) study your business to find holes that need filling; everyone on the team comes up with smart, doable ideas for the future. Your goals to be tattooed on our foreheads. If a budding brand wants a real strategic partner, call the hungry men and women, reach out to the ones who are not famous and talked about. Though to be honest, “unknown” is a misnomer, since to be accused of that someone has to know you! Size is to be a topic in the bedroom to be parked outside the conference room. The above points should suffice (they made me feel better) as an opportunistic demonstration that a name is merely a “moniker” with a mighty good press agent. *** *** *** I am doing a lot of thinking out loud on Twitter… @laermer

Read the full article →

Rick Tumlinson: Dodd’s Bill Is an Angel Killer

April 5, 2010

President Obama bet his legacy and the nation on the creativity, energy and drive of the American people. His entire persona is that of a man bent on creating a better future, placing the long and short bets that will insure the US remains the most vital and creative nation in the history of the world. His faith in American ingenuity and the abilities of the people to innovate and create fill every speech he makes. In particular four areas are the focus of his belief that Americans can lead the world into a brighter tomorrow; clean energy, communications, medicinal technology and space development. Be it encouraging the development of a US clean energy industry, supporting our amazing internet and communications entrepreneurs, developing new ways to save lives and make Americans healthier at lower cost, or catalyzing a vital new commercial space industry to follow in NASA’s footsteps and open the frontier to the people, in each of these areas the president is pursuing initiatives that are transformative. Meanwhile, in his zeal to regulate the monster banks of Wall Street, Senator Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee is about to kill the most vital and exciting part of the American economic miracle in all of these areas — start-ups. If small business start ups are the engine that will pull us into the future, if entrepreneurs and their ideas are the fuel that powers the engine, then angel investors are the spark plug that ignites the idea and turns their potential energy into forward motion. These are the folks whose early money propels them upwards and helps their ideas take off. Getting an idea from your laptop to market is a scary and tricky business at the best of times. It is literally the art of creating something from nothing. It is, as one successful Silicon Valley entrepreneur once said “the most exciting and the scariest” moment in one’s life. You are literally betting everything on yourself. Your idea, your plan, your sweat and your ability to make it all happen. And if it is a good idea, you can almost bet somebody else out there, somewhere in the world is also working on something similar – so time and the ability to maneuver through the obstacles in your way and find early financial help to get you up and running and your product out to the market as fast as possible is critical. And thus from out of the heavens descend your angels. Aptly named, Angel investors are usually the first ones in when it comes to taking a great idea and starting a company. They are the first ones who believe in you and your idea, the first to lay their own funds on the line. They are often your friends and family, but also include those with wealth outside of your circle – the kind of people who don’t know you and you have to work even harder to impress – and for all of them the last thing you want is to make investing more complicated than it already is. Just the discovery of the proposed changes in the bill now in Congress aimed at fixing Wall Street has chilled the entrepreneurial and angel investor communities to the bone. One hears comments that this plan is “insane” and will “destroy Silicon Valley” let alone the other fields I mentioned. The odd thing is that although the financial meltdown on Wall Street is a true scandal of epic proportions, the main street investment world is a resounding success, with relatively few issues, and certainly not in the areas this bill purports to “fix.” It is as if someone from another country got into the bill writing process and came up with a way to sabotage the American creative dream machine by slipping in a little poison. Here are the killer clauses: Start-ups have to register with the Security Exchange Commission and then wait 4 months minimum for it to review their filing. This is a lifetime in the fast moving world of start-ups. (Keep in mind you and your employees are living hand to mouth everyday there is no money coming in.) Accredited investors (those who can legally invest in start-ups) would be limited to those with assets of over2.5 million (up from1 million) or a personal income of450,000 (up from250,000). This knocks mom and dad and uncle Bill right out of the game for most entrepreneurs. How many multi-millionaires in your family and close friends? Removing the federal pre-emption which provides a single set of national regulations and forcing companies to deal with state-by-state variations in rules. Most start-ups are kitchen table corporations at first. We have no money to pay lawyers to figure things out for us. That’s why we are looking for funds in the first place. Duh! I am not overstating it when I say these plans may well be someday be seen as the death knell of American leadership in the world. The Dodd Bill will choke off innovation and wealth creation at exactly the same time the president is trying to kick start it by smothering the vitality of what needs to be a dynamic and open area of creativity, while actually denying many in the middle class the chance to get involved at the ground level of any future Microsofts or Boeings. This is not just some academic abstraction for me. I founded a start-up just a few years ago. We make spacesuits, and produced the world’s first commercial suit from drawing board to working prototype for less than NASA pays for one glove. This kind of innovation is exactly what the President is betting on to lower costs to taxpayers and create a new space industry here in the US in his latest initiative to hand over some elements of our space program to commercial firms. And I know my brothers and sisters out there in energy, medicine and communications are cranking out such innovations themselves everyday. Of course we need a fair legal regime, but we need money, we need simplicity and we need to be able to move fast. The last thing we need is the “helping hand” of big brother aiming a gun at us and those financial angels who would help us change the world. Please don’t shoot the angels Mr. Dodd, we need them to lift us into the future.

Read the full article →

Rick Tumlinson: Dodd’s Bill Is an Angel Killer

April 5, 2010

President Obama bet his legacy and the nation on the creativity, energy and drive of the American people. His entire persona is that of a man bent on creating a better future, placing the long and short bets that will insure the US remains the most vital and creative nation in the history of the world. His faith in American ingenuity and the abilities of the people to innovate and create fill every speech he makes. In particular four areas are the focus of his belief that Americans can lead the world into a brighter tomorrow; clean energy, communications, medicinal technology and space development. Be it encouraging the development of a US clean energy industry, supporting our amazing internet and communications entrepreneurs, developing new ways to save lives and make Americans healthier at lower cost, or catalyzing a vital new commercial space industry to follow in NASA’s footsteps and open the frontier to the people, in each of these areas the president is pursuing initiatives that are transformative. Meanwhile, in his zeal to regulate the monster banks of Wall Street, Senator Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee is about to kill the most vital and exciting part of the American economic miracle in all of these areas — start-ups. If small business start ups are the engine that will pull us into the future, if entrepreneurs and their ideas are the fuel that powers the engine, then angel investors are the spark plug that ignites the idea and turns their potential energy into forward motion. These are the folks whose early money propels them upwards and helps their ideas take off. Getting an idea from your laptop to market is a scary and tricky business at the best of times. It is literally the art of creating something from nothing. It is, as one successful Silicon Valley entrepreneur once said “the most exciting and the scariest” moment in one’s life. You are literally betting everything on yourself. Your idea, your plan, your sweat and your ability to make it all happen. And if it is a good idea, you can almost bet somebody else out there, somewhere in the world is also working on something similar – so time and the ability to maneuver through the obstacles in your way and find early financial help to get you up and running and your product out to the market as fast as possible is critical. And thus from out of the heavens descend your angels. Aptly named, Angel investors are usually the first ones in when it comes to taking a great idea and starting a company. They are the first ones who believe in you and your idea, the first to lay their own funds on the line. They are often your friends and family, but also include those with wealth outside of your circle – the kind of people who don’t know you and you have to work even harder to impress – and for all of them the last thing you want is to make investing more complicated than it already is. Just the discovery of the proposed changes in the bill now in Congress aimed at fixing Wall Street has chilled the entrepreneurial and angel investor communities to the bone. One hears comments that this plan is “insane” and will “destroy Silicon Valley” let alone the other fields I mentioned. The odd thing is that although the financial meltdown on Wall Street is a true scandal of epic proportions, the main street investment world is a resounding success, with relatively few issues, and certainly not in the areas this bill purports to “fix.” It is as if someone from another country got into the bill writing process and came up with a way to sabotage the American creative dream machine by slipping in a little poison. Here are the killer clauses: Start-ups have to register with the Security Exchange Commission and then wait 4 months minimum for it to review their filing. This is a lifetime in the fast moving world of start-ups. (Keep in mind you and your employees are living hand to mouth everyday there is no money coming in.) Accredited investors (those who can legally invest in start-ups) would be limited to those with assets of over2.5 million (up from1 million) or a personal income of450,000 (up from250,000). This knocks mom and dad and uncle Bill right out of the game for most entrepreneurs. How many multi-millionaires in your family and close friends? Removing the federal pre-emption which provides a single set of national regulations and forcing companies to deal with state-by-state variations in rules. Most start-ups are kitchen table corporations at first. We have no money to pay lawyers to figure things out for us. That’s why we are looking for funds in the first place. Duh! I am not overstating it when I say these plans may well be someday be seen as the death knell of American leadership in the world. The Dodd Bill will choke off innovation and wealth creation at exactly the same time the president is trying to kick start it by smothering the vitality of what needs to be a dynamic and open area of creativity, while actually denying many in the middle class the chance to get involved at the ground level of any future Microsofts or Boeings. This is not just some academic abstraction for me. I founded a start-up just a few years ago. We make spacesuits, and produced the world’s first commercial suit from drawing board to working prototype for less than NASA pays for one glove. This kind of innovation is exactly what the President is betting on to lower costs to taxpayers and create a new space industry here in the US in his latest initiative to hand over some elements of our space program to commercial firms. And I know my brothers and sisters out there in energy, medicine and communications are cranking out such innovations themselves everyday. Of course we need a fair legal regime, but we need money, we need simplicity and we need to be able to move fast. The last thing we need is the “helping hand” of big brother aiming a gun at us and those financial angels who would help us change the world. Please don’t shoot the angels Mr. Dodd, we need them to lift us into the future.

Read the full article →

Feldstein Sees Greece Euro-Exit Pressure as Government Deficit Plan Fails

March 16, 2010

By Simon Kennedy March 17 (Bloomberg) — Harvard University Professor Martin Feldstein , who warned almost two decades ago that the euro would prove an “economic liability,” said Greece’s austerity plan will fail and the country may quit the single currency to fix its fiscal crisis. Under pressure from investors and fellow policy makers, Prime Minister George Papandreou ’s government is striving to knock four percentage points off its budget gap this year from 12.7 percent of gross domestic product and has vowed to meet the EU’s 3 percent limit in 2012 for the first time since 2006. “The idea that Greece can go from a 12 percent deficit now to a 3 percent deficit two years from now seems fantasy,” Feldstein, an adviser to U.S. presidents since Ronald Reagan , said in a March 13 interview in Geneva. “The alternatives are to default in some way or to leave, or both.” His diagnosis clashes with that of European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet , who calls Greece’s strategy “convincing” and rejects as “absurd” any speculation it might leave the euro zone. Investors nevertheless aren’t ruling out Feldstein’s analysis. Billionaire George Soros said last month that the euro “may not survive,” and credit default swaps indicate a 22 percent chance Greece will default within five years, up from 16 percent a year ago. The judgment of Feldstein, 70, a former contender to chair the Federal Reserve, marks his latest broadside against the single currency five years after he said its rules generated a “very strong bias toward large chronic fiscal deficits” and more than a year since he first suggested the 16-nation bloc may splinter. ‘Absolutely’ Won’t Break Up He “has more reason to think he’s right than five years ago, and it’s natural to talk about limitations,” said Philip Lane , an economics professor at Trinity College Dublin. “But the euro area will absolutely not break up.” Greek workers disrupted transportation services and tried to storm parliament on March 5 as lawmakers passed 4.8 billion euros ($6.6 billion) of extra deficit reductions, including lower wages for public employees. Such cutbacks will continue to run into resistance as unemployment is propelled above December’s 10.2 percent and recent declines in the country’s bond yields are tied to cheerleading by European policy makers, Feldstein said. Greece’s 10-year bond yielded 6.16 percent as of 4:57 p.m. yesterday in London, a percentage point lower than Jan. 28 . The premium investors demand to hold the bonds over their German equivalents narrowed to 297 basis points from 396 basis points. ‘Polite Way’ Greece will ultimately need to mull alternative ways to tackle its crisis, possibly by finding a “polite way” to default, Feldstein said. That might include persuading investors to swap maturing bonds for longer-term assets at lower interest rates. Another option would be leaving the euro area to devalue and then returning once the fiscal weaknesses are solved. “I don’t know that there’s a good solution to this problem,” Feldstein said. Pulling out and re-entering is impractical and gives other countries an excuse not to restrain deficits and improve their competitiveness within the euro zone, said Charles Wyplosz , a former student of Feldstein’s and director of the International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies in Geneva. While leaving the bloc and devaluing its currency would likely enable Greece to boost exports , the so-called holiday strategy would also require spending cuts, lower real wages and tax increases, Feldstein said. “Put all that together, and it doesn’t look like countries are going to eagerly line up to do it,” he said. Belt-Tightening European governments this week laid the groundwork for a financial lifeline to Greece that would provide emergency loans if needed, breaking a taboo against aid to cash-strapped nations to avert a deeper crisis for the euro. Standard & Poor’s yesterday removed Greece from “creditwatch negative,” lowering the threat of a further credit-rating cut. Greece has a BBB+ rating after S&P downgraded it from A- in December. While a bailout would be a “relatively painless solution,” Feldstein said it would generate opposition among voters and risk other nations demanding similar assistance. Feldstein’s opinions command attention because of his career at the hearts of both academia and politics. This experience catapulted him to the brink of the Fed chairmanship five years ago before President George W. Bush picked Ben S. Bernanke . Feldstein received the John Bates Clark Medal in 1977 as the U.S. economist under the age of 40 who made the most significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge, then ran the National Bureau of Economic Research , arbiter of U.S. business cycles, for most of the next 30 years until 2008. Former Students He chaired Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers , counseled Bush’s White House campaign and now sits on President Barack Obama ’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board . Among his former students are Lawrence Summers and Lawrence Lindsey , the current and former directors of the White House’s National Economic Council . “Marty’s a very important economist,” said Glenn Hubbard , dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Business in New York, who was also taught by Feldstein and chaired Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. “He’s a great scholar, but what distinguishes him is that his ideas have practical impact, too.” As long ago as June 1992, Feldstein wrote in the Economist that “economic analysis” didn’t justify a single European currency. In his most-famous contribution to the debate, he wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1997 that “war within Europe itself would be abhorrent but not impossible” under the euro. ‘EMU and War’ Many economists read his comment ahead of the birth of Economic and Monetary Union as a forecast that war would break out. Feldstein denies that, saying an editor wrote the headline — “EMU and War” — and he was arguing that the euro wasn’t a guarantee against such a conflict and might fan cross-border political differences. While Feldstein says he likes Trichet “a lot and I think it’s mutual,” he notes the ECB president often points out that skeptics doubted the euro would exist or last. “You don’t find any of that in my writings,” he said. Even so, Lars Jonung, an adviser to the European Commission in Brussels and co-author of a January paper on how American economists viewed the euro through the 1990s, says Feldstein is a “consistent pessimist, and so far he’s been proved wrong.” Well-Established The currency is well-established and hasn’t sparked political turmoil, trade has increased and inflation differentials in the euro area are similar to those for U.S. states, Jonung said in his Econ Journal Watch study . Greece’s measures and the response of EU governments will eventually strengthen monetary union, he added. Feldstein counters that global growth during the currency’s first decade helped mask its flaws, such as the mismatch of spreading uniform interest and exchange rates over diverse economies that lack fiscal discipline. His criticism doesn’t stop him from predicting the euro will appreciate against the dollar as investors punish the U.S. trade imbalance. The euro has fallen about 4 percent against the U.S. currency this year and traded at $1.37 yesterday. Feldstein turned his attention to the implications of the euro for budgets in 2005, when he said a decision by the euro’s members to ease fiscal curbs left the “way open to much larger sustained deficits.” By November 2008, he was writing that diverging bond yields within the region signaled investors “regard a breakup as a real possibility.” Two months later, as the euro marked its 10th anniversary, Feldstein told the American Economic Association the currency faced an “important testing time” and countries may ultimately leave it to regain control of their economies. ‘Proved Wrong’ “American economists such as Marty have been proved wrong for a decade and will be proved wrong for the next decade,” said Wyplosz, who predicts that a Greece exit would trigger a “total collapse of the Greek economy.” Feldstein stands by his analysis that it’s not “unthinkable” some countries may choose life outside the euro area. Leaving is “certainly possible, and in part it can happen even if all the economic advice to a government is, ‘You shouldn’t do this,’” he said. “Politicians don’t always listen to their economists.” To contact the reporter on this story: Simon Kennedy in Paris at skennedy4@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Hedge Funds Said to Get U.S. Demand to Retain Records of Bets Against Euro

March 3, 2010

By Katherine Burton and David Scheer March 3 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. is asking hedge funds not to destroy trading records on euro bets, according to a person with knowledge of the requests, as Europe and the U.S. step up scrutiny of the funds’ role in the Greek debt crisis. The Department of Justice sent requests to save the records to at least some of the hedge funds whose executives attended a dinner hosted by New York-based research and brokerage firm Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co. on Feb. 8, said the person, who declined to be identified because the information is private. The European Commission said yesterday it will investigate trades in sovereign credit-default swaps in the wake of the Greek crisis, which has pushed the euro lower and prompted officials to warn hedge funds they shouldn’t try to profit from the woes of the region’s nations. One of 23 themes discussed at the Feb. 8 dinner was a wager that the euro would fall against the dollar, according to an agenda obtained by Bloomberg News. “It is clear in the current environment, and likely for a long time going forward, any entity that profits from another’s misfortune, in this case hedge funds versus Greece and the euro zone, risks being the target of public backlash, or worse, government retaliation,” said Kirby Daley , a senior strategist in Hong Kong with Newedge Group’s prime brokerage business. Aaron Cowen , an executive at SAC Capital Advisors LP, David Einhorn , head of Greenlight Capital LLC, and Don Morgan , who runs Brigade Capital Management LLC, attended the dinner, as did a representative from Soros Fund Management LLC, the Wall Street Journal said Feb. 25. Greece’s Woes Spokespeople for the hedge funds declined to comment or didn’t return calls seeking a comment. Neil Crespi , president of Monness Crespi, couldn’t be reached for comment. Gina Talamona , a Department of Justice spokeswoman, declined to comment. The requests were reported earlier yesterday by CNBC. The premium investors demand to buy Greek government debt over comparable German bonds, the European benchmark, rose to 396 basis points on Jan. 28, the highest level since the start of the euro in 1999, making it more expensive for the country to sell new bonds. Sovereign credit-default swaps, used to insure against default, rose to a record last month. European official have said the contracts can fuel speculation that may distort market perceptions. The German Finance Ministry said this week the over-the-counter products must be reviewed following the reaction of financial markets to the Greek debt crisis. French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde has said she wanted politicians to take a united approach against “speculators” betting on government bond defaults. Record Bets U.S. politicians plan to hold a hearing on the role that investment banks including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. may have played in Greece’s debt crisis. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said on Feb. 25 that the U.S. central bank is reviewing derivatives contracts arranged between Goldman Sachs other investment banks with Greece. The woes of Greece, which has to finance the euro region’s largest budget shortfall, and concern they may spread to other countries have dragged down the euro, which has tumbled 11 percent since Nov. 25. It traded at $1.3613 at 8:09 a.m. in Tokyo. Futures traders last week placed the biggest bets on record that the euro will fall against the dollar. The number of wagers by hedge funds and other large speculators for a decline in the 16-nation currency rose on Feb. 23 to 71,623 contracts more than those anticipating a gain, according to Commodity Futures Trading Commission data. It was the fourth consecutive week that the amount climbed to a record. Even if the Department of Justice decides to request the records it has asked the hedge funds to save, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the managers will be investigated, said Jedd Wider , a partner at law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. Bullish on Canada Other ideas discussed at the dinner, which took place at the Townhouse, a private facility run by restaurant Park Avenue Winter, were bullish bets on the Canadian dollar and Philip Morris International and bearish wagers on Wells Fargo & Co. and Bank of America Corp. “The big issue is whether the meeting was informational, and these various traders were simply responding in a parallel way to a common set of facts,” which would be legal, said Herbert Hovenkamp , who teaches antitrust law at the University of Iowa College of Law in Iowa City. “What’s not legal is for people to agree to trade at a particular price or against the euro to devalue it and start a stampede that devalues it further.” Rejecting Speculation Louis Bacon ’s $14.6 billion Moore Capital Management LP and Brevan Howard Asset Management LLP, Europe’s largest hedge-fund firm, have rejected speculation they’re trying to benefit from Greece’s woes. Bacon told investors in a Feb. 19 letter that he isn’t betting on a Greek default because European authorities will probably bail out the country. Moore has a net long duration position in Greek bonds, meaning it will benefit from a uniform decline in interest rates across the yield curve. Brevan Howard said in an investor letter for the $22 billion Brevan Howard Master Fund that it hasn’t been betting against Greek debt since mid-December and has “no meaningful positions” through bonds or credit default swaps in Greece, Italy or Portugal. To contact the reporters on this story: Katherine Burton in New York at kburton@bloomberg.net ; David Scheer in New York at dscheer@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

John Hope Bryant: Reset: Jobs and What We Need to Do Now

February 22, 2010

In August 2009, Jossey-Bass released my new, now bestselling book Love Leadership: The New Way to Lead in a Fear-Based World , which spoke to a crisis of “virtues and values” amongst leaders at every level, all around the world, and the need for “a new way.” In December 2009, I wrote a piece entitled “Reset,” which made the case that what we are going through now is not a recession but a reset. I have subsequently written here in the Huffington Post that we have “Lost Our Story Line.” Today, I speak again on reset, but in a new series of pieces again inspired from my work at the organization I founded, Operation HOPE, and Love Leadership, which seeks to frame out and set forth a vision of “where we need to go from here.” Remember, I said we need a “reset,” and not a “reboot.” This means we have to become experts in what we are for, and not just what we are against. The problem today is jobs, or the lack thereof. It is the President’s most pressing political problem. It is the economy’s 100 lb anchor, both here at home and around the world, holding back a return to real prosperity. It is the thing (or the lack thereof) that could really derail our beautiful social experiment called “America in the 21st century,” and even spark social unrest, if not addressed. It is the key, the whole key, and nothing but the key, so help me — and we are not doing enough. What’s Not Going to Work Yes, we need a jobs initiative spurred by government, but not one sustained by government. And yes, we need a jobs training program, and infrastructure revitalization initiatives that put Americans back to work and bring America back to life, but none of these government efforts (from a jobs perspective) are the long-term answer. I was in a high-level meeting in Washington, D.C. over the holidays and administration officials asked the assembled group “What do you recommend? What do you want?” I felt like I was the man from Mars with my contributed comments (and this is just fine). More than half of the room, filled with minority advocates for civil rights and social justice (all doing good and honorable work that I respect), said essentially, “A second $700 billion stimulus to create government jobs for the poor.” Not going to happen. Should not happen . Let’s leave aside the fact that the first $700 billion went to fill gaps in state budgets, as the federal government can print money and states cannot, or this massive injection of necessary resources helped to push our overall federal budget deficit over $1 trillion dollars, or the largest deficit, as a percentage of GDP since World War II. Unless we all want President Obama to be written off as “not serious,” we need to get the thought of the federal government printing another $700 billion out of minds. To quote President Obama himself recently, “We all need to learn to live within our means.” That means the federal government too. What’s Not Working, Part I We have to figure out what we are for, and not simply what we are against. Simply blaming free enterprise and capitalism is not the answer either. It wasn’t even the problem. Yes, I said it. Greed was the problem. A horrible culture of “What do I get, and when do I get it” virtues and values were the problem. Bad capitalism was the problem. A short-term, fear-based focus on “what do I get,” versus “what do I have to give,” was the problem. Even more interesting, many if not most of the most egregious financial predators are now out of business totally. • The folks who ran Countrywide into the ground, gone. The old Countrywide, gone. • The folks who pushed some of Wall Street’s best firms into completely unreasonable, eye-popping leverage levels, gone, along with the firms they ran. • The folks who ran AIG into the ground, gone. • The folks at Wachovia who purchased World Savings with its horrible portfolio of wildly adjustable, “pick-a-pay” subprime loans, gone, along with the old companies too. • The arrogant folks at Ameriquest Mortgage in Orange County, California, whom I met several years ago and was mortified by at the time — by the breathlessness of their self-denial and rationalizations — are all gone. • Gone along with Ameriquest is approximately 95% of every other predatory mortgage company in America that preyed on people who either were financially illiterate and wanted that home too badly, or financially illiterate and wanted too much home, or financially illiterate and wanted to simply get rich quick by flipping a home. So fine, let’s have a War Crimes Tribunal for the worst and absolutely the most obvious idiots that got us into this mess (I love what the CEO of Deutsche Bank said in Davos last month: “Rarely have the actions of so few, damaged so many.”), and then let’s get on with it. Not only did US Bank, as an example, not create this mess, but I know personally that senior management actually slammed on the breaks with respect to each and every one of their adjustable rate mortgages, offering each and every one of these clients a fixed rate mortgage in exchange. Now, of course, even my fiend Stevie Wonder can see that we need US Bank and every other major lender in America to begin lending again, an soon, and in so doing to find a reasonable, rational and measured balance between credit availability, innovation, flexibility, minimally acceptable credit scores and loan underwriting criteria in this newly reset world, but Hitler or the Gestapo they are not . America will need its banking sector, credit unions and its mainstream financial service providers fully engaged and at the table of solutions going forward, if we are going to have a prosperity agenda again. We have never had an economic recovery in American history without having the responsible banking sector there, helping to lead the way. So yes, let’s regulate them along other sectors of the broader financial services sector, as I am convinced that capitalism without bumpers or parameters is precisely what leads to a culture of greed, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. And while we are at it, let’s make sure we pin the tail on the right donkey, so to speak. The newly proposed Consumer Federal Regulatory Protection Agency should spend an equal amount of time going after previously unregulated sectors of the financial space — from mortgage companies to mortgage brokers, to payday loan lenders, check cashers, rent to own stores, title lenders, and multiple other predatory lending practices — as it does easy to find and regulated banks and financial giants. As I said in an article for the Economist in late 2008, “It was easier to be a mortgage broker in the crisis than a pimp on a street corner in Detroit, because at least the pimp needs references.” It is entirely possible that, when the dust settles, lightly licensed mortgage brokers and their cousins in the lightly licensed, non-bank mortgage space, were the only folks to make and keep any real money in this crisis. Let me be clear — I am not an advocate for banks, but as they are FDIC insured and federal government-regulated, at least I can find them and hold them accountable when they screw up – which is precisely why we see them hauled before Congress on such a regular basis. Finally, the newly proposed federal consumer protection agency should likewise make real financial literacy its equal partner to sustainable change in our culture and economy, and not merely a new “program” or sub-group within the proposed agency. If we don’t take this seriously, we are merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It will happen again. Post-global economic crisis, and in an economy (the U.S.) that is 70% driven by the consumer, financial literacy is nothing short of the new civil rights issue, and the first of many silver rights empowerment tools. If you don’t understand the language of money today, and you don’t have a bank account today, you are nothing but an economic slave. Or as my personal hero, civil rights icon Ambassador Andrew Young, senior aide to the late Dr. King and global spokesman for Operation HOPE, once told me, “Dr. King and I helped to integrate the lunch counter, but we never integrated the money.” He went on to say that “to live in a system of free enterprise, and not to understand it, or how it works for me, in my life, is the very definition of slavery.” I agree 100%. We have got to make free enterprise and capitalism finally relevant to the poor. We have got to make free enterprise and capitalism finally work for the poor (and the middle class too). We have got to differentiate good capitalism from bad capitalism, and stop making capitalism itself our enemy. Growing up in South Central Los Angeles and Compton, California, I can say with certainty that the only real problem with capitalism was I did not have any, and free enterprise, I didn’t understand it. It was “what I didn’t know, that I didn’t know” that was killing me. I decided to change that, myself. My secret weapon — parents. What’s Not Working, Part II America Supersized. • We want homes, but not small starter ones, like our parents and grandparents once had. We wanted ones that looked like the mansions we believe we deserve, so in the mortgage crisis many, many, many of my middle class friends bought too much high-end house, and today they are part of the growing national subprime mortgage crisis statistic. • We want jobs, and we immediately look, almost with a sense of entitlement, to large companies from Intel to Microsoft to Ford to CNN, without first considering that large companies started off as small ones. Most of America’s job growth comes from small businesses in their first few years of operation. • Our young people graduate from college looking for careers that start with titles like vice president, and director of this, or managing director of that. If the starting salary was not six figures with an expense account and people to report to them, they felt like a failure. • Our economy is still the largest in the world, at approximately $14 trillion (still large enough to place the largest economies of the world within our economy and still have room), but we fail to understand and appreciate that 70% of our economy is actually driven by you and me, buying coffee at the corner market, paying our utilities, car note, day care and mortgage. Furthermore, we have all failed to understand and appreciate that the heart of our great nation is innovation, enterprise, small business, entrepreneurship and the power of great ideas made real. From CNN, to CBS, to Apple and Wal-Mart, to Google Earth — it all started with the power of an idea. Operation HOPE, too. What’s Not Working, Part III Our jobs plan needs, well, help. Short version — this is not a recession; it’s a reset, and corporate jobs are not going to save us, in part because they are not coming back anytime soon. Companies that lay off 10 may rehire 2-4, in time, but fear, uncertainty and an uneasy sense that “something is just not right” with the broader economy, means that CEOs leverage their own legitimate and illegitimate fears, to drive productivity through efficiencies — over productivity through people. Governments are not going to save us either. If you haven’t noticed, local, state and even our federal governments are broke. Imagine your charge card, current but over limit, and your ability to make the minimum payment on the interest charges alone is how you measure success over the short term. And so going forward, governments cannot afford to simply “float” a generation out of work, and corporations are not hiring, so what is an anxious generation, with 1 out of 5 men out of work, to do? Become entrepreneurs , that’s what. What We Need Next What we need next is what we had in the first place in America ; a generation of innovation, entrepreneurs, small business owners and self-employment projects. As we begin National Entrepreneurship Week (NEW) next week throughout the U.S., and I travel to speak at Howard University’s School of Business, Institute for Leadership, Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Washington, D.C., I will start a theme which I plan on significantly amplifying for the enter course of 2010 — we need to get out storyline back. We need to nurture, spur, and spark a generation of entrepreneurship and innovation in America, starting with our young people with too much time and energy on their hands. We need to repurpose capitalism and free enterprise as something that adds value wherever it is deployed, and leaves communities and people better than when they found them. We need to return to our greatest national strength, which is the power of our ideas. For 100 years, our strength was acting on the power of these great ideas, reaping the benefits of becoming wealthy (defined as not limited to financial gains), sometimes rich, sometimes powerful, and then returning to society a legacy defined by how we gave back. Today most of us just want to make some money, and don’t much care how we do it. We need to get our storyline back. What We Can Do Now Whether or not we can get our generation “reset” or not is an open question, but what we can do is to make sure that our children’s generation never faces these same challenges, ever again. Or better still, prepare them so that they can face these and other challenges without compromising their virtues and values. Here is what we should do: 1. Ask Congress and the Obama administration to require financial literacy education for every child from K through college. 2. Ask Congress and the Obama administration to empower every child with a starter bank account at birth, instilling in them at an early age a sense of being a stakeholder in the American experience, but at no time outside of the financial main. 3. Make sure that every child receives a “Course in Dignity,” so that they know the difference between being broke and being poor, and that they know that their real wealth is actually inside of them. As my mother taught me, “Being broke is an economic condition, but being poor is a disabling frame of mind, and a depressed condition of our spirit, and we must vow to never, ever be poor again.” 4. Encourage every American to donate one hour a month, 12 months out of the year, or 12 hours a year, to go into a school classroom, church, mosque, Boys and Girls Club, non-profit or wherever we find children, and to teach them a course in dignity, the language of money, entrepreneurship and small business. At the very least, that young man on the third row, and the young girl on the fifth row, is going to look at you after 30 minutes or so and realize, “wow, I can be you.” And that is when the magic begins. 5. Use the power of the U.S. presidency to “make smart sexy again,” by sparking and inspiring a generation of young people to dream again. To break the back of the crippling high-school dropout rate (between 30-70%) by actually making education relevant to a child’s future. To help a young person understand, as I said to myself when I was 9 years old in Compton, California, listening to a banker with a suit on, for the first time, unpack the mystery of money in my classroom — “how to get rich legally.” That’s financial literacy, free enterprise and capitalism, ownership, opportunity, and entrepreneurship.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Who Is Really "Anti-Business"?

February 10, 2010

In the Bloomberg story today, Obama Doesn’t ‘Begrudge’ Bonuses for Blankfein, Dimon , President Obama, spoke up about the huge Wall Street bonuses handed out this year, “I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.” Free-market system? These huge bonuses are for the Wall Street robber-barons that caused the financial collapse, took taxpayer dollars to prop up their fortunes, and get free money from the Federal Reserve with which to “trade” — speculate, gamble, call it what you want. Meanwhile they spend hundreds of millions of dollars “lobbying” (bribery) to fight any kind of financial reforms or consumer protections from enactment, and to make sure that no such think as a “free market” with honest competition never threatens their dominance of business and government. So why is the President talking like this [note: see update below], at a time when so many Americans are out of work, losing their homes, and falling into poverty? Because he doesn’t want to be perceived as “anti-business.” From the story, Obama sought to combat perceptions that his administration is anti-business and trumpeted the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies. He plans to reiterate that message when he speaks to the Business Roundtable, which represents the heads of many of the biggest U.S. companies, on Feb. 24 in Washington. Meanwhile a Senate filibuster blocked the President’s great nominee, Craig Becker, from serving on the National Labor Relations Board. So the Labor Board remains non-functional. The filibuster kept workers from being fairly represented, and the Board itself from having a tie-breaking vote so they can resolve labor disputes so the “free market” can function as it should, with workers able to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. These two stories this week present quite a contrast, and send mixed and demoralizing signals to the country. President Obama doesn’t want to “appear” to be “anti-business.” Meanwhile giant, monopolistic corporations and Wall Street are chewing up Main Street and keeping smaller businesses from competing, while their lobbyists keep the legislature from getting anything done at all. Let’s talk about this “anti-business” label and how it is used. I wrote a post the other day titled, Tax Cuts HURT Small And Medium Businesses , championing small and medium businesses in their struggle to survive against the giant monopolistic corporations that are crushing them. Summary: struggling businesses don’t pay taxes, so tax cuts only give more ammunition to the giants that are crushing them. In the comments at one of the places it was posted I was accused to being “anti-business.” Apparently championing small and medium businesses – America’s job-creating, innovative engine – is “anti-business.” If you look around, being anything but a servant to Wall Street and the giant monopolistic corporations earns you the label, “anti-business.” The Power Of Words This got me thinking about the ways this label, “anti-business,” gets used. It is always used by corporate/conservative types, against anyone who questions the power of Wall Street and the giant monopolistic corporations that are strangling smaller businesses, workers and democracy. The President nominates a great candidate for the Labor Board, then worries that he is perceived as “anti-business.” Labels like “anti-business” are powerful accusations and come from very, very powerful people. (Like this or this .) Last year, in the post Misuse Of The Words Protectionism And Trade Is Making Us Poorer I wrote, Language has tremendous power. People like George Lakoff and Drew Westin, who study the use of language in political discussion, say that our choice of words has the power to actually affect the “wiring” or neuron circuits that our brains use to think. The corporate marketers and political persuaders have certainly learned the power of language to influence us. It has even gotten to the point where “neuromarketing” uses MRI and EEG to study how our brains react to certain stimuli so they can be used to market and persuade. In politics I think that we have even reached a point where we give words more power and importance even than the ideas the words represent. In the Bush years we learned that the persuaders believed they could “create their own reality.” [. . .] words are used as weapons by professionals who wish to distract us from things that are in front of our own faces. So how do we fight this? One way is to recognize our own power as citizens in a democracy. In America the people – Main Street – are supposed to be in charge of things, and the purpose of business and finance is supposed to be to serve our interests and needs, not the other way around. Why else would We, the People have set this system up, anyway? So we need to internalize this understanding, and believe in it. We are supposed to be in charge. We, the People are supposed to be telling businesses how they are supposed to operate, setting the rules and regulations, defining the playing field on which they operate. We need to have a sense that it is improper for businesses to be involved at all in the decision-making about the rules under which businesses operate. It must be this way because business interests will always, always try to tilt the rules against the free market and in their own favor, giving them advantages over other businesses . This isn’t about being “anti-business” at all, it is about being in favor of a level playing field, where the innovative small and medium companies have a fair chance to compete. It is the giant monopolistic corporations that are “anti-business.” Believe it. Update – Greg Sargent looked at the transcript and has a more nuanced interpretation. This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Read the full article →

Obama Calls Republican Leaders to Feb. 25 Meeting on Health-Care Overhaul

February 8, 2010

By Kate Andersen Brower Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama invited Republican and Democratic lawmakers from the House and Senate to a Feb. 25 meeting to discuss ways to get an overhaul of the U.S. health-care system through Congress. Obama said he wants lawmakers “to put their ideas on the table.” The president spoke during a live televised interview with “CBS Evening News” anchor Katie Couric during the network’s Super Bowl pregame show yesterday. At the planned half-day meeting, Obama said he wants a “large meeting with Republicans and Democrats to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.” Obama wants live television coverage of the meeting, said a White House official who asked not to be named. Asked about starting over on the health-care debate, Obama said he wants to look at “very specific” ideas that Republicans present. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, responding to Obama’s idea, said legislation should start from scratch if Obama wants a measure that can get support from both parties. “If we are to reach a bipartisan consensus, the White House can start by shelving the current health-spending bill,” McConnell said in an e-mailed statement. “There are a number of issues with bipartisan support that we can start with when the 2,700-page bill is put on the shelf.” Bill Stalled The House and Senate each passed versions of the overhaul, but the push to produce a final bill has stalled. During a speech at the Democratic National Committee ’s winter meeting in Washington yesterday Obama told about 450 Democratic Party leaders that he won’t “walk away” from his effort to overhaul the U.S. health-care system. House Republican Leader John Boehner echoed the top Senate Republican, saying that the “best way to start on real bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats “remain hopeful that the Republican leadership will work in a bipartisan fashion on the great challenges the American people face.” The House and Senate will keep working until Feb. 25 to reconcile differences in their respective health-care bills, Pelosi said in a statement. “We have promoted the pursuit of a bipartisan approach to health reform from day one,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement. “Senate Democrats will not relent on our commitment to protecting consumers from insurance company abuses, reducing health care costs, saving Medicare and cutting the deficit.” ‘Right Thing’ Obama told Couric that while jobs have always been a top priority for his administration, the push for health-care legislation “continues to be the right thing to do.” Since Republican Scott Brown won a Jan. 19 special election for the Senate seat held for almost 50 years by Democrat Edward Kennedy , Obama — in his State of the Union speech and elsewhere — has called on Republicans to seek bipartisan solutions to the country’s problems. Obama said the U.S. economy is moving toward recovery. “We are seeing the corner turn on the economy growing again,” Obama told Couric, saying that economic growth is “not happening as fast as we’d like.” Obama said he has proposed plans to help community banks and small businesses. The U.S. Labor Department reported Friday that the unemployment rate dropped to 9.7 percent in January, the lowest level since August. Revised figures show the U.S. has lost 8.4 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007. ‘Concrete Improvement’ “My hope is that for folks who are unemployed, they’re going to start seeing concrete improvement in their own lives in the next few months,” he said. The president said there has been “a lot of posturing” about the federal budget deficit , saying Democrats and Republicans need to “come together in a sensible way” to reduce debt. The “most important thing we can do” to hold down spending is to “get a health reform package passed.” Obama said the administration hasn’t decided whether to continue plans to hold the trial for alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. “If you’ve got a city that’s saying no, and a police department that’s saying no, and a mayor that’s saying no, that makes it difficult,” Obama said. Miranda Rights The Obama administration has come under fire from Republican lawmakers for trying terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in civilian U.S. courts, where the 23-year-old Nigerian man was provided access to a lawyer, instead of trying him in the military-justice system. Obama said on CBS that Abdulmutallab was read his Miranda rights only after he provided Federal Bureau of Investigation agents with “actionable intelligence.” Obama said the practice of reading terrorism suspects their Miranda rights should be reviewed. John Brennan , Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he told Republican congressional leaders on Christmas night about the interrogation of Abdulmutallab, and called subsequent criticism “a bit of an outcry after the fact.” Brennan said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and House Republican Leader John Boehner were among senior members of Congress he briefed after Abdulmutallab was arrested on suspicion of trying to detonate explosives as Northwest Airlines Flight 253 approached Detroit carrying 279 passengers and 11 crew members. “None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point,” Brennan said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program. To contact the reporter on this story: Kate Andersen Brower in Washington at kandersen7@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Volcker Still ‘Just A Photo Op’?

February 5, 2010

When Paul Volcker was first appointed chairman of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, he really didn’t expect to have much influence. Sondra Gotlieb, Volcker’s friend and associate from when they both lived in Washington during the Reagan presidency, says that the former Fed chair told her that the position was a public relations stunt: “I’m just a photo op,” Volcker told her. “All they wanted was my picture for the press.” And for more than a year, Volcker’s assessment seemed about right. “Everyone knew he didn’t have the president’s ear no matter what his title was,” Gotlieb writes. But all that seems to have changed in the past several weeks, after the president, as part of his financial reform package, proposed that Congress adopt a key reform measure that Volcker has long championed. The “Volcker Rule,” as the new regulation is known, would prohibit commercial banks from owning or investing in hedge funds, private equity funds or “proprietary trading” operations. Volcker, who stands a towering 6’7″ tall, was at the president’s side during the announcement. But whether his ideas for reform will be enacted into law is still unclear: Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has indicated that he may not amend the Senate’s reform package to include the rule, saying the administration is “getting precariously close” to asking for too much.

Read the full article →

Heinz New Ketchup Packet Gives You A Choice: Dunk Or Squeeze

February 5, 2010

For decades there was only one way to use the humble ketchup packet, and it was messy. Now, fast-food lovers have a choice: the traditional squeeze play – or the option to dunk. You want fries with that, in the minivan? No problem. The new ketchup pack, unveiled Thursday by H.J. Heinz Co., is shaped like a shallow cup. The top can be peeled back for dipping, or the end can be torn off for squeezing. It holds three times as much ketchup as a traditional packet. Customers at a McDonald’s in Covington, Ky., said they would welcome a redesign. “You use up a lot of ketchup now with the packets, I always get extra ones,” said Skyler McDermott, 29. “Maybe now you won’t have to use your teeth to open them.” Heinz struggled for years to develop a container that lets diners dip or squeeze, and to produce it at a cost acceptable to its restaurant customers. “The packet has long been the bane of our consumers,” said Dave Ciesinski, vice president of Heinz Ketchup. “The biggest complaint is there is no way to dip and eat it on-the-go.” Designers found that what worked at a table didn’t work where many people use ketchup packets: in the car. So two years ago, Heinz bought a used minivan for the design team members so they could give their ideas a real road test. The team studied what each passenger needed. The driver wanted something that could sit on the armrest. Passengers wanted the choice of squeezing or dunking. Moms everywhere wanted a packet that held enough ketchup for the meal and didn’t squirt onto clothes so easily. Heinz is rolling out the new packs this fall at select fast-food restaurants nationwide. It will continue to sell the traditional packets. Whether restaurants buy the new packets will depend on cost, experts say. “One of the top uses of ketchup in this country is on french fries,” said Harry Balzer, vice president of the research firm NPD Group. “One of the patterns of behavior in this difficult climate that continues to do OK is ordering and eating in your car.” The company said it is still working out prices with its customers. But the new packet should cost only a little more, even though it holds much more ketchup. Heinz is by far the biggest ketchup maker. About half of its ketchup is sold in stores and the other half is sold to the food service industry through its exclusive contracts with chains like Burger King and Wendy’s. McDonald’s, the nation’s largest burger chain, does only limited business with Heinz. Heinz sells more than 11 billion ketchup packets every year. But neither the ketchup maker nor the major chains would say who plans to carry the new design. Morningstar restaurant analyst R.J. Hottovy said if restaurants do adopt the design, the transition will likely be gradual. “It has to be proven that this is something that saves money on the behalf of restaurants or cuts down on waste,” he said. “It looks interesting, but ultimately you have to provide something of value to the restaurants.” Customers may force the issue. Rants about the messy packs have helped spawn hundreds of anti-ketchup-packet groups on Facebook. Matt Kurtz, a 22-year-old student in New York, has drawn 269 members to the group he started after he ripped open a packet too quickly and spilled it on his jeans while on a road trip two years ago. “That’s when I said ‘There has to be a better way.’” These issues come as no surprise to Heinz’s Ciesinski. “We created the packet in 1968,” he said. “Consumer complaints started around 1969.” ___ AP Business Writer Dan Sewell in Cincinnati contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Davos Forum Ends With No Consensus On How To Improve The Economy Or Prevent Another Crisis

January 31, 2010

DAVOS, Switzerland — The world’s foremost gathering of business and government leaders wrapped up a five-day meeting Sunday with widespread agreement that a fragile recovery is under way but no consensus on what’s going to spur job growth and prevent another global economic meltdown. In a group of big egos and many power players attending the annual World Economic Forum, there was even some humility and a realization that overcoming the first global financial crisis is uncharted territory. The gathering of some 2,500 VIPs in this Swiss alpine resort saw much spirited debate on whether more regulation is needed for the financial industry, how to boost sagging global unemployment, and finding ways to ensure the nascent recovery is kept on course through 2010. The atmosphere of doom and gloom that pervaded last year’s forum, which took place at the height of the economic crisis, was replaced this year by a feeling of some satisfaction that a modest recovery is under way but uncertainty about the way forward and how banks should respond. Deutsche Bank chief Executive Josef Ackermann told an AP-sponsored closing panel that the worst of the financial and economic crisis had been managed “quite successfully” but decision-makers now had a tough choice: “Should we take more risk, be a creative force for growth, or should we focus on security?” Peter Sands, the CEO of Britain’s Standard Chartered Bank, said at the panel that the right balance must be struck “between making a safer banking system and a financial system that can support the sort of dynamism and growth in job creation.” “Get it wrong one way and we risk a new crisis; get it wrong the other way and we’ll take the steam out of the recovery and reduce the chances of creating new jobs,” he said. At the same time, Sands said, everyone must have “a degree of humility about what we actually know, and how confident we can be, that the ideas we’re going to put in place are going to have the consequences that we thought they were going to have.” At Davos, the pendulum swings between a focus on the economy and other global issues. The spotlight at past forums has been on celebrity guests like Angelina Jolie and Bono, but this year it fell on the big bankers and government financial regulators. Many participants remarked upon the absence of high-profile figures from the Obama administration. The highest-ranking was Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council. In the keynote speech, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for a return to ethics and morality in business and gave a broad riposte to free-market capitalism. Klaus Schwab, the forum’s founder, ended the meeting with a call to the business and government leaders to reflect “on values” and social responsibility. Sarkozy told international bankers and CEOs just what they didn’t want to hear: Brace for bonus curbs, tighter banking regulations and new bookkeeping rules. He echoed rallying cries of workers from the United States to Europe and Asia, and hours later, President Barack Obama also called for reforms to Wall Street. Perhaps the most important meeting was unscheduled. It came Saturday on the sidelines of the forum when government regulators, finance ministers and central bankers from the U.S. and Europe laid out their financial reform plans during a two-hour meeting with bank executives. Sands called the discussions at this and other meetings “very constructive” but said: “They haven’t in a sense solved the issues, but they certainly, I think, pushed them forward.” Ackerman praised the major economic players for expanding their Group of Eight to the Group of 20. He said there should be a Business group of 20 to work alongside them and focus on business issues. With China and India spurring the global economy, Azim Premji, chairman of Wipro Limited, India, a global communications company, predicted that the difference between growth rates between the developing and developed worlds “are increasingly going to become larger.” The result, he told the AP-sponsored panel, is that richer countries will “more aggressively” invest in emerging markets in order to maintain their own growth, which will be “good for the emerging world.” Muhammad Yunus, managing director of the Grameen Bank, which pioneered microcredit, said in an AP interview that “this is a good time to redesign the entire financial system.” “Big guys are not the big sufferers,” he said. “Big sufferers are the small guys who lost their jobs, who lost their food, who lost their livelihood.”

Read the full article →

Charles Gasparino: Volcker Is Finally Getting His Due, at Least Till He Gets Snubbed Again

January 25, 2010

It can’t be easy being Paul Volcker. One of the great economists of the modern era, Volcker is best known as the Fed chairman who slayed slagflation in the late 1970s and early 1980s. He was hired by President Obama to provide economic advice and some adult supervision in an administration that featured as other advisers people like the Marxist-sympathizing Van Jones. But then, when he offered his ideas about regulating the banking industry in a post-bailout era, Volcker was routinely ignored, that is until the president, witnessing the horror (for him and his followers at least) of the election of Scott Brown, a Republican, to fill the Senate seat once held by the late Teddy Kennedy, and the vanishing act of his far left agenda, including socialized medicine. And just like that, presto, the grumpy old man who refused to lower interest rates 30 years ago — acts that Obama would presumably oppose given his support for the reappointment of the current, easy-money loving Fed chairman Ben Bernanke — Volcker is back in vogue. Last week, he was seen alongside the president (with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner standing warily in the background) as Obama unveiled the broad outlines of a financial plan Volcker has been advocating for months now; something that if Obama lives up to his words would make it difficult if not impossible for government-protected banks to mix their risk taking activities like trading esoteric bonds if they want to be protected by taxpayers as Too Big To Fail. On the surface, it would seem like a victory for Volcker and a commonsense move by the White House. After being shunned for months, his ideas like calling for the separation of commercial banking (which includes government protected deposits) and risk-taking investment banking activities denigrated by Geithner and Larry Summers, Obama’s economic advisers and Wall Street mouthpieces, Volcker had won the day. He finally convinced the president of the mountain of evidence that one of the leading contributing factors to the 2008 financial crisis was the a federal law passed in 1999 that allowed risk taking to be combined with commercial banking activities. But Obama’s last minute conversion to Volckerism is, I suspect, less about commonsense and more about politics. As unemployment remains high and Wall Street is now handing out billions in bonuses just a year after being bailed out, the president can call investment banks “fat cats” all he wants. Obama’s policies of the past year: Promised taxes on small businesses to pay for his expansionist government, and protecting banks have led to a dual economy. Unemployment in the construction industry is at around 20% because businesses are hording cash to pay for higher taxes when the financial types who caused the 2008 meltdown and the current Great Recession feast. And now the president is paying the price. Volcker, at 82, may feel as though this is his last act in a long and storied career to do something great, but for my money, there is something unctuous about the great Paul Volcker being used by the president as a political prop. This is, of course, the man who refused to bend to political pressure in the early 1980s, when the Federal Reserve, under his rule, jacked up interest rates to nose bleed levels in an effort to squeeze out inflation but squeezing the economy. His rationale was simple: The short term pain was worth the long term gain of lower inflation, which usually benefits lower income people the most by making goods and services they need more affordable. He was right, and for that, we’re all thankful. But this is a crusade where Volcker isn’t leading the charge. The final proposal (which could come in days, along with I am told further limits on how much “leverage” or borrowing banks may engage in to trade, and new capital requirements) will be hammered out by Obama’s political team, not Volcker. That’s probably one reason my sources on Capitol Hill tell me there’s still a dearth of information on the final product. In other words, they’ve been given no guidance as to how these “reforms” will actually work. “We’ve been directed to a website with a press release covering the president’s announcement last week,” said one Republican staffer. For that reason, look for a watered down proposal that does little to address the notion that banks shouldn’t be able to take risk on the backs of taxpayers. Already, senior officials at Goldman and JP Morgan are telling analysts and investors that the rules will be easily evaded. They’re designed, the Goldman folks assure anyone who asks, to prevent so-called proprietary trading, where Goldman itself comes up with an idea of how to gamble with its own capital, but not trading that begins when a customer makes and order and then the trader follows through with his own bet. For the life of me, I can’t figure out the difference between the two since the firms in both instances are risking their own capital, but Wall Street is making a case that the difference is huge and the firms are flooding Washington as I write this column to influence the legislation. How much of this jockeying for control of the final product Volcker will stand before just calling it quits, is, of course, a matter of debate. For the past year or so, I’ve been reporting that Volcker has been ignored by Obama, shunned as the crazy old man with the wild-ass idea of reimposing something like the Depression-era law known as Glass-Steagall, which formally separated commercial banking from risk-taking investment banking ideas. Ironically, he received a better reception from some of his contacts on Wall Street for this plan, who gave him their ideas on how best to make such a separation of risk taking and commercial work given the realities of the modern financial industry. Goldman Sachs, of course, isn’t a commercial bank like Citigroup. It doesn’t have branch offices, and it doesn’t hold checking accounts, and yet under the president’s approach to regulation, the firm is protected like Citigroup as too systemically important to fail even as it trades just about every esoteric bond in creation. Through it all, Volcker accepted all the snubs, that is, until last week when the president woke up and realized he was right, and there was Volcker standing next to the president getting his due, until, that is, he gets snubbed again.

Read the full article →

Fed E-Mails On AIG Show Disdain For Transparency

January 25, 2010

Emails between senior Federal Reserve Board officials obtained by the Huffington Post reveal an organization dedicated to resisting transparency — so much that officials stymieing congressional attempts to get them to disclose vital information cynically put the word “transparency” in quote marks. The e-mails are part of a trove of 250,000 documents the NY Fed’s board produced in response to a subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. In November, Congress was trying to get the New York Federal Reserve to disclose details about payments to its counterparties that were paid for with $27.1 billion in taxpayer money. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke was asked at a committee hearing by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) whether he would tell Congress about the identities of the counterparties. “I think that information can be made available,” Bernanke told her. The answer led to news articles suggesting that the information would soon be released, but the Fed had other ideas. Brian J. Gross, special assistant to the board serving as congressional liaison, forwarded around the testimony and asked senior officials what they suggested. “My suspicion is that we will not be able to provide this info. So, we’ll need a strong CLO [Congressional Liaison Office] response!!” replied Scott Alvarez, the Board’s general counsel. The Fed then decided it was time to burnish its public-relations image. “I think we need to consider a change in our press strategy (I know this isn’t like us….but with the ‘transparency’ efforts that the Board is undertaking, it could fit well into that….),” wrote Sarah Dahlgren, who was heading up the New York Fed’s AIG operations. Gross wrote to senior officials again following a critical Wall Street Journal editorial. All – If we haven’t already, we need a full explanation for [Fed Vice Chair] Don [Kohn] when he is asked this question (from today’s WSJ editorial, also raised at the Chairman’s Senate Budget hearing–repeatedly–today): Perhaps someday the feds will even explain to the taxpayers which AIG creditors had to be rescued and why. This is emerging as a real rallying cry on the Hill … and further contributing to complaints about “Fed secrecy.” Two days later, Dahlgren, in the same e-mail that suggested a new press strategy, mocked the notion of transparency and noted, as well, that Congress is concerned that money went overseas — “they HATE that,” analyzed Dahlgren: will be interested to see how the Govs want to deal with this — now they are being asked for not only the counterparties but also ALL of the creditors that have been made whole because of Federal monies to AIG (so, do we start listing the aunt minnies and uncle lous with life insurance policies?…I know I’m going to the extreme, but……) – also, will they next ask about Citi’s counterparties? BofAs?…. the loud cry today from congress (broadly, since we also met with house folks today) is for the Fed to be out in front more – telling the plain English story of what we’ve done and why….(and we haven’t done this)….I think we need to consider a change in our press strategy (I know this isn’t like us….but with the “transparency” efforts that the Board is undertaking, it could fit well into that….) (and there’s concern that the money didn’t just go to domestic banks, but went overseas….and they HATE that….)….. Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House committee and the driving force behind the chamber’s AIG investigation, said that the e-mails show an institution that feels no need to be accountable to the public and disdains the very notion of transparency. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was president of the New York Fed when it bailed out AIG. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) has said he will oppose Bernanke’s reconfirmation if he continues to stonewall Congress in its attempt to divine who the Fed has given money to and why. “The Federal Reserve Bank of New York last week delivered detailed records requested by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform related to American International Group, Inc. We look forward to responding to questions about the documents at the Committee’s hearing later this week,” Deborah Kilroe, a spokeswoman for the New York Fed, told HuffPost. “We believe that these materials demonstrate that the New York Fed’s actions assisted AIG in ensuring the accuracy of its disclosures and protected important U.S. taxpayer interests.” She also referred to this statement . Issa sees the culture that has been fostered as a failure of leadership. “It’s become very clear that ‘transparency’ was nothing but a burden and political obstacle for the Fed to overcome,” he told HuffPost. “Decisions regarding disclosure were made based on public relations, rather than public benefit. This culture of secrecy was so pervasive throughout the Fed, it raises legitimate questions about the leadership of those who were charged with over-seeing the AIG deal and decisions to hide public disclosure at all costs.” In a press release touting the release of the 250,000 pages to the committee, the Fed said: “We believe that these materials demonstrate that the FRBNY’s actions assisted AIG in ensuring the accuracy of its disclosures and protected important U.S. taxpayer interests.”

Read the full article →

Morgan Stanley’s Roach Says Obama Is `Bank Bashing,’ Calls for Moderation

January 22, 2010

By Mark Deen and Andrea Catherwood. Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) — Morgan Stanley Asia Chairman Stephen Roach said President Barack Obama’s plan to restrict banks’ investment activities amounts to “bank bashing” and called on politicians to take a more balanced approach. Obama asked Congress yesterday to prohibit banks from owning or making investments in private-equity and hedge funds that “are unrelated to serving customers.” Stock indexes around the world dropped after the pronouncement, led by financial firms, on expectations the rule would hurt profits. “In this highly charge political season, bank bashing has become a favorite sport for politicians all over the world,” Roach said today in an interview from Hong Kong. “Bankers alone weren’t responsible for this major crisis,” he said, adding that central bankers, regulators and politicians also bear blame. The comments from Roach, a former Federal Reserve economist, underline the opposition Obama is likely to face for his plan in the finance industry even as foreign politicians such as the U.K. conservative party and the French finance minister welcome the move. The proposals themselves, based on the ideas of former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker, deserve to be considered soberly by lawmakers, Roach said. “This is a remaking of the financial services model as we know it today,” he said. “I have enormous respect for the man who conceived the plan, Paul Volker. His points are extremely well taken. I would hope someone like him would add a sense of seriousness to the debate as it unfolds.” To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Deen in London at markdeen@bloomberg.net Andrea Catherwood in London at acatherwood@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Pelosi Says House Lacks Votes to Pass Current Senate Health-Reform Measure

January 21, 2010

By James Rowley and Edwin Chen Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said her chamber lacks the votes to pass the Senate’s health-care legislation, dashing hopes of a quick resolution for President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority. “In its present form, without change, I don’t think it’s possible to pass the Senate bill in the House,” Pelosi told reporters today in Washington. Senate Democrats no longer have the 60 votes they need to overcome Republican delaying tactics and pass legislation after a loss in the Jan. 19 special Senate election in Massachusetts. That means the party had to change course from its plan of combining separate House and Senate bills and sending the new measure back for votes in each chamber. Passing the Senate plan, as is, would be the quickest option because it could go straight to Obama’s desk for his signature. Democrats are considering scaling back the bills to win passage, and Obama may start a new effort to reach out to Republicans, who have been united in opposing the legislation, according to a person familiar with the discussions. Pelosi, a California Democrat, said she isn’t ruling out anything and that her party remains committed to passing legislation that would cover tens of millions of uninsured Americans and attempt to curb rising medical costs . Must-Pass Bill “We have to get a bill passed,” she said. House Democrats oppose Senate provisions including a tax on the most expensive, employer-provided health-insurance plans, Pelosi said. A House leadership aide said Democrats in the chamber would be open to passing a modified Senate bill, rather than passing the current one and depending on a second piece of legislation later that would make fixes. “We are not in a big rush,” Pelosi said. Congress will “take the time it needs to consider the options,” she said. Bringing Republicans back into negotiations increases the chances that a scaled-down measure might pass even with defections by Democrats who want a more far-reaching bill. Dan Pfeiffer , the White House communications director, didn’t have any immediate comment. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters there have been White House meetings focusing on a scenario that “merges the House and Senate products.” McCain’s Take Earlier, Arizona Senator John McCain , the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said on CBS’s “The Early Show” that Republicans are “more than happy to sit down and start over” on efforts to overhaul the health-care system. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Obama and the Democrats should work with Republicans. Still, “Republicans are not going to work off of this monstrosity,” he said. “There is not enough common ground.” The new senator-elect from Massachusetts, Scott Brown , arrived in Washington today and said he is open on the issue. Brown, who will fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy , told reporters he voted for a health-care overhaul in Massachusetts in what he called “a great bipartisan effort.” “It’s clear that I wanted coverage for everybody in Massachusetts,” Brown said. “The bill that was being pushed in Washington was not good for Massachusetts.” Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have spent the last two days talking to their members and trying to plot the next steps. After House Democrats met this morning behind closed doors, several said there is an emerging consensus that breaking the legislation into pieces might be the best path. ‘Some Pieces’ “The sense is we shouldn’t drop the subject, but maybe we need to look at some pieces of it,” said Representative Jose Serrano , a New York Democrat. That would fit with a suggestion Obama made yesterday. “I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements in the package that people agree on,” Obama said in an interview with ABC News broadcast last night. Obama’s preferred elements include new insurance industry rules, such as the elimination of lifetime caps on insurance plans and a ban on insurers denying people coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions, according to an administration official. They also include subsidies to help some individuals afford coverage, and cost-containment steps such as empowering an outside panel to control Medicare spending. A group of 25 House Democrats have begun circulating draft proposals for smaller bills that would not include an individual or employer mandate, any new entitlement programs, or a public option to compete with private insurers, said New Jersey Representative William Pascrell , who is leading the effort. Controlling Costs An initial bill would deal with controlling costs and revising the way doctors and hospitals administer and charge for health care. A second would address the antitrust exemption for insurers and a third would address physician concerns about liability, Pascrell said. Passing health-care legislation “in micro fashion would allow people to understand what’s in it,” Pascrell said. “I’m saying let’s step back and take this in small steps.” Pascrell said he had presented his ideas to Rep. John Larson of Connecticut, head of the Democratic conference, as well as Republican leaders who he said are “interested.” The White House hasn’t decided whether to push for a provision requiring all Americans to have insurance, the administration official said. That’s a clause the insurance industry favors because it would expand the market by millions of customers. To contact the reporters on this story: James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net ; Edwin Chen in Washington at echen32@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →