people

Naveen Jain: Ten Secrets To Entrepreneurial Success

February 2, 2011

I’ve been an entrepreneur most of my adult life. Recently, on a long business flight, I began thinking about what it takes to become successful as an entrepreneur — and how I would even define the meaning of “success” itself. I’ve given a lot of talks over the years on the subject of entrepreneurship. The first thing I find I have to do is to dispel the persistent myth that entrepreneurial success is all about innovative thinking and breakthrough ideas. I’ve found that entrepreneurial success usually comes through great execution, simply by doing a superior job of doing the blocking and tackling. But what else does it take to succeed as an entrepreneur — and how should an entrepreneur define success? Here’s what I came up with: 10. Passion You must be passionate about what you are trying to achieve. That means you’re willing to sacrifice a large part of your waking hours to the idea you’ve come up with. Passion will ignite the same intensity in the others who join you as you build a team to succeed in this endeavor. And with passion, both your team and your customers are more likely to truly believe in what you are trying to do. 9. Focus on the mission Great entrepreneurs focus intensely on an opportunity where others see nothing. This focus and intensity helps to eliminate wasted effort and distractions. Most companies die from indigestion rather than starvation, i.e. companies suffer from doing too many things at the same time rather than doing too few things very well. Stay focused on the mission. 8. Hard work breeds luck Success only comes from hard work. We all know that there is no such thing as overnight success. Behind every overnight success lies years of hard work and sweat. People with luck will tell you there’s no easy way to achieve success — and that luck comes to those who work hard. Successful entrepreneurs always give 100% of their efforts to everything they do. If you know you are giving your best effort, you’ll never have any reason for regrets. Focus on things you can control; stay focused on your efforts and let the results be what they will be. 7. Celebrate milestones The road to success is going to be long, so remember to enjoy the journey. Everyone will teach you to focus on goals, but successful people focus on the journey and celebrate the milestones along the way. Is it worth spending a large part of your life trying to reach the destination if you didn’t enjoy the journey along the way? Won’t the team you attract to join you on your mission also enjoy the journey more as well? Wouldn’t it be better for all of you to have the time of your life during the journey, even if the destination is never reached? 6. Gut instinct There are too many variables in the real world that you simply can’t put into a spreadsheet. Spreadsheets spit out results from your inexact assumptions and give you a false sense of security. In most cases, your heart and gut are still your best guide. The human brain works as a binary computer and can only analyze the exact information-based zeros and ones (or black and white). Our heart is more like a chemical computer that uses fuzzy logic to analyze information that can’t be easily defined in zeros and ones. We’ve all had experiences in business where our heart told us something was wrong while our brain was still trying to use logic to figure it all out. Sometimes a faint voice based on instinct resonates far more strongly than overpowering logic. 5. That faint voice Be flexible but persistent. Every entrepreneur has to be agile in order to perform. You have to continually learn and adapt as new information becomes available. At the same time you have to remain persistent to the cause and mission of your enterprise. That’s where that faint voice becomes so important, especially when it is giving you early warning signals that things are going off-track. Successful entrepreneurs find the balance between listening to that voice and staying persistent in driving for success — because sometimes success is waiting right across from the transitional bump that’s disguised as failure. 4. Smart, different people Rely on your team. It’s a simple fact: no individual can be good at everything. Everyone needs people around them who have complimentary sets of skills. Entrepreneurs are an optimistic bunch of people and it’s very hard for them to believe that they are not good at certain things. It takes a lot of soul searching to find your own core skills and strengths. After that, find the smartest people you can who compliment your strengths. It’s easy to get attracted to people who are like you; the trick is to find people who are not like you but who are good at what they do — what you can’t do. 3. One-page business plan Execution, execution, execution – unless you are the smartest person on earth (and who is) it’s likely that many others have thought about doing the same thing you’re trying to do. Success doesn’t necessarily come from breakthrough innovation but from flawless execution. A great strategy alone won’t win a game or a battle; the win comes from basic blocking and tackling. All of us have seen entrepreneurs who waste too much time writing business plans and preparing power points. I believe that a business plan is too long if it’s more than one page. Besides, things never turn out exactly the way you envisioned them. No matter how much time you spend perfecting the plan, you still have to adapt according to the ground realities. You’re going to learn a lot more useful information from taking action rather than hypothesizing. Remember: stay flexible and adapt as new information becomes available. 2. Integrity I can’t imagine anyone ever achieving long term success without having honesty and integrity. These two qualities need to be at the core of everything we do. Everybody has a conscience — but too many people stop listening to it. There is always that faint voice that warns you when you are not being completely honest or even slightly off track from the path of integrity. Be sure to listen to that voice. 1. Giving back Success is a long journey and much more rewarding if you give back. By the time you get to success, lots of people will have helped you along the way. You’ll learn, as I have, that you rarely get a chance to help the people who helped you because in most cases, you don’t even know who they were. The only way to pay back the debts we owe is to help people we can help — and hope they will go on to help more people. When we are successful, we draw so much from the community and society that we live in we should think in terms of how we can help others in return. Sometimes it’s just a matter of being kind to people. Other times, offering a sympathetic ear or a kind word is all that’s needed. It’s our responsibility to do “good” with the resources we have available. Measuring Success Hopefully, you have internalized the secrets of becoming a successful entrepreneur. The next question you are likely to ask yourself is: How do we measure success? Success, of course, is very personal; there is no universal way of measuring success. What do successful people like Bill Gates and Mother Teresa have in common? On the surface it’s hard to find anything they share — and yet both are successful. I personally believe the real metric of success isn’t the size of your bank account. It’s the number of lives where you might be able to make a positive difference. This is the measure of success we need to apply while we are on our journey to success.

Read the full article →

Lori Pottinger: Grand Illusions for African Energy in Davos

January 31, 2011

The ongoing World Economic Forum — the annual gathering of global decision-makers and business leaders — is the place to discuss big ideas for economic development. Some African participants are using the forum to promote the gigantic Grand Inga hydropower dam , proposed for the Congo River in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The South African water minister told a reporter in Davos that “the sooner we do something about [building Grand Inga], the better.” The mantra that this project will “light up Africa” was repeated. No mention was made of the huge risks this dam poses, especially for the people of Congo. DR Congo is one of the world’s riskiest places to invest. To build the world’s biggest dam here and expect it to light the entire continent is like building the world’s biggest nuclear plant in the land of the Taliban — or the world’s biggest medical marijuana farm in Mexico’s borderlands. The great tagline notwithstanding, Grand Inga doesn’t have much of a chance of “lighting up Africa,” much less lighting up Congo. The biggest obstacle to the project succeeding in a way that benefits ordinary Africans is corruption. Decades of plundering state coffers and natural resources in DR Congo have institutionalized corruption. Public officials systematically misuse their offices for private gain. In the mining sector alone, at least $200 million of annual taxes go uncollected due to illicit negotiations and corrupt oversight. And despite the huge power supplies that Inga could generate, most Africans still live too far from national grids to take advantage of a big, centralized project in a faraway country. Building necessary distribution systems to make use of the dam’s electricity would be cost-prohibitive to say the least. If built, the dam will power big mines and industries, not small businesses, homes and hospitals. DR Congo’s state power utility, SNEL, is at this writing on the verge of bankruptcy. The utility has long been marked by corruption and unaccountability. In 2008, two of SNEL’s top directors were interrogated after the disappearance of $6.5 million earmarked for Inga 2 rehabilitation. The scandal triggered a parliamentary inquiry into SNEL’s management and finances. SNEL’s revenues reportedly plunged by 30% thereafter. In a country of 66 million people, currently, less than 6% of DRC’s population uses electricity from the grid. “The challenge for African policy makers who participate in the World Economic Forum is to work out strategies of translating the forum’s initiatives into policies that benefit the ordinary people,” writes Sam Makinda. The US$80 billion Grand Inga would buy a lot of clean cook stoves, micro-hydro turbines, small solar panels, drip-irrigation systems, clean LED lanterns, malaria nets and the like. These are the kinds of investments that would help ordinary Africans. Ritzy Davos might not be the best place to encourage this kind of “small is beautiful” thinking. Maybe future talks on “lighting up Africa” should be held in Kibera, Nairobi’s biggest slum. Or in a typical village, 20 kilometers and a century away from being connected to the electricity grid. Or in a rural hospital, where doctors deliver babies in the dark. Bring your own solar panel and clean cook stove.

Read the full article →

Leo W. Gerard: Making America the Best Place on Earth to Work

January 31, 2011

Not the wars. Not greenhouse gasses. Not even the deficit. The issue most important to Americans is jobs. Despite that, jobs failed to make an appearance in the State of the Union address. The talk was all about business. Business was doing better. Business needed taxpayers to help pay for research and innovation. Business will get government help to eliminate pesky regulations. Business must have lower taxes. The most telling statement was this: “We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business.” Especially because it wasn’t matched by a companion: “We have to make America the best place on Earth to work.” The speech expressed a policy in which business is the focus of government, taking precedence over workers. The American colonists created a government for their own benefit; they did not constitute an agent to serve business. A policy giving corporations primacy is risky for American workers. The state of the union noted that happy days are here again for corporations and banks: “Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.” Never mentioned, however, were the 14.5 million unemployed Americans, the sustained record rate of foreclosure , and the increasing poverty and food bank reliance among citizens of the richest nation in the world. The state of the union outlined a plan under which the government will coddle corporations, essentially proving companies government welfare using American workers’ tax dollars. If businesses create jobs for workers as a result, fine. If they don’t, there’s no plan to exact a penalty. For example, under the policy described in the speech, American workers will fork over tax dollars to pay for research and development for businesses that are sitting on a record $1.8 trillion in cash reserves — hoarding it rather than creating jobs. The president said: “Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology — an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.” Maybe it will create new jobs. Hopefully. But no guarantees were offered. Mentioned as a business success story in the speech was a Michigan company, Luma Resources, which began manufacturing solar shingles with the help of a $500,000 government grant. It created 20 jobs , $25,000 a job. American taxpayers might think that’s a little pricey, but what’s worse is the potential for Luma Resources to go the way of Evergreen Solar, squandering the corporate welfare. Evergreen, the third largest maker of solar panels in the U.S. and recipient of at least $43 million in corporate welfare, announced earlier this month it would close its main American factory in Massachusetts and move manufacturing to China. Eight hundred Americans will lose their Evergreen jobs by April. Evergreen officials said China will give the company even higher amounts of corporate welfare, which, of course, makes sense since China is not a capitalist country. Its economy is government controlled. And that government routinely violates international trade regulations – by providing banned subsidies to industries and by deliberately devaluing its currency. No matter how better educated American workers get. No matter how much more innovative. No matter how much more productive. No matter how many tax dollars the government spends on research and development, if the corporations that benefit move manufacturing overseas, the American workers who paid for it will suffer. In fact, it’s more than suffering; it’s betrayal by their government that provided tax benefits to companies for off-shoring jobs. It is betrayal by their government that fails to stop violations of trade laws by countries like China that lure away firms like Evergreen. At the end of the State of the Union speech, the president said: “From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream.” An ordinary American dreams of a family-supporting job, owning a home, saving enough to pay for a child’s college education, helping to build a safe community. Corporations aren’t Americans, no matter how often the U.S. Supreme Court grants them rights that the U.S. Constitution guarantees to human beings. Businesses aren’t citizens. Their allegiance isn’t to America. It’s to profits. They dream only of dollars. They concede no responsibility to family, community or country. They were not included when the president said: “Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater — something more consequential than party or political preference. We are part of the American family.” The top priority of the American government must be making America the best place on Earth for Americans. If that’s good for corporations, great. The government must never place American citizens second.

Read the full article →

Andrew Reinbach: Davos 2011: The World’s Future Is Either a Boom or a Disaster

January 31, 2011

During the run-up to the recent meeting in Davos, Bloomberg ran a story called ” Super-Cycle Leaves No Economy Behind as Davos Shifts to Growth ” predicting global economic growth is about to explode, lifting all economic boats and propelling the world to a golden age. Quoting Stephen King, HSBC Holdings Plc’s chief global economist, reporter Simon Kennedy says, “…by 2050, global output will have trebled and average annual growth will accelerate toward 3 percent from 2 percent in the last decade, with emerging markets contributing twice as much to the expansion as the developed world.” Read that again, and you’ll realize this piece was filed by our old friend, Rosy Scenario. What it really says is that in the future emerging economies will be okay; but an economy like the United States? You ain’t goin’ nowhere. And in fact, later in the same piece, Standard Chartered Bank’s chief economist, Gerard Lyons, predicts average growth in the US of about 2.5 percent through 2030 — about what it is today. Since the US economy needs to grow by 5 percent for years to soak up the millions of Americans out of work today and over 2 percent a year just to absorb population growth, what that prediction says is that we can expect another 20 years of high unemployment in this country, with no practical policies in place — or even on the table — to deal with the sort of structural unemployment that’s led to the recent turmoil in Egypt and Tunisia. So it doesn’t take much to see that most people in this country will be displeased if these predictions are anywhere close to the mark — that what those of us not living in Kuala Lumpur or Shanghai are looking at is something close to long-term, slow-moving misery. That sounds a little alarming, but what it really means is that we may be able to dodge a worst-case scenario if we face up to reality and produce practical public policies that jettison ideology and, at a minimum, find work for the armies of the unemployed that politicians are so studiously ignoring. This will probably not be a “market-based solution”: After all; if the market could solve this problem, it would have already been solved. A new WPA comes to mind . But whether America’s politicians can come out of their trenches and serve the people’s interests is another matter: Frankly, they display no appetite for anything that gets in the way of posturing for the 2012 elections. If you’ll bear with me, here’s a translation of what that global growth scenario really means. The reality is pretty close to the surface, if you apply a little common sense to the fairy dust usually found in your average investment bank scenario. 1. If emerging market growth will really be a strong as it’s predicted — and, by the way, that outlook is widely accepted — then investment capital won’t go to US markets, because emerging markets will offer superior yields; 2. As a result, US jobs growth will remain anemic, because investors will be putting their money into new plants, equipment, and businesses in Manila, not Indianapolis; 3. What business and jobs growth in the the US that does occur will be in consumer-based businesses; 70% of the US economy is still consumer-driven. 4. But if unemployment and under-employment remain high, profits won’t be much to brag about in the consumer sector; people hanging on by their teeth don’t go on shopping sprees; 5 And the number of people who are unemployed or under-employed is higher in the US than most people think. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, real unemployment is 16.7 percent , not the 10.9 percent most recently published in the national press. The American workforce totals about 150 million people; so that means about 25 million people are, at best, marginally employed. That’s about the same number of people who were out of work in 1933. 6. Employers hire people to meet demand. So if consumer sales stay low, unemployment will stay high. Meanwhile: 1. Starting with incomes, life will improve in the emerging markets. This includes life expectancy, population, and consumer consumption; 2. More people, living longer, better lives, means demand for commodities will rise, driving up commodity prices, including prices for food and water; 3. So the cost of living will rise — globally; 4. But since investment capital is flowing out of the US and keeping a lid on jobs growth, income growth will be slow-to-flat, while prices will rise — creating de facto income cuts; 5. What income and business growth will occur, will occur in FIRE businesses (finance, insurance, and real estate), advertising, marketing etc., and mainly at the upper management levels. Everybody else will stay on the treadmill; Also: 1. Globally, the increased population nurtured by improving conditions in emerging economies will likely accelerate global warming and other environmental problems, because people will buy cars, farmers will use more phosphate-based fertilizers and pesticides, etc ., and, over all, people will use more plastics and fossil fuels; 2. Said shortages will probably lead to contested resources. This is why China and India are locking up so many of them right now. So: 1. The stagnant US economy will suffer from high and persistent unemployment that will probably minimize recovery and challenge political stability; 2. Since more people will have to adjust their lives to living on less, there’ll be an even more pronounced shift of household wealth away from the middle class; 3. If people are making less, they pay less in taxes, so tax revenues decline, worsened by deficit-related pressures; the alternative will be borrowing. 4. The poor will be left to their own devices, if only because the tax revenues just won’t be there to help them; 5. Government will shrink the menu of services it delivers, and new businesses will appear to provide them — to people can afford to pay. This will provide some jobs stimulus; but many of these jobs will be low-paying call center-type jobs; aside from everything else, employee turnover in call center jobs is typically high — above 90 percent. 6. That last does little to stimulate wide-spread personal wealth, so that most people will have little or nothing to retire on in a world with little-to-no Social Security/Medicare benefits. 7. Completing the circle, consumer demand is anemic, at best, so you’ve got long-term economic stagnation. So the cycle becomes semi-permanent. If you think that’s a cheery outlook, consider the fact that you’re probably going to help make it happen. That’s right — I mean you. Not because you’re evil: Because you’re a responsible adult who can act in your own interests. People can’t retire on Social Security and have to do what they can to support themselves for the 20 or more years they can look forward to after they’ve left the workforce. So the last thing they’ll be doing is putting any money in low-yielding investments. That means you’ll have to make the emerging economies play or lose money. It’s not your job to solve the long-term, structural economic crisis on the home field — your job is to survive. And those choices are limited now, even if matters are veering disturbingly close to what Lenin used to say — that when the time came, capitalists would sell him the rope to hang them. The good news: Americans can still vote. We have the power to elect people who can actually try to solve these problems without communicating first with the Mothership. You can read this article and more at www.reinbachsobserver.com .

Read the full article →

Marshall Goldsmith: Managing Up: Getting Your Higher-Ups To Pay Attention To You

January 30, 2011

Peter Drucker once said, “Great wisdom not applied to action and behavior is meaningless data.” How true this is! As a knowledge worker, if you haven’t got the attention of the higher ups, your greatest ideas probably won’t ever see the light of day. First, what is a knowledge worker? Knowledge workers are people who know more about what they are doing than their boss does. My guess is that you, like most of my readers, are a knowledge worker. Many knowledge workers (especially those with technical backgrounds) have years of education and experience that enable them to come up with great ideas. Yet this same group has almost no training in how to “influence up” and ensure that their great ideas actually get accepted. Great ideas that are never implemented don’t make much of an impact on the organization. Now, as a knowledge worker, how do you improve the odds of your boss taking your suggestions? The guidelines listed below are intended to help you do a better job of influencing your upper management. They won’t always ensure your success, but they will definitely improve your odds! Take responsibility. Think like a salesperson–not a technician. In many ways, influencing up is similar to selling products or services to external customers. They don’t have to buy — you have to sell! Any good salesperson takes responsibility for achieving results. No one is impressed with salespeople who blame their customers for not buying their products. When making your pitch, treat upper managers like great salespeople treat their customers. While the importance of taking responsibility may seem obvious in external sales, an amazing number of people in large corporations spend countless hours blaming management for not buying their ideas, as opposed to blaming themselves for not selling those ideas. If more time were spent on developing our ability to present ideas and less on blaming management, a lot more might get accomplished. Focus on the big picture — not just what’s in it for you. An effective salesperson would never say to a customer, “You need to buy this product, because if you don’t, I won’t achieve my objectives!” Effective salespeople relate to the needs of the buyers. They don’t expect buyers to relate to their needs. In the same way, effective “upward influencers” relate to the larger needs of the organization, not just to the needs of their unit or team. When influencing up, focus on the impact of the decision on the overall corporation. In most cases, the needs of the unit and the needs of the corporation are directly connected. In some cases, this connection isn’t so obvious. Don’t assume that executives will automatically make the connection between the benefit to your unit and significant, positive impact for the larger corporation. Strive to win the big battles. Don’t waste your energy and psychological capital on trivial points. An executive’s time is very limited. Do a thorough analysis of your ideas before challenging the system. Don’t waste time on issues that will only have negligible results. Focus on issues that will make a real difference. Be willing to lose on small points. Be especially sensitive to the need to win trivial, nonbusiness arguments on things like restaurants, sports teams or cars. People become more annoyed with us for having to be “right” on trivia than our need to be right on important business points. You are paid to do what makes a difference and to win on important issues. You are not paid to win arguments on the relative quality of athletic teams. Present a realistic cost-benefit analysis of your ideas. Don’t just sell benefits. Every organization has limited resources, time and energy. The acceptance of your idea may well mean the rejection of another idea that someone else believes is wonderful. Be prepared to have a realistic discussion of the costs of your idea. Acknowledge the fact that someone else’s cause may have to be sacrificed in order to have your plan implemented. By getting ready for a realistic discussion of costs, you can prepare for objections to your idea before they occur. You can acknowledge the sacrifice that someone else may have to make and point out how the benefits of your plan outweigh the costs. Realize that your upper managers are just as “human” as you are. Don’t say, “I am amazed that someone at this level…” It is realistic to expect upper managers to be competent; it is unrealistic to expect them to be better than normal humans. Is there anything in the history of the human species indicating that when people achieve high levels of status, power and money they become instantly wise and logical (or even sane)? How many times have we thought: “I would assume someone at this level…” followed by “should know what is happening,” “should be more logical,” “wouldn’t make that kind of mistake,” or “would never engage in such inappropriate behavior”? Even the best of leaders are human. We all make mistakes. When your managers make mistakes, focus more on helping them than on judging them. Make a positive difference. Don’t just try to “win” or “be right.” We can easily become more focused on what others are doing wrong than on how we can make things better. An important guideline in influencing up is to always remember your goal — to make a positive difference for the organization. Corporations are different from academic institutions. In a university the goal may be sharing ideas, not having an impact on the world. In faculty meetings, hours of acrimonious debate on obscure topics can be perfectly normal. In a corporation, sharing ideas without having an impact is worse than useless. It is a waste of the stockholders’ money and a distraction from serving customers. When I was interviewed in the Harvard Business Review , I was asked, “What is the most common area for improvement for the leaders that you meet?” My answer was “winning too much.” Focus on making a difference. The more other people can “be right” or “win” with your idea, the more likely your idea is to be successfully executed. In summary, think of the years that you have spent perfecting your craft. Think of all of the knowledge that you have accumulated. Think about how your knowledge can potentially benefit your organization. How much energy have you invested in acquiring all of this knowledge? How much energy have you invested in learning to present this knowledge so that you can make a real difference? My hope is that by making a small investment in learning how to influence up, you can make a large, positive difference for the future of your organization — and the future of your career. For greater detail see, “Effectively Influencing Up” in Leading Organizational Learning , Goldsmith, Morgan and Ogg eds., Jossey-Bass, 2004.

Read the full article →

Lobster In The Mountains, Riots On The Nile

January 29, 2011

(Reuters) – The global elite, dining on Norwegian lobster and reindeer at the end of the World Economic Forum on Saturday, felt pretty chipper despite growing concerns about the inequality of the economic recovery. While they believe the global financial and euro zone debt crises are abating, the real world intruded with a different and much more acute crisis in Egypt that made their debates about inequality and food security less theoretical than anticipated. This year’s four-day talkfest in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos was a fragmented affair. The issue expected to dominate discussion, the euro zone debt crisis, turned out to be a relatively damp squib, with a growing consensus among bankers and policymakers that a resolution of the issue may be near. If there was one common strand in Davos this year it was growing divisions — whether between fast-growing emerging markets and sluggish developed world economies, or between rich and poor within countries. As residents in Cairo and Alexandria counted the cost of a further night of clashes between protesters and police on Saturday, politicians and business leaders urged Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to start a dialogue with his people. The corporate world is nervous. Egypt has, after all, been one of the darlings of African and Middle Eastern investors, and the world is stepping into unknown territory with the rapid spread of unrest from country to country, propelled by the Internet and mobile technology. LESSON OF EGYPT “The lesson from Egypt is clear: people will no longer accept oppression, particularly when oppression is married with rising food prices, a lack of employment and the destruction of hope for a young generation,” Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, told Reuters. Yet the mood among 2,500 business leaders and policy-makers in Davos was still predominantly positive, albeit tempered with caution after the worst economic slump in 75 years. “Compared to last year and the year before, there is certainly much greater confidence about stability, more optimism about the global economic outlook,” said the International Monetary Fund’s first deputy managing director John Lipsky. For many CEOs and bankers, there is simply the reassurance of having put yet another year’s distance between themselves and the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, which brought the world economy to the brink. As a result, the panicky mood evident at the last two annual meetings in Davos has evaporated and business bosses are starting to look again at spending the trillions of dollars of cash sitting on their balance sheets. “It is quite obvious that the mood has changed. Everybody is much calmer,” said Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg. “You see it in the meetings, without people speaking on their telephones or leaving the room or having to stand in the corner, having very difficult conversations.” As ever, this year’s Davos was an eclectic mix, covering everything from macroeconomics to geopolitics to management theory to science. But there was no single, dominant theme — and Adair Turner, chairman of Britain’s Financial Services Authority, reckons that, perhaps, is the most encouraging sign of all. “It is a thoroughly good thing because when the world gets gripped by one big theme it usually either means there’s a big disaster or else people are getting in the grip of some new irrational exuberance,” he said. (Additional reporting by Emma Thomasson and Dmitry Zhdannikov; editing by Michael Stott and Mark Heinrich) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Simon Johnson: Davos: Two Worlds, Ready or Not

January 29, 2011

On the fringes of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos this week, there was plenty of substantive discussion — including about the dangers posed by our “too big to fail”/”too big to save” banks, the consequences of widening inequality (reinforced by persistent unemployment in some countries), and why the jobs picture in the U.S. looks so bad. But in the core keynote events and more generally around any kind of CEO-related interaction, such themes completely failed to resonate. There is, of course, variation in views across CEOs and the people work intellectual agendas on their behalf, but still the mood among this group was uniformly positive — it was hard to detect any note of serious concern. Many of the people who control the world’s largest corporations are quite comfortable with the status quo post-financial crisis. This makes sense for them — and poses a major problem for the rest of us.The thinking here is fairly obvious. The CEOs who provide the bedrock of financial support for Davos have mostly done well in the past few years. For the nonfinancial sector, there was a major scare in 2008-09; the disruption of credit was a big shock and dire consequences were feared. And for leaders of the financial sector this was more than an awkward moment — they stood accused, including by fellow CEOs at Davos in previous years, of incompetence, greed, and excessively capturing the state. But all of this, from a CEO perspective, is now behind them. Profits are good — this is the best bounce back on average in the post-war period; given that so many small companies are struggling, it is reasonable to infer that the big companies have done disproportionately well (perhaps because their smaller would-be competitors are still having more trouble accessing credit). Executive compensation at the largest firms will no doubt reflect this in the months and years ahead. In terms of public policy, the big players in the financial sector have prevailed — no responsible European, for example, can imagine a major bank being allowed to fail (in the sense of defaulting on any debt). And this government support for banks has translated into easier credit conditions for the major global corporations represented at Davos. The public policy issue of the day, from the point of view of such CEOs, is simple. There needs to be sufficient fiscal austerity to strengthen public balance sheets — so that states can more effectively stand behind their banks in the future, and to keep currencies from moving too much. Leading bankers, in particular, insisted on the paramount importance of providing unlimited government support to their sector during 2008-09; now they insist with equal or greater vigor that support to all other parts of society be curtailed. This is where cognitive dissonance creeps in. Most CEOs feel that the provision of general public goods is not their responsibility, although they are very happy to help guide (or capture) the provision of public goods specific to their firm. But it is reckless decisions by some in the financial sector that produced the crisis and recession — this is what accounts for the 40 percent of GDP increase in net government debt held by the private sector in the United States (to be clear: it’s the recession and mostly the consequent loss of tax revenue). And CEOs are happy to lead the charge both against raising taxes and in favor of deficit reduction. This adds up to public goods being weak and so much under pressure around the world. No one can put significant resources to work helping to bring down unemployment. No one is seriously addressing the loss of skills faced by the long-term unemployed. No one is offering real resources to help improve education for lower-income children or adults who did not finish high school. Self-anointed “fiscal conservatives” claim the budget issues we face are all about discretionary nonmilitary spending. This is nonsense. The U.S. faces an incipient fiscal crisis (a) in the shorter term, because of what the big banks did and what they are likely to do in the future, and (b) over the next few decades, if we fail to control rising health care costs (both in general and as funded by government budgets). The gap between the CEOs’ world and the real world should be bridged by the official sector. But where are the politicians and government officials who can explain what we need and why? Who can confront the CEOs in the highest profile public forums, and push them on the social responsibility broadly defined? The biggest disappointment at Davos was not the attitude of the corporate sector; these people are just doing their jobs (as they see it). To the extent the U.S. or eurozone official sector showed up at all, it continued to demonstrate the deepest levels of intellectual capture. The reasoning seems to be: As long as we do what the big banks and big firms want, everything will turn out all right. There was zero high-profile public debate at Davos this week on anything related to this way of seeing the world. Corporate Davos was borderline exuberant. Even if a deeper crisis looms, does the global business elite really care? This post originally appeared on The Baseline Scenario .

Read the full article →

CoStar’s People of Note (Jan. 23-29)

January 29, 2011

This week’s People of Note includes the following markets: Atlanta, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City, Portland, Sacramento and Washington, DC. ATLANTA High-Profile Real Estate Team Joins DLA Piper M. Maxine Hicks, a managing partner and board member at Epstein Becker & Green, and a group of high-profile lawyers moved to the Atlanta office of DLA Piper. Hicks will oversee DLA Piper’s Real Estate practice locally and help the firm expand…

Read the full article →

Al Norman: Wal-Mart Collapses On Civil War Battlefield

January 27, 2011

Another Major Historic Gaffe By Giant Retailer By Al Norman ORANGE COUNTY, VA. The historic Wilderness Battlefield in Fredericksburg, Virginia claimed another casualty this week: Wal-Mart. The southern-born retailing giant fell on its own sword by announcing abruptly on January 26th that it was withdrawing its plans for a superstore near the site where 29,000 soldiers perished in one of the most remarkable two days battles in the history of the Civil War. Wal-Mart’s surrender ended their 26 month siege of the Wilderness Battlefield, an attack that sparked national attention, activated numerous historic preservation groups, and aimed a barrage of bad press towards Wal-Mart headquarters. It was not a strategic attack worthy of a General Lee or Grant—and it ended with a low-key withdrawal. “We just felt it was the right thing to do,” a Wal-Mart spokesman told the Associated Press. This is actually the second major preservation gaffe by Wal-Mart in Frederickburg, Virginia. In the mid-1990s, I was invited to Fredericksburg, to help residents fight off a proposed Wal-Mart on the site of Ferry Farm—George Washington’s boyhood home. Augustine Washington moved his family to the Ferry Farm property in 1738, when his son, George, was six years old. George received his formal education during his years there, and forged friendships in the neighborhood that lasted the rest of his life. I told the crowd of activists fighting the Ferry Farm Wal-Mart, “I cannot tell a lie: this is most dumbest site I have ever seen for a Wal-Mart.” That is, until they amassed their corporate troops on the edges of the Wilderness Battlefield. An estimated 160,000 troops fought at the Wilderness. The Confederate Army and the Union suffered heavy losses. The battle was a tactical draw. But the Battle of the Wilderness marked the beginning of the end of the American Civil War. The Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) was one of the groups that took the lead in the pushback against Wal-Mart. “Do you believe a Wal-Mart Supercenter belongs within sight of both the Wilderness and Chancellorsville battlefields?” Jim Lighthizer, President of CWPT said in an email alert. “Do you want to see the historical significance of both of these irreplaceable battlefields marred forever by more pavement, more traffic and more development that a Wal-Mart Supercenter will bring in its wake? And do you want to see this land – within easy artillery range of Ulysses Grant’s headquarters during the battle of the Wilderness – turned into just another highway strip of big box stores, fast food joints and convenience stores?” The outcome of the Wilderness Battle may have been hard for Union or Confederate troops to predict at the time—but the political outcome of the Wal-Mart/Wilderness Battle 145 years later was never in doubt. Local officials favored the project even before the volley of facts against the project were fired. Wal-Mart marched by the Orange County Planning Commission on a narrow 5-4 vote, and the Orange County Supervisors voted 4-1 to grant a special permit for the project. Hardly a shot fired. But the Wilderness Battleground became a national flashpoint for sprawl. “The question for Wal-Mart, one of the world’s most successful corporations, is whether they need a fifth Wal-Mart within 20 miles to be sited on this ‘cathedral of suffering,’” said Vermont Congressman Peter Welch. Actor Robert Duvall visited the site in opposition. “I believe in capitalism, but I believe in capitalism coupled with sensitivity. Sensitivity towards historical events and the feelings of the people of this whole area.” Duvall offered to “graciously chase out” Wal-Mart from the Wilderness site. By 2009, Wal-Mart was digging in to make its stand at the Wilderness. “Two years ago,” a company spokesman said, “the county decided this site was one where growth should occur. We have looked at alternative sites and there are other sites but they require rezoning. There is no guarantee the county would approve another site.” Facing almost certain litigation, Wal-Mart squared off gainst its enemies. In a press release dated September 23, 2009, the National Trust for Historic Preservation fired its legal ammunition. The Trust said the superstore “would harm the historic battlefield and encroach upon the Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park…The County has responsibilities to protect those historic resources under Virginia law and under the County’s own Comprehensive Plan for development.” The Trust was ultimately denied legal “standing” in the case, but other parties continued the charge. The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Orange County. Seven and a half months after the appeal was filed, the plaintiffs won the first skirmish. A Judge in the Orange County Circuit Court ruled that opponents had the legal right to move forward with their lawsuit. The Judge found that a huge Wal-Mart superstore raised valid concerns about increased traffic and litter. “The use of land by an establishment like Wal-Mart could have an adverse and immediate impact,” the Judge wrote. Six neighbors were given “standing” in the case. They are Curtis Abel, Sheila Clark, Dwight L. Mottet and Craig Rains, all residents of Lake of the Woods, and Susan Caton, owner of Susan’s Flowers Etc. in Locust Grove; and Dale Brown, who lives in Spotsylvania County. Brown can see the project from his property. These local residents have helped topple the largest retail corporation on the planet. One day before the trial was to begin, Wal-Mart hoisted the white flag. Rather than face a string of bad headlines, and ultimately lose their case, Wal-Mart withdrew its artillery. “I hope this sends a message not only to Wal-Mart but to other developers that the preservation community is willing to fight for historic sites,” said a lawyer representing the plaintiffs. Jim Lighthizer was gracious in victory. “We have long believed that Wal-Mart would ultimately recognize that it is in the best interests of all concerned to move their intended store away from the battlefield. We applaud Wal-Mart officials for putting the interests of historic preservation first. Sam Walton would be proud of this decision.” Actually, I imagine that Sam Walton would have wondered what bonehead at Wal-Mart Realty could have settled on such a controversial site. But Wal-Mart blundered onto Ferry Farm, and then repeated the mistake at the Wilderness Battlefield a decade later. What these very public defeats make clear is that Wal-Mart has learned nothing from its own arrogant corporate history. Al Norman is the founder of sprawl-busters.com. He has been helping communities fight big box sprawl for the past 17 years.

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: Obama Whistles Past Economic Graveyard in Deluded SOTU Address

January 26, 2011

Not that I really expected otherwise, but Obama’s State of the Union address was a great disappointment on economic issues. Although the president made token noises about how serious our economic problems are, he immediately negated these gestures with other statements that made clear he does not understand. Statements like the following: We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. Unfortunately, as I discussed at some length in my book , the old “education is the solution” mantra just won’t cut it: One commonly suggested solution to America’s trade problems is better education. While this would obviously make America more competitive, that it would be enough is unlikely, if by “enough” we mean able to maintain wage levels in the face of foreign competition. For a start, our rivals are well aware of the value of education, so it can’t be a unique source of advantage for us. And unfortunately, the U.S. is simply no longer formidable from an educational point-of-view. Roughly the top third of our pop-ulation enjoys the benefits of a world-class college and university system, plus other forms of training such as the military and the more serious trade schools. But the rest of our population is actually worse educated, on average, than their opposite numbers in major competing nations. Thanks mainly to the high-school movement of the early 20th century, the U.S. once led the world in high school completion, the most readily comparable international measure of education. But we have been slipping behind for decades. This is clear from the fact that while we still lead a-mong 55-to-64-year-olds (who were schooled over 40 years ago), we rank only 11th among 25-to-34-year-olds. (South Korea is first.) Not only is our college graduation rate of 34 percent behind 15 other nations, but it does not even reach the average for developed countries. Studies designed to measure specific skill sets tell an even direr story. According to the 2006 Program for International Student Assessment, American 15-year-olds were outmatched in math and science by students from 22 other nations. The very bottom of our population is more alarming still: one 2003 study reported that a third of the adults in Los Angeles County were functionally illiterate. Furthermore, it is a testable hypothesis whether education on its own can protect wages, and the evidence is to the contrary. For one thing, a college degree is no longer the ticket it once was: workers between 25 and 34 with only a BA actually saw their real earnings drop 11 percent between 2000 and 2008. And, as David Howell of the New School for Social Research has written after looking at this problem on an industry basis, “Higher skills have simply not led to higher wages. In industry after in-dustry, average educational attainment rose while wages fell.” This should be no surprise, as merely shoveling education into workers’ heads obviously will not save them, or the industries they work in, if these industries are bleeding market share and revenue due to imports. Neither can people be expected to devote time and money to acquiring more education (or be able to afford it) if there are no jobs for them at the end. Who feels like pursuing advanced training in automotive engineering today? The weak education of American workers is thus a self-reinforcing problem: educated workers not only support, but require , strong industries. As for “innovation” as the solution? That’s another thing that’s nice enough, but not a solution per se to our economic decline; some remarks by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) make this point well: Putting money into research is this Holy Grail for people here who are all college educated when the majority of the country is not, and who put themselves on this elevated plane thinking they know. I remember [Clinton Labor Secretary] Robert Reich saying, ‘Here’s what America has to do, Marcy: see this salt shaker?’ ‘Yeah?’ ‘America’s going to do the design,’ he said. ‘It’ll be made elsewhere, but we’ll do the design.’ I thought, ‘Wouldn’t that be an answer from a professor?’ I want both! I want engineering and pro-duction because I know the people in my district who used to make goods but don’t anymore, and they have a right to make what they end up buying. Ralph Gomory, no less than the former chief scientist of IBM, has criticized what he calls “the Innovation Delusion” in this very webzine.

Read the full article →

Davos Consensus: We’re Out Of The Woods, But…

January 26, 2011

DAVOS, Switzerland — It has been the question of the day at every high-powered international gathering for two years: Are we out of the woods? The answer at this year’s World Economic Forum appears to be an optimistic “Yes, but…” The world may have stepped back from the particular brink of 2008, but it faces huge risks ranging from spiraling food and commodity prices to the danger of trade and currency wars, against a background of growing inequalities that threaten stability. So at the start of the annual conference at Davos on Wednesday, celebrity economist Nouriel Roubini raised a glass that was half-full – or was it half empty? – and declared it a metaphor for the global economy. Judging by the opening panel that Roubini shared with an international array of business leaders and economic thinkers, it is also a world that is struggling to come to terms with the historic transfer of wealth and influence away from the long-dominant West: Will countries collaborate? Can it work to everyone’s benefit or will living standards in the developed world collapse? Will the world run out of resources? The panel struggled with these themes. “There is a global economic recovery,” said Roubini, who gained renown for predicting the crisis of 2008 and a few months ago was still warning against the possibility of a “double dip recession.” He noted that “balance sheets are strong, confidence is rising,” credit spreads have fallen and liquidity – the availability of credit – has increased. But he warned that in the U.S. and Europe, growth remained low and unemployment high, and the U.S. faced a continued real estate crisis and inspired little faith in its ability to tackle its deficit and debt. In Europe, markets have forced an austerity that endangers growth. And in an allusion to China, Roubini said there was “not enough exchange rate adjustment” and warned this could lead to “currency wars and eventually trade wars and protectionism.” Advertising magnate Martin Sorrell said he was “surprised, very surprised” by how well business did in 2010, admitting he would not have predicted that the revenues of his firm – global communications empire WPP – would return to pre-crisis levels by the second quarter of last year. But he warned that corporations were so spooked by the crisis, and perhaps also by the current risks, that “there is an unwillingness in the West to invest in capacity and in increasing fixed costs” – such as new employees. So even though revenues in many cases are back to where they were, people have not been rehired – which explains unemployment but also the high profit margins that are buoying stock prices and balance sheets. One bright spot for the businessmen: whereas James Turley, chairman and CEO of Ernst & Young, said business felt “demonized over the last couple of years,” he said he was now identifying a change of tone from Washington that he attributed to a realization that “business needs to succeed in order for them to create jobs for people.” But the panelists all agreed that the global recovery was uneven: tepid in Western Europe, slow in the U.S. and fast in many of the emerging economies. Reflecting the global transition, panelists noted that the transfer of wealth was not just from west to east – but also to the south, with impressive gains in Latin America and Africa. Expanding on the previous shorthand acronym “BRIC” – how Goldman Sachs described the emerging global relevance of Brazil, Russia, India and China – the catch-phrase on Wednesday seemed to be the “Next 11″ – a clutch of other emerging nations ranging from Indonesia to Vietnam. It is in these emerging economies that one sees most of the interesting initial public offerings on stock markets, Turley said. And he noted that trade between emerging markets themselves – bypassing once-dominant trading partners in the West – was increasingly common. But the recovery is fueling demand that is causing fast gains in commodity prices – oil and metals, for example – and runaway food prices that are blamed for increasing social instability in some places and account in part for the recent revolution in Tunisia. For many countries, panelists noted, this raises the question is whether to raise interest rates to dampen consumption and bring down prices: that also drives up the currency – suppressing exports – and it can harm growth. Turley also noted that the world would soon face great demographic imbalances, creating some unexpected alliances: In 2020, he said, the average age in the U.S. and China will be 37-38; in Western Europe and Japan it will be 47-48; and in India and the Middle East it will be 27-28. “This will cause enormous impact and an array of policy issues,” he said. The panel identified inequality – in both developed and emerging economies – as a major problem that could feed social unrest, creating uncertainties that might stifle the recovery. Sorrell noted that wealthy people are more likely to invest their spare cash in financial assets “that causes asset bubbles” whereas when the wealth is more evenly spread the chances of growth-stimulating – and therefore wealth-spreading – consumption increases. “You attack it with increasing marginal income rates” which is rarely a popular policy, Sorrell said. Azim Premji, chairman of Wipro, a global information technology firm, said inequalities were increasingly visible in his country of India and elsewhere in the developing world, where rapid advances were not spread equally. Zhu Min, a former deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China, said the billions of people in the developing world wanted to have the same things the developed world has: “An American life, a big car, pension… But it won’t work because we don’t have the resources.” Would these aspiring billions really agree to make do with less? In a way, but not exactly, Zhu Min told The Associated Press: “We don’t want to adopt the Western model. It won’t work. It will be necessary to come up with a new model.” ___ Online: http://www.weforum.org

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: The State of the Union and the Federal Budget: Investing in America’s Future

January 24, 2011

Word has it that the president will be emphasizing “improving American competitiveness” in his State of the Union Address Tuesday night. As I’ve noted , the term is meaningless — but it’s politically useful. CEOs and many conservatives think it means improving the profitability of American companies. Liberals and labor unions think it means increasing export jobs. Neither touches at the heart of the matter. Hopefully, the president will. Over the long term, the only way to improve the living standards of most Americans is to invest in our people — especially their educations, skills, and the communications and transportation systems linking them together and with the rest of the world (infrastructure). In the global economy, the only “asset” that’s unique to any nation — and that determines its living standard — is the people who comprise it. Almost everything else moves across global boundaries at the speed of an electronic impulse. (Money is available to any major business from anywhere around the world. Any entrepreneur can rent or purchase additional office or factory capacity, and the most up-to-date machinery, instantly from anywhere. Commodities, supplies, and components can be summoned almost as quickly from anywhere.) That’s why spending on education, infrastructure, and basic R&D (which educates our people in the technologies and processes of the future) is fundamentally different from other categories of government spending. These outlays are really investments in the future productivity of our people. Here’s where the debate over the deficit comes in. If the federal budget were organized sanely, it would be divided into three parts: (1) Past obligations, (2) Current needs, (3) Future investments. Past obligations reflect payments Americans have made over the course of their lives in the expectation of receiving social insurance (mostly Social Security and Medicare) when they retire. These past obligations need to be honored because they’re based on implicit contracts between the public and the government. If such contracts are to be altered, they should be altered only for future generations who haven’t yet entered into them. Current needs reflect everything we want today in order to remain safe and healthy (from national defense through Medicaid). The current needs budget should be balanced each year. It’s appropriate that we pay for all our current needs through our current taxes. But future investments are qualitatively different. There’s no problem with borrowing in order to finance such investments. While it might be irresponsible for a family to go into debt in order to finance a worldwide cruise, it could be equally irresponsible for the same family not to borrow money in order to help finance their kids’ college. In fact, borrowing in order to increase future productivity is sensible — up to the point where the return on the investment is no longer higher than the cost (principal plus interest) of the loan. Ideally, the federal budget would be divided along these lines — past, present, and future. And the future, or “capital,” budget (containing spending on education, infrastructure, and basic R&D) would be separated from the rest, with its own system for “scoring” — that is, evaluating — whether the likely return is worth the cost. It won’t be an easy call in every case, of course, but the Congressional Budget Office and the OMB take on much harder ones. Who knows? The president may even propose something like this tomorrow night. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Michael Port: How To Develop A Personal Brand Identity

January 21, 2011

Brands are not just for big corporations. In fact, a personal brand will serve as an important key to your success. A personal brand will help clearly and consistently define, express, and communicate who you are. Personal branding is far more than just what you do or what your web site and business cards look like. It is you–uniquely you. It allows you to distinguish yourself from everyone else: what is unique about who you are and what you do. Your brand is about making yourself known for your skills and talents. More than that–your brand is about what you stand for. Successful people find their style, build a brand based on it, and boldly express themselves through that brand. To let the world see your true, authentic worth is powerful and it makes you memorable. There are three components to your personal brand identity: Your who and do what statement. Your why you do it statement. Your tagline. I want you to laser-beam your focus on these three aspects of your personal brand until you feel totally and fully expressed when you put words to your who and do what statement, your why you do it statement, and your tagline. Your Who and Do What Statement. Your who and do what statement lets others know exactly who you help and what you can help them do. It is the first filter that people will put you through when considering your services for hire. Your potential clients will look at it to see if you help people like them in their specific situation. Your Why You Do It Statement. After potential clients identify with your who and do what statement, they will want to know if they connect with you on an emotional, philosophical, or even spiritual level. They’ll want to know if they connect with your why you do it statement: the reason you do what you do, what you stand for and why you get up every day to do the work that you do. Those who resonate with your why you do it statement will feel it on a deep level and be emotionally attracted to you. Many others in your industry will share your who and do what statement. Similarly, your why you do it statement and even your tagline don’t necessarily need to be wildly unique. Just deeply meaningful to you–and to the people you’re meant to serve. Your Tagline. Your tagline, based on your why you do it statement, is something you’ll never get tired of hearing. And the first time you hear someone refer to you by it, you’ll want to cry tears of joy. You’ll formulate one simple sentence that allows people to define you in a manner of your own choosing. You’ll never get tired of saying it or hearing it because it’s based on what you stand for and what’s important to you. And, most importantly, not only will it very deeply and truly mean something to you, it will resonate with the people you’re meant to serve. Your tagline lets others know what it’s like to be around you. It says something about who you are at your core, and it’s the essence of what you want to achieve or experience in the world. Think of it as the bigger vision that is the inspiration for what you do in your business, Your why you do it statement and associated tagline is the way in which you want to touch others’ lives in a positive and meaningful way. Your Turn to Develop Your Personal Brand Identity. Your Who and Do What Statement. Written Exercise : Start with the basics. Keep it simple and straightforward. What is your who and do what statement? Who do you help and what do you help them do? The first time around, just come up with something accurate and clear for now–make sure a child can understand it. Finish this statement, “I help…” My example: I help service professionals get booked solid . Your Why You Do It Statement. Written Exercise: Set aside that inner critic and give yourself permission to think big– I mean really big, bigger than you’ve ever dared to think or dream before. Be your most idealistic, inspired, creative, powerful you. What is your purpose? What is your vision of what you hope to achieve through your work? Remember, your work is an expression of who you are. Keeping the preceding in mind, craft a possible why you do it statement. My example: I want to help people think bigger about who they are and what they offer the world. Your Tagline. Written Exercise: Craft a possible tagline that represents and demonstrate your why you do it statement. Example: I’m the guy to call when you’re tired of thinking small.® The more bold, authentic, and concise your personal brand is, the more easily you’ll attract those you’re meant to work with. That’s how a personal brand works–it defines you, but first you must define it. Your personal brand will give you the ability to attract fun and exciting clients who understand and get you. And you get them. —————– Called “an uncommonly honest author” by the Boston Globe and a “marketing guru” by The Wall Street Journal , Michael Port can be seen regularly on MSNBC and is a New York Times Bestselling author of four books including Book Yourself Solid , Beyond Booked Solid , The Contrarian Effect and The Think Big Manifesto . Get free chapters from the new, updated and expanded, edition of Book Yourself Solid at www.BookYourselfSolid.com

Read the full article →

Jason Schmitt: Quicken Loans Turns Success into a Philosophy

January 21, 2011

Dan Gilbert has figured a few things out for us. It is possible to be from Detroit and be successful. It is possible to create a workforce that is positive in this economic climate. It is possible to revitalize Detroit’s downtown. And it is possible to go against the dominant statistics of an industry. But it is not easy — it takes strategy and a philosophy that is understood by the full organization. Top lenders in the mortgage industry currently have the lowest referral rating of any business sector: 11%. That means 89% of mortgage customers are dissatisfied. Put me in that group. But Quicken Loans is doing something obviously different. Quicken Loans sits today with a 94% referral rating. They, and Detroiters by association, seem to have hands on something powerful enough to overcome the dominant themes of an industry that imploded. I research Detroit creativity and had an opportunity to be included as an “outsider” to Quicken Loan’s new employee orientation called “ISMs in Action.” I brought a pair of fresh eyes with me to this session just like these 240 new employees — since we collectively had not been around the Quicken Loans culture. We were like new friends coming to Gilbert’s apartment for the first-time. We could see things that he couldn’t: little changes that might need to be made. Gilbert knows this phenomenon and tries to harness its energy. Gilbert and Bill Emerson (CEO of Quicken Loans) lead this all day session and make a perfect duo. They are smart, but not too textbook smart for their own good. They know success, but both question if excel spreadsheets and pie charts are required to detect what works in an organization. This duo is pumped. And unique. And not afraid of putting some serious cash on the line for innovation’s sake. They say if you chase pennies, you will find pennies. If you invest in big ideas, skills, innovation, talent, design, marketing, technology: your return will be more than pennies. These two executives aren’t penny pinching. Together, these leaders spoke for ten hours straight and utilized a staff of over 20 to keep things streamlined — showing the priority and high expectations that are bestowed upon these new recruits. What other company has top executives that are willing to wipe a day off their calendar for the newbies–and also, what other companies have top executives who have that type of energy to command an audience on the edge of their chairs for that length of time? This isn’t normal–but neither is having net revenue exceed net expenditures in 2011. The difference is working. Although 98% of the new 240 Quicken Loans recruits wear black shoes, that seems to be the only similarity. People of all races, sizes, and ages filled the elevator with black loafers, pumps, and high heels as they are beamed up to the 15th floor of the Compuware Building. These 240 new employees are becoming orientated to organizational philosophies that are miles away from mortgages and lending. Quicken Loans team members work in a diverse array of industries from online realty to sports posters to fashion trending to biotechnology. But the beauty is that good core fundamentals don’t change from job to job–and leadership traits are the same in all industries. Taking in Gilbert’s and Emerson’s presentation, I was sitting by the founder of Xenith concussion resisting helmets, Vincent Ferrara, MD. Ferrara was a former quarterback at Harvard who, after becoming a doctor, had an idea on making a better, more protective helmet which drastically reduces concussions. Quicken Loans likes big ideas and, in turn, Xenith likes Quicken Loans. One more winning relationship pioneered from these fundamental philosophies. Over the course of a very full day, 18 separate ISMs were covered. The ideas all focused on their biggest commodity–people. Quicken Loans people aren’t riveting metal together producing bombers at Willow Run airport–instead their people, over 4,000 of them, are using their heads, becoming leaders, and, in turn, producing success. Quicken Loan’s special sauce is their people–and their special ingredients are creativity and innovation. That is the exact same creativity and innovation that China, Japan, and India wholeheartedly acknowledge that they lack. This trifecta of mass producing mite might be good at streamlining existing processes and selling for 1/10th the American equivalent–but they are a long way away from harnessing this sort of energy. Quicken Loans seizes on the last American virtue: our brain. Thank goodness someone is thinking.

Read the full article →

Bank Of America Posts Big Loss On Bad Home Loans

January 21, 2011

NEW YORK — Bank of America on Friday reported a loss of $1.6 billion in the fourth quarter after its costs related to soured home loans increased. The quarter’s results were a clean-up effort by the bank in an endeavor to start 2011 with a clean slate. The deep slump in the real estate market has continued to hamper Bank of America more than its competitors because of its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial, the country’s largest mortgage company at the time. “Last year was a necessary repair and rebuilding year,” said CEO Brian Moynihan. Bank of America Corp.’s loss available to shareholders after paying out dividends was 16 cents per share. Analysts surveyed by FactSet had forecast the bank would earn 18 cents a share. Excluding a charge of $2 billion related to the home loans, the bank would have earned 4 cents a share. A year earlier, Bank of America had reported a loss of $5.2 billion after it repaid $4 billion related to its bailout during the financial crisis. The bank reported revenue of $22.4 billion for the quarter, down from $25.1 billion in the previous year. Bank of America also kept aside an additional $4.1 billion for bad home loans that it could be forced to buy back from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and other investors, and another $1.5 billion for litigation expenses. Investors say that the bank should take back the bad home loans because they were sold on improper documentation. Besides buying back bad loans, several banks were stung by accusations in the fourth quarter that they failed to properly review documents used in foreclosures. Attorneys general from all 50 states are conducting an investigation. The results of the nation’s largest consumer lender stand as a proxy for the health of the people’s finances. And Bank of America’s results echoed what other banks have been reporting earlier in the week that the fiscal health of the American people is improving. For the sixth consecutive quarter, there were fewer people that were late meeting monthly payments. The bank’s losses from lending in its credit card and home loan business declined $414 million from the third quarter of 2010, because of a drop in delinquencies and bankruptcies. For the full year 2010, the bank reported a loss of $3.6 billion, compared to a loss of $2.2 billion in 2009. Bank of America’s shares were down 27 cents, or 1.9 percent, in pre-market trading Friday.

Read the full article →

Les Leopold: Financial Socialism by and for Wall Street Elites?

January 21, 2011

More than 70 percent of Americans say big bonuses should be banned this year at Wall Street firms that took taxpayer bailouts, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. An additional one in six favors slapping a 50 percent tax on bonuses exceeding $400,000. Just 7 percent of U.S. adults say bonuses are an appropriate incentive reflecting Wall Street’s return to financial health. A large majority also want to tax Wall Street profits to reduce the federal budget deficit. A levy on financial services firms is the top choice among more than a dozen deficit-cutting options presented to respondents. Bloomberg As bonus season arrives, the gap between the American people and Wall Street couldn’t be wider. And where is Washington in this great divide? Don’t ask. At a moment when Americans desperately want jobs on Main Street and expect Wall Street to pay its fair share, Washington officials are hard at work — seeking jobs for themselves on Wall Street. (Congratulations, Peter Orszag, on parlaying your position as Obama’s OMB director into a top job at CitiGroup, the bank that received hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailouts and guarantees on your watch!) Most Americans rightly sense that our mixed free-enterprise economy, which once built a broad middle class, has devolved into a system of financial socialism by and for elites. The public wants and deserves answers to these basic questions: 1 . Why do people in the financial sector make so much more money than the rest of us? Mainstream economists claim that your income reflects the economic value you produce — at least in free and open markets. But are proprietary traders, for example, really 100 times more valuable than neurosurgeons? In the UK, some economists say no: The British New Economics Foundation calculates that “While collecting salaries of between £500,000 and £10 million, leading City bankers destroy £7 of social value for every pound in value they generate.” Let’s try a back-of-the envelope calculation of Wall Street’s net social value. Compare their bonuses and profits for roughly the last five years (about $500 billion) with the economic losses produced in the financial crisis the bankers caused (about $4 trillion in value destroyed, not counting the ongoing travails of the 22 million people who haven’t yet been able to find a full-time job). For every dollar “earned” on Wall Street, about 8 dollars were destroyed. (In case you’re suffering from financial amnesia and forgot how the financial sector single-handedly caused the economic crisis, please see The Looting of America . Chapter One can be found gratis on Alternet.com.) There’s plenty of room for argument about this kind of calculation. But even Wall Street wizards would have trouble defending the billions they’ve acquired by profiting from a bubble that blew up the economy. What’s the real value of junk CDOs that were rated AAA and then sold for enormous profits before they blew up? We could make a strong case that those who profited from such bubble investments – like the people who sold synthetic CDOs to Wisconsin school districts — should pay back their fraudulent profits. (In fact, the school districts have filed a lawsuit toward that end.) 2. Do current profits of financial firms come from tax-payer bailouts? The old free-market mantra was that you could make as much as you wanted, so long as you were willing to accept all the risks that went with it. Joseph Schumpeter, a great defender of capitalism during the 1940s when much of the world was turning towards socialism, called the process of winning and losing “creative destruction.” In his vision of capitalism, the best and the brightest staked everything in their quest for success, and only the true innovators survived. Inefficient enterprises would be left by the wayside. So… are the survivors of the economic collapse like CitiGroup, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, receiving their just rewards? Actually, it sounds a bit quaint these days to suggest that the rich must actually suffer the consequences of failure. These top financial institutions did not have to pay for their reckless gambling and gaming because they were deemed to big too fail, and so were bailed out. Goldman Sachs, for example, made a very bad bet when it purchased $13 billion of financial “insurance” from AIG to cover its toxic assets. AIG, due to its own enormously bad business decisions, could not pay up and was on the verge of bankruptcy. Had it gone under, as Schumpeter probably would have urged, Goldman Sachs would have received pennies on the dollar for its bad gamble, and might have gone broke. Instead, AIG was bailed out by taxpayers and Goldman Sachs got 100 cents on the dollar. It gambled, lost, and instead of suffering the consequences, was made whole by the government. And now Goldman Sachs execs are hauling in tens of millions in bonuses (disguised as stock options, even as its profits slip a bit from astronomical highs.) Clearly, the “free and open” market did not determine who should be spared “creative destruction.” Instead, CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase et al were saved because of their deep political connections. These companies would be kaput were it not for taxpayer bailouts, hastily contrived loans, and all kinds of market guarantees from their friends at the Fed. Schumpeter would have recognized this scheme in a flash: It’s precisely the kind of crony socialism that he detested, only this time the game was was designed by and for financial elites in the world’s largest capitalist economy. (Please don’t compare the Wall Street rescues to the GM and Chrysler bailouts. Wall Street received ten times as much and will pay themselves a hundred times more than the top auto-executives. And the auto industry didn’t topple the US economy and send millions to the unemployment lines.) 3. But since Wall Street is paying us back, why shouldn’t they go back to earning whatever they can? Let’s follow through on that logic. Let’s say you raid your husband’s pension fund for $100,000 and take the bus to Vegas, naively hoping to triple your money. As luck would have it, you lose it all. Desperate, you manage to borrow another two million from a rich friend (Wall Street calls it “leverage”) — and then you really load up on your bets. Tragically, you lose that too. I hate to tell you this, but you’re in big trouble now. Don’t expect the government to come around and offer to cover your losses with taxpayer bailouts so you can keep on gambling till the lights go out, and then, if you win, pay back the government. That is, unless you’re too big to fail — say, a very large, well-connected investment bank. In that case, party on! It’s true, Wall Street has paid us back for much of the bailout money we gave them. That’s the good news. The bad news is that, having been rewarded for their bad behavior, they’re now back at the casino tables, playing many of the same games that took down the economy in the first place. This time there are even fewer players who are now way too big to fail. And fewer players means less competition — hence the rise in banking “fees,” especially for the average consumer. 4. Where does all their wealth come from? There are only two possible sources for all the money the financial sector is spewing: The bankers are either creating new wealth or they’re siphoning off wealth from the rest of us. Hedge fund honchos like to boast about how they weren’t bailed out and therefore are entitled to their enormous hauls. (The top 10 in 2009 earned an average of $900,000 an HOUR. The top 25 earned as much as 658,000 entry level teachers.) But our noble hedge fund managers have a great deal of difficulty accounting for what I call their “paradox of productivity.” You see, there’s supposed to be a connection between the productivity of your employees and your profits. Apple Corporation, for example, earned about $6 billion in 2009 by expertly engaging its 35,000 employees. (They went on to earn $6 billion in the last quarter of 2010 alone.) Along the way they offered us an array of popular new products that people are enjoying and putting to use. Appaloosa, the hedge fund, earned about as much as Apple in 2009 by speculating on god knows what. But it has fewer than 250 employees and it’s not at all clear what these individuals added to our economy — certainly not the iPad. How can 250 workers, no matter how wise and talented, produce as much real worth speculating on stuff as 35,000 Apple employees can make inventing, manufacturing and marketing useful products? They can’t. So hedge funds must be siphoning off wealth from elsewhere, not creating it themselves. (If you think I’m wrong, please prove otherwise, because I haven’t found a single book or paper about hedge funds, even from insiders or academics, that explains this paradox of productivity.) Ever since the crash, I’ve been calling for a ban on Wall Street bonuses and for new taxes on the financial sector. Though I felt like I was hollering in the wind, apparently most Americans agree (if we can believe the polls cited above). I naively thought that during the crash the government would come done hard on Wall Street as it did during the 1930s. I was wrong. Instead we have institutionalized a festering problem that allows Wall Street to continue siphoning off the nation’s wealth. So we have to think about a more radical restructuring. I believe the only way to end financial socialism for elites is to turn the core of high finance into group of heavily regulated public utilities — like power, water and electricity (not semi-private entities like Fannie and Freddie before they were nationalized). Financial socialism for elites has failed and will fail again, plunging millions of Americans into joblessness and sinking our nation deeply into debt. Big government has many faults, of course. But the American people, I believe, can tell the difference between public utilities that aim to serve the economy and a private oligopoly that only serves a tiny elite. Ironically, those who run the government don’t want government to end financial socialism (maybe because of financial industry campaign contributions–or because of Wall Street’s inviting revolving door). It may take another crash before Washington is willing to listen. Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street’s Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009. He is currently working on a new book, How to Earn $900,000 an Hour: The Rise of Wall Street Billionaires and the One-sided Class War, (hopefully to be published in 2011).

Read the full article →

CoStar’s People of Note (Jan. 16-22)

January 21, 2011

This week’s People of Note includes the following markets: Dallas, Los Angeles, National and New York City. NEW YORK CITY, NATIONAL Grinis To Lead Ernst’s Global RE Investment Fund Services Mark Grinis, head of Ernst & Young’s real estate distressed services group, was named leader of the global team serving real estate investment funds. He replaces Gary Koster who now manages the company’s private equity practice. Grinis, a New York-based…

Read the full article →

Nelson Davis: Martin Luther King Day Is for Work

January 20, 2011

I’m writing this on Martin Luther King Day which is a widely celebrated holiday but my office is open for business today. Like many national holidays, ML King Day is anticipated by many as a day to sleep in a bit, putter around the house, perhaps a parade or just hanging out. Obviously, I feel differently about it. To me, Dr. King and his legacy are about opportunity and dreams. My dream was to own a business. When I was about 12 years old, I met the then Reverend King when he came to speak at our church in Niagara Falls New York. He was then a preacher on tour to raise funds to help support the nascent Civil Rights movement. You see, I was born in Andalusia Alabama which is near Montgomery where the MLK era in the civil rights movement began. My Grandmother lived near the bus line where the famous 1955 boycott led by Reverend King began. Over the years, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting many of the players in that movement. They include Rosa Parks who’s refusal to move to the back of the bus sparked the bus boycott along with Coretta Scott King and other members of the King family. Since I launched my TV production business in 1988, I’ve celebrated the life of Dr. King by being open for business because I believe that he and his fellow activists put themselves in harm’s way so that I could lead a life rich in opportunities. They didn’t face police batons, dogs and fire hoses so that I could sleep in and go to the mall. My professional life has been enabled by dreams and if I had to choose one Dr. King speech to chisel in stone, it would be the “I have a dream” speech which he first delivered in 1963. Most of the people he stood before at our church that day in the late 1950s either worked for small businesses or owned them. America was hitting its peak as the world’s dominant industrial giant but small town residents and to some degree black communities knew a different world. It was much more about self reliance and businesses with less than 500 employees; in other words, small. I don’t remember specifically what he said that day but I was glad to be there. It took some convincing by a family member to get me to remain after the sermon to meet the travelling preacher. After all, for a twelve year old boy, getting to the playground for a baseball game had a lot of importance! We don’t always know when we are living historic moments. I’m confident that Reverend King had no idea that becoming the pastor at the Dexter Avenue Baptist church in Montgomery would change his life and the course of American history. As a result of his consciousness altering leadership, the halls of corporate America became a clearer pathway for aspiring blacks. Farming and other small businesses faded into the background as more employment opportunities became available. Many black owned businesses had been created simply because the owners operated in a segregated world. My sister was among the marchers at the Lincoln Memorial that day in 1963 when Martin Luther King uttered the words “I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American Dream.” Though he conveyed many messages during his tragically brief time at the visible edge of a true movement in America, the one that is permanently embedded with me is that we can all live our dreams. So many people are afraid to live their dreams, to walk into them boldly. How many of us look up to see that someone else is living the life that they want? No doubt Dr. King had to manage and reject his own fears and trepidations to do what he did. Just about every business owner can easily identify with that! So, each year when media throws a spotlight on the life and legacy of Martin Luther King around the national holiday, I celebrate self reliance, the dream of unity and the possibilities yet to be realized. A dear friend of mine, John Hope Bryant, founder of Operation Hope often speaks of the Civil Rights movement having morphed into what he calls the “Silver Rights Movement.” Business and commerce are at the center of that thinking. I’m privileged to have a business and since Martin Luther King’s shoulders are one of the many that I stand on, I’m open for business on his day. Check out http://www.makingittv.com for more blogs and resources!

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: When You Close The Factory We Can’t Make A Living

January 20, 2011

In a signal of change in elite attitudes, Steven Pearlstein wrote a Washington Post op-ed, Chinese follow same old script (and they get the punch line) , describing the cost-to-us of the business-as-usual game we have been playing with China. Pearlstein has seen the light: China has an industrial policy and it is working for them as a nation. We do not. We have a lassez-faire ideology that enables a few at the top of “Multinational Corp.” to get really rich moving manufacturing infrastructure to China, leaving the rest of us with no way to make a living. Next week President Obama can announce that he is changing that. “Enough!” Pearlstein writes about China’s bullying mercantilism, how it benefits China, the cost to us, and says “Enough!” He makes a startling suggestion to address the problem: do unto them as they are doing unto us . He writes, “The right response to these challenges would be for the president this week to laud China for the success of its economic policies and announce that the administration will begin forthwith to apply each and every one of them to Chinese exports into the United States. Subsidies and directed credit for local companies, buy-American provisions for government agencies and government contractors, currency manipulation, the rules on “conditional market access” and “indigenous innovation” – surely China could hardly complain if we were to pay them the highest compliment by embracing their economic model.” Read that paragraph again. Pearlstein goes on to describe how a national industrial policy brings advantages to China, while our everyone-in-it-for-themselves ideology hampers us, “…China can strike deals that may provide short-term profits to one company and its shareholders but in the long run undermine the competitiveness of [our] economy. What’s good for GE or Honeywell or Rockwell is, in this case, almost certainly not good for America and American workers.” The Establishment This column is significant because Pearlstein is part of what you might call “the establishment,” a DC opinion leader, not part of the labor movement or a social-justice non-profit or, worse yet, an advocate for the unemployed. But here he is joining with us on the “far left” to say that we can’t keep going down this road — that it is time to see ourselves as a country of people who are in this together, with common interests. He actually makes the far-left argument that, “What’s good for GE or Honeywell or Rockwell is, in this case, almost certainly not good for America and American workers.” Will he keep his job? Or will others join him and begin to see that this is all of a piece. Our trade deficit is part and parcel of our budget deficit and our terrible unemployment problem and our bank bailouts and our deteriorating infrastructure and our deregulation and our tax-cuts-for-the-rich and our on-your-own ideology and our corporate-financed elections and our slow economic growth. Evergreen Solar To illustrate the difference a national industrial policy makes Pearlstein uses the instructive example of Evergreen Solar, a solar panel manufacturer that made waves this month announcing it is closing down its US manufacturing and moving it to China. Solar panel prices are plunging because of Chinese-subsidized manufacturing, and “Evergreen can still make money in China because of the lower costs and considerable government subsidies offered by the government there.” But not here. The NY Times covered the Evergreen Solar story last week, in Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China . These snippets tall the story, … But now the company is closing its main American factory, laying off the 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China. Evergreen cited the much higher government support available in China. . . . Chinese manufacturers, Mr. El-Hillow said in the statement, have been able to push prices down sharply because they receive considerable help from the Chinese government and state-owned banks, and because manufacturing costs are generally lower in China. . . . In addition to solar energy, China just passed the United States as the world’s largest builder and installer of wind turbines. The article includes a reminder that we are, after all, talking about China, … Evergreen’s joint-venture factory in Wuhan occupies a long, warehouselike concrete building in an industrial park located in an inauspicious neighborhood. A local employee said the municipal police had used the site for mass executions into the 1980s. Business As Usual China cheats. We don’t stop them. They manipulate currency . They restrict imports. They subsidize exports. They subsidize companies. They steal intellectual property. They coerce companies to give up proprietary technology. They do what it takes to win key strategic industries, regardless of treaties and laws. And why should they if we won’t stand up to this cheating and stop them? They watch out for themselves, and we do not. Yesterday, describing China’s currency manipulation as part of an industrial policy, I wrote that China looks at the overall, longer-term picture, seeing themselves as a country of people with a common interest. We do not. They understand that attracting industries to China is good for China and its people in the long term. We do not. We follow a corporate/conservative greed-is-good ideology that says that the interests of individual companies and a few wealthy people are the interests of the country-at-large, and if companies can make larger profits in the short term and a few people can get wealthy closing factories and moving them to China that’s just fine, even if it means a loss of jobs and of the country’s overall ability to make a living in the long term. This just doesn’t work for us as a nation. Or, as Pearlstein put it, “What’s good for GE or Honeywell or Rockwell is, in this case, almost certainly not good for America and American workers.” Obama’s State Of The Union Opportunity Next week the President delivers his State Of The Union speech. This is an opportunity to announce a new direction. He can lead us in a transition back to a nation that sees itself in this together as a people watching out and taking care of each other. He can reject the conservative vision of each of us on our own, following a greed-is-good ideology that enriches a few but just doesn’t work for We, the People. He can announce the formation of a bold national industrial/economic policy where we again lead the world toward greater prosperity. And he can announce that we are going to, as Pearlstein writes, “pay [China] the highest compliment by embracing their economic model” — meaning do unto China as China is doing unto us . Enough! This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Peggy McColl: Is There No End in Your Weekend?

January 19, 2011

Weekends used to be just that, the end of your week. The end of your work for some well-deserved rest and relaxation. As a solo-preneur or entrepreneur it seems so much harder to have established work days and hours. I have the luxury of working from home, but that also blurs the line between work and home. Even if I close the office door and completely turn off my computer I still have the sense that emails, orders, questions and new ideas are just behind the door, waiting for me. The great news is we are connected 24/7 — yea! The challenge is to create the balance that allows you to live a life, not just a career. If we look at the world today and the way it was 20 years ago, even if you had your own business you could still leave your work and be disconnected. On my website I list the hours for phone calls in an attempt to create clear business hours and availability for my clients. I am not a 24/7 shop and I do what I can to remind people there are boundaries for my business. It still surprises me when I get a follow up email on a Monday morning asking me to reply from their original message sent Friday afternoon or even Saturday. Really? One of the strategies Tim Ferris talks about in the 4-Hour Work Week is to let people know when you are working and when you are out of reach. You can create an auto-responder to emails saying you are in the middle of a project and will check email once a day, twice a day, etc. You can also post a status update on your social networking sites that you do not have access to email during a particular day, etc. (Without telling them that you are vacationing in Jamaica and your house is empty for burglars.) A nicely worded Do Not Disturb message will be well received and respected. I love my work but I don’t make it my life. Too often I see people in restaurants who have their phone on the table while they are having dinner with friends and family. As difficult as it is, schedule time together, cherish the connection and the conversation and leave the phone alone. That email can wait, the text is not an emergency and the phone call is better enjoyed when they have your full attention. To all entrepreneurs I say “take back your weekends and evenings!” Schedule time off in your calendar. Make sure you have entire evenings and days without work commitments. Turn your computer completely off and close the office door. You need time to recharge and let your brain relax. The more down time you get to enjoy the more aware you will be about respecting other people’s time. I am waiting to see who will be the first person to develop a 12-step program for internet addiction because I think I need a sponsor. Until that time, I set my own limits, establish boundaries and respond to people in a very timely manner without completely losing myself in my work. Give it a try. You may surprise yourself with how great it feels – without the guilt. If you are reading this in the middle of the week, what will you proactively do to make time for yourself this weekend? What boundaries are in place to make sure there is an end in your weekend? Please share your comments. Peggy McColl is a New York Times best-selling author and an internationally recognized expert in the field of personal and professional development and Internet marketing. As an entrepreneur, business owner, mentor and professional speaker Peggy has been inspiring individuals to pursue their personal and business objectives and achieve ultimate success. She provides effective Internet marketing solutions for entrepreneurs, authors, publishers, professionals, and business owners, who want to establish an online presence, achieve bestseller status, build their brand, grow and/or expand their business online. You can find out more about Peggy at her website, Destinies.com .

Read the full article →

Bryce Covert: Wall Street Isn’t Paid Enough

January 14, 2011

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . A Bloomberg article from yesterday compared some numbers that should serve as a stark wake-up call: traders and investment bankers (read: people on Wall Street) make more in this country than neurosurgeons, cancer researchers, engineers, and four-star generals. That’s right, folks — if you go into the noble profession of trying to eradicate one of the most pernicious diseases, you can’t expect to get paid nearly as much as someone trading derivatives of oil prices. I also suspect that General Patraeus feels his sacrifice to our country and his four-star status should earn him more than someone on the floor of the stock exchange. But of course you can’t look to the banking industry for some humility in recognition of their sky-high checks. “The bottom line is all the people in investment banking understand that they work harder and are under more stress,” Jeanne Branthover, a managing director at Wall Street recruitment firm Boyden Global Executive Search, told Bloomberg . “Many don’t think they’re paid enough.” What a terrible life that must be! If only they could afford to buy yachts and go relax in the Caribbean. But the outrage doesn’t end there. Compare the estimated $2 million in pay that an M&A banker with 10 years of experience can expect to the $80,970 per year the average teacher in the top 10% will get. (Median teachers will be paid between $47,100 and $51,180 per year.) What’s the value a dedicated teacher adds to our society? Educated children, who can expect higher incomes, greater productivity, and a better chance at coming up with the new ideas that take our country forward. Not to mention the harder-to-calculate benefits of children who learn to share, make friends, abide by social norms, and understand their role as citizens. What’s the value that we get from a derivatives trader? It’s still unclear. Not to mention that those truly suffering right now (as opposed to the stressed out bankers who demand more zeroes on their bonus checks), i.e. the unemployed, when lucky enough to find a job are now landing ones that have dismal pay . Sixty percent of new jobs last year were in temp work, leisure and hospitality, and retail. Leisure pays an average hourly wage of $13.14 and retail will get you $11.84, while temp packagers only get $8.62. Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs. All of this sends a signal to young people as we live through this great recession. As I’ve mentioned before , we face some serious financial insecurities, greater than what many of our parents had to face when they were growing up. This means many of us will be calculating when we choose what to study in college and where to aim our career goals. Should I become a cancer researcher or a banker? The pricetag comes into play. Add to this the debt students are asked to take on at every step of their education, and the prospect of being awarded $2 million for two years in an MBA program versus $571,000 for 2-3 years in medical school and 6-8 years in residency that neurosurgeons must go through seems pretty enticing. Primary care doctors, which we desperately need more of, can expect to earn $186,044 per year for about the same amount of school and residency it takes to get into surgery. No wonder, then, that the smart calculate that they’re better off going into specialties when looking at their student loan bills. The even smarter skip medicine and head straight to lower Manhattan. Compensation is a way of valuing an employee. As the bankers rightly point out, harder work should usually lead to higher pay. So should the value put back into society. Bankers work hard, and we need them to facilitate lending and make the gears of the economy run smoothly. But does that value outrank the work a neurosurgeon does to save someone’s life, like Dr. Rhee’s miraculous work that led to Rep. Giffords opening her eyes two days ago? Should a banker make 20 times what a cancer researcher does? Our compensation scales are out of whack.

Read the full article →

Video: China Raises Bank Reserve Ratio as Foreign Holdings Jump

January 14, 2011

Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) — China told banks to set aside more deposits as reserves for the fourth time in two months, stepping up efforts to rein in liquidity after foreign-exchange holdings rose by a record and lending exceeded targets. Reserve ratios will increase 50 basis points starting Jan. 20, the People’s Bank of China said on its website today. Bloomberg’s Stephen Engle reports. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Ellen Brown: The Fed Has Spoken: No Bailout for Main Street

January 13, 2011

The Federal Reserve was set up by bankers for bankers, and it has served them well. Out of the blue, it came up with $12.3 trillion in nearly interest-free credit to bail the banks out of a credit crunch they created. That same credit crisis has plunged state and local governments into insolvency, but the Fed has now delivered its ultimatum: there will be no “quantitative easing” for municipal governments. On January 7, according to the Wall Street Journal , Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed had ruled out a central bank bailout of state and local governments. “We have no expectation or intention to get involved in state and local finance,” he said in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee. The states “should not expect loans from the Fed.” So much for the proposal of President Barack Obama, reported in Reuters a year ago, to have the Fed buy municipal bonds to cut the heavy borrowing costs of cash-strapped cities and states. The credit woes of state and municipal governments are a direct result of Wall Street’s malfeasance. Their borrowing costs first shot up in 2008, when the “monoline” bond insurers lost their own credit ratings after gambling in derivatives. The Fed’s low-interest facilities could have been used to restore local government credit, just as it was used to restore the credit of the banks. But Chairman Bernanke has now vetoed that plan. Why? It can hardly be argued that the Fed doesn’t have the money. The collective budget deficit of the states for 2011 is projected at $140 billion, a mere drop in the bucket compared to the sums the Fed managed to come up with to bail out the banks. According to data recently released, the central bank provided roughly $3.3 trillion in liquidity and $9 trillion in short-term loans and other financial arrangements to banks, multinational corporations, and foreign financial institutions following the credit crisis of 2008. The argument may be that continuing the Fed’s controversial “quantitative easing” program (easing credit conditions by creating money with accounting entries) will drive the economy into hyperinflation. But creating $12.3 trillion for the banks — nearly 100 times the sum needed by state governments — did not have that dire effect. Rather, the money supply is shrinking – by some estimates, at the fastest rate since the Great Depression. Creating another $140 billion would hardly affect the money supply at all. Why didn’t the $12.3 trillion drive the economy into hyperinflation? Because, contrary to popular belief, when the Fed engages in “quantitative easing,” it is not simply printing money and giving it away. It is merely extending CREDIT, creating an overdraft on the account of the borrower to be paid back in due course. The Fed is simply replacing expensive credit from private banks (which also create the loan money on their books) with cheap credit from the central bank. So why isn’t the Fed open to advancing this cheap credit to the states? According to Mr. Bernanke, its hands are tied. He says the Fed is limited by statute to buying municipal government debt with maturities of six months or less that is directly backed by tax or other assured revenue, a form of debt that makes up less than 2% of the overall muni market. Congress imposed that restriction, and only Congress can change it. That may sound like he is passing the buck, but he is probably right. Bailing out state and local governments IS outside the Fed’s mandate. The Federal Reserve Act was drafted by bankers to create a banker’s bank that would serve their interests. No others need apply. The Federal Reserve is the bankers’ own private club, and its legal structure keeps all non-members out. Earlier Central Bank Ventures into Commercial Lending That is how the Fed is structured today, but it hasn’t always been that way. In 1934, Section 13(b) was added to the Federal Reserve Act, authorizing the Fed to “make credit available for the purpose of supplying working capital to established industrial and commercial businesses.” This long-forgotten section was implemented and remained in effect for 24 years. In a 2002 article called “Lender of More Than Last Resort” posted on the Minneapolis Fed’s website, David Fettig summarized its provisions as follows: • [Federal] Reserve banks could make loans to any established businesses, including businesses begun that year (a change from earlier legislation that limited funds to more established enterprises). • Reserve banks were permitted to participate [share in loans] with lending institutions, but only if the latter assumed 20 percent of the risk. • No limitation was placed on the amount of a single loan. • A Reserve bank could make a direct loan only to a business in its district. Today, that venture into commercial banking sounds like a radical departure from the Fed’s given role; but at the time it evidently seemed like a reasonable alternative. Fettig notes that “the Fed was still less than 20 years old and many likely remembered the arguments put forth during the System’s founding, when some advocated that the discount window should be open to all comers, not just member banks.” In Australia and other countries, the central bank was then assuming commercial as well as central bank functions. Section 13(b) was repealed in 1958, but one state has kept its memory alive. In North Dakota, the publicly owned Bank of North Dakota (BND) acts as a “mini-Fed” for the state. Like the Federal Reserve of the 1930s and 1940s, the BND makes loans to local businesses and participates in loans made by local banks. The BND has helped North Dakota escape the credit crisis. In 2009, when other states were teetering on bankruptcy, North Dakota sported the largest surplus it had ever had. Other states, prompted by their own budget crises to explore alternatives, are now looking to North Dakota for inspiration. The “Unusual and Exigent Circumstances” Exception Although Section 13(b) was repealed, the Federal Reserve Act retained enough vestiges of it in 2008 to allow the Fed to intervene to save a variety of non-bank entities from bankruptcy. The problem was that the tool was applied selectively. The recipients were major corporate players, not local businesses or local governments. Fettig writes: Section 13(b) may be a memory, . . . but Section 13 paragraph 3 . . . is alive and well in the Federal Reserve Act. . . . [T]his amendment allows, “in unusual and exigent circumstances,” a Reserve bank to advance credit to individuals, partnerships and corporations that are not depository institutions. In 2008, the Fed bailed out investment company Bear Stearns and insurer AIG, neither of which was a bank. John Nichols reports in The Nation that Bear Stearns got almost $1 trillion in short-term loans, with interest rates as low as 0.5%. The Fed also made loans to other corporations, including GE, McDonald’s, and Verizon. In 2010, Section 13(3) was modified by the Dodd-Frank bill, which replaced the phrase “individuals, partnerships and corporations” with the vaguer phrase “any program or facility with broad-based eligibility.” As explained in the notes to the bill: Only Broad-Based Facilities Permitted . Section 13(3) is modified to remove the authority to extend credit to specific individuals, partnerships and corporations. Instead, the Board may authorize credit under section 13(3) only under a program or facility with “broad-based eligibility.” What programs have “broad-based eligibility” isn’t clear from a reading of the Section, but long-term municipal bonds are evidently excluded. Mr. Bernanke said that if municipal defaults became a problem, it would be in Congress’ hands, not his. Congress could change the law, just as it did in 1934, 1958, and 2010. It could change the law to allow the Fed to help Main Street just as it helped Wall Street. But as Senator Dick Durbin blurted ou t on a radio program in April 2009, Congress is owned by the banks. Changes in the law today are more likely to go the other way. Mike Whitney, writing in December 2010, noted : So far, not one CEO or CFO of a major investment bank or financial institution has been charged, arrested, prosecuted, or convicted in what amounts to the largest incident of securities fraud in history. In the much-smaller Savings and Loan investigation, more than 1,000 people were charged and convicted. . . . [T]he system is broken and the old rules no longer apply. The old rules no longer apply because they have been changed to suit the moneyed interests that hold Congress and the Fed captive. The law has been changed not only to keep the guilty out of jail but to preserve their exorbitant profits and bonuses at the expense of their victims. To do this, the Federal Reserve had to take “extraordinary measures.” They were extraordinary but not illegal, because the Fed’s congressional mandate made them legal. Nobody’s permission even had to be sought. Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act allows it to do what it needs to do in “unusual and exigent circumstances” to save its constituents. If you’re a bank, it seems, anything goes. If you’re not a bank, you’re on your own. So Who Will Save the States? Highlighting the immediacy of the local government budget crisis, The Wall Street Journal quoted Meredith Whitney, a banking analyst who recently turned to analyzing state and local finances. She said on a recent broadcast of CBS’s “60 Minutes” that the U.S. could see “50 to 100 sizable defaults” in 2011 among its local governments, amounting to “hundreds of billions of dollars.” If the Fed could so easily come up with 12.3 trillion dollars to save the banks, why can’t it find a few hundred billion under the mattress to save the states? Obviously it could, if Congress were inclined to put non-bank lending back into the Fed’s job description. Then why isn’t that being done? The cynical view is that the states are purposely being kept on the edge of bankruptcy, because the banks that hold Congress hostage want the interest income and the control. Whatever the reason, Congress is standing down while the nation is sinking. Congress must summon the courage to take needed action; and that action is not to impose “austerity” by cutting services, at a time when an already-squeezed populace most needs them. Rather, it is to create the jobs that will generate real productivity. To do this, Congress would not even have to go through the Federal Reserve. It could issue its own debt-free money and spend it on repairing and modernizing our decaying infrastructure, among other needed works. Congress’ task will become easier if the people stand with them in demanding action, but Congress is now so gridlocked that change may still be long in coming. In the meantime, the states could take matters in their own hands and set up their own state-owned banks, on the model of the Bank of North Dakota. They could then have their own very-low-interest credit lines, just as the Wall Street banks do. Rather than spending or selling off valuable public assets, or hoarding them in massive rainy day funds made necessary by the lack of ready credit, states could LEVERAGE their assets into a very strong and abundant local credit system, following the accepted business practices of the Wall Street banks themselves. The Public Banking Institute is being launched January 13 to explore that alternative. For more information, see http://PublicBankingInstitute.org .

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Mr. President, Americans Agree On Social Security; So Talk to Us, Not Washington

January 13, 2011

Mr. President, you moved a nation today with your words in Tucson. “Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame,” you said, “let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.” You also said this: “It’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” Two weeks from now the State of the Union address will be an opportunity to bring Americans together — Americans who have been bitterly divided by party loyalty and ideology, but who stand united in their support for the social programs that have improved our lives for the past seventy-five years. On that night, will they know that somebody has heard them? Will they feel that someone is talking to them? Will they feel they have a voice inside the Capitol rotunda, in a city where they sometimes seem to have been forgotten? There’s a popular idea in Washington that I’ve — perhaps too harshly — called “the Third Way Fallacy.” It essentially says we can end the harsh and divisive nature of today’s politics by having Washington party leaders work out their differences in private. Some of us think that’s the wrong way to go about the people’s business — that a truly “bipartisan” approach must respect the opinions of each party’s members , not just those of its leaders. But whatever my past criticisms of Third Way, the organization had a terrific suggestion today for increasing civility in politics. In an open letter to Speaker Boehner, they suggested that the Congressional seating chart be changed for this year’s State of the Union address so that members aren’t separated by party. “We do not see any purpose behind putting Democrats on one side of the floor and Republicans on the other,” Third Way’s letter said. “The spectacle of one side of the room leaping to its feet while the other sits glumly on its hands is just that — a spectacle. Perhaps having both parties sit together, intermingled, would help control the choreography of partisanship that accompanies the President’s remarks.” This idea is smart, moving, and even beautiful. The State of the Union has turned into an annual circus, as you know far better than I. Americans want more statesmanship in Washington, and this would be a symbolic way of letting them know they’ve been heard. The Speaker would bring honor to himself and his institution if he took this suggestion. It would, in Third Way’s words, “demonstrate what is true but not always apparent — that we are one nation, not two, and that Members are unified by their service to our country.” Mr. Boehner is famous for crying in public, but if he follows this suggestion maybe we’ll cry instead. It might be good for the country if more of us shared the burden of tears. But the business at hand won’t just be symbolic. As you know, Mr. President, leaders of both political parties have been talking about Social Security cuts. Your own Deficit Commission came up with some very Draconian (and unpopular) ideas, and members of your Administration haven’t committed to defending retirement benefits. There are even rumors that people in your Administration have floated trial balloons about cutting a deal with Republicans to raise the retirement age and make other cuts. Inside the Beltway there’s some “bipartisan” approval for those ideas. But outside Washington the real bipartisan consensus is even stronger: Large majorities of Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike — agree that Social Security must be defended, not cut. Mr. President, I hope you’ll have the chance to see the poll numbers on Social Security. We know you’ve said you won’t govern by following polls, and we respect that. But it’s moving and inspiring to see the way Americans of all political parties have joined together in their defense of Social Security. They speak with one voice about how to handle it: Raise the payroll tax cap and protect its current benefits. They’re equally united in their defense of Medicare in similarly large numbers. These are the people’s programs, and people of all political persuasions want them protected. We know that Americans don’t like party squabbling. But that doesn’t mean they want the two parties to collaborate on policies that rank-and-file members of both parties have rejected. Voters mean exactly what they’ve told those pollsters for years: They want Washington politicians to work for them , not each other. They’ll be watching on January 25 to see their leaders speak to them, or to each other. When asked how we should cut the deficit, Americans would rather raise taxes on the wealthy than cut Social Security by more than two to one. These Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and independents — make up the New Silent Majority, and they speak with a single voice. To paraphrase Third Way, when they talk about Social Security they demonstrate what is true but not always apparent — that we are one nation, not two. This bipartisan consensus has the unwavering support of non -partisan experts, too — experts like Harry C. Ballantyne, who was appointed Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration under Ronald Reagan. Mr. Ballantyne and two respected economists wrote a paper that explains how the bipartisan preference for Social Security — keep benefits and raise the payroll tax cap — addresses that program’s very modest long-term shortfall. There will be many people in the room with you who want to make these cuts anyway, Mr. President. Despite the great benefits that have flowed to the wealthiest among us, they’ll want to protect the wealthy from paying the same payroll tax rate as police officers or nurses. These differences of opinion are unavoidable in a democracy. But you’ll have an opportunity to show the nation how its leaders can differ with courtesy and grace — and in this case, with a bipartisan majority at your back. You’ll be able explain that you’re not defending Social Security because you speak for Democrats, but because you speak for all Americans. While you’re at it, you can also defend the principles of trust and honesty. Too many politicians and pundits have said that the government’s bonds, which cover the money it has borrowed from Social Security’s Trust Fund, is just an “IOU.” That’s not true. And you can remind them that even if it were true, we’re an honorable people who make good on our IOUs. There isn’t a single argument being thrown around today about Social Security that hasn’t been around for 75 years: “Ponzi scheme,” too many old people and too few workers — you name it, we’ve heard it before. That’s why President Eisenhower’s bipartisan panel refuted them all back in the 1950s. Ike’s experts defended our shared hopes and dreams back then, and now it’s our generation’s turn. You also said that in a time of tragedy “we reflect on the past. Did we spend enough time with an aging parent… Did we express our gratitude for all the sacrifices they made for us?” What better way of expressing gratitude to all of our aging parents than by ensuring their financial security? That’s an ideal way to “expand our moral imaginations, listen to each other more carefully, sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.” Our moral imaginations shouldn’t be limited to slanted ideas cooked up in think tanks and parroted by pundits and consultants. Sometimes listening to one another, really listening, means we have to silence the clamor of Beltway chatter. Our instincts for empathy can be sharpened by the image of an elderly woman in a small urban apartment, struggling to get by on $800 per month. They should direct our thoughts to the 68-year-old janitor whose back aches after half a century spent pushing a broom. They should call us to remember the waitress whose feet can no longer support her for eight hours, and whose bent fingers can no longer scribble on her order pad. We’ve been bound by shared dreams since the country was founded. Social Security and Medicare turned some of those dreams into reality. Let’s not turn them back into dreams. Mr. President, this year’s State of the Union will help to shape your legacy. That legacy can be one of real bipartisanship. You can bring us together as a people by expressing our shared commitment to Social Security. That’s a commitment that binds Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and even Tea Party followers together in a common bond. Reach out for that bond. Express it. Build on it to create a new American consensus – a consensus for fairness, a consensus for security, a consensus for growth and jobs. Americans are united on the issue of Social Security, and the state of that union is sound. At least in one small way, we’re already bound together in our hopes and dreams. In a wounded moment, that bond can help us heal. 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 →

New Trend: Not Paying The Bill, And ‘Free Swiping’

January 12, 2011

Hard times for New Yorkers means inventive ways of cutting back — like stealing meals and subway rides! At least that is the trend we are reading about today, as two reports of civil disobedience (or one, if you don’t count flat-out stealing as something Thoreau would have condoned) are becoming trends in the city. The New York Post says that in 2010, there was a huge increase in reports of those who bailed on a check at a restaurant. Eating in a restaurant and leaving without paying the tab — known in police parlance as “theft of service” — rose almost 20 percent in the city last year, up from 315 arrests in 2009 to 376 in 2010, according to the NYPD. Of course, those numbers don’t include the many scofflaws who successfully “lick and split.” The Post tells the story of a well-dressed man who bought five martinis at Union Square’s posh Coffee Shop. He told his waitress he left his wallet in his car, and never came back. Or the drunk 20-something who racked up a $300 bill at BB Kings, but “it wasn’t until they saw a pedicab passing by that they decided the night’s bill would be on the house.” Explaining, “Sometimes you’re drunk or, I don’t know . . . ” Why the sudden spike in service theft? Russia Today seems to have the answer. With falling wages, cuts in benefits, and alarming public transportation fare hikes, New Yorkers are fighting back with their own brand of economic disobedience. The video below is about the People’s Transportation Program, an organization that is purchasing unlimited Metrocards and giving people free rides as a protest to the recent MTA fare increase ($104 for a monthly unlimited!). Though perhaps a more common loophole in the Unlimited are those who ride the subway in tandem and share a Metrocard, waiting fifteen minutes before swiping the same Metrocard again. [ VIA ] WATCH:

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Which Is More "Gangsta" – 50 Cent’s Twitter Stock Pitch or Goldman’s Facebook Deal?

January 12, 2011

Music was Clarence “50 Cent” Jackson’s second career. News reports say he began dealing crack at the age of twelve, after the murder of his coke-dealer mother. Early tracks like “Ghetto Quran” and “How to Rob” reflect a brutal, street-hustling life, and Jackson has the bullet wounds to match. He’s talented, wildly successful, and I sure wouldn’t mess with him. But when he starts mixing social media with pumped-up investment pitches, 50 Cent is moving into Goldman Sachs territory. “Fitty” reportedly earned millions for touting a stock on Twitter, without disclosing that he owned shares in the company. How does that stack up against Goldman’s own social media deal with Facebook? When you move into the stock market, you’re going where the real gangstas roll. The Message We’re in the middle of a much-needed national dialog about harsh and violent rhetoric, and rappers like 50 Cent have been singled out again for criticism. I’m opposed to music censorship, but I get the concern. Even some of the best rappers glamorize things I despise. Yet even as some politicians wag their fingers at hip-hop criminals, their other hand’s stretched our for campaign cash from corporate lawbreakers. Sometimes the difference between crime on the Mean Streets and crime on Wall Street is just a matter of degree. And don’t think the language and lifestyle can’t get rough on Wall Street. Morgan Stanley’s brokers had a now-famous phrase, used whenever they sold their own clients bad investments: “I ripped his face off.” It was a Goldman Sachs executive who praised another employee for selling Goldman clients on a program he described as a “shitty deal.” (That guy’s now a senior exec at Bank of America.) And the depositions in Goldman’s sex discrimination suit read like the script to a rap video: female employees pressured to join a party in a topless bar, a woman pinned against a wall and forcibly kissed, a Christmas party with female escorts wearing “short black skirts, strapless tops and Santa hats.” Throw in some beats and a few “uh-huh’s” and “yeahs” and you’ve got yourself a video. Fitty Twitters “Ok ok ok my friends just told me stop tweeting about HNHI so that we can get all the money. Hahaha check it out its the real deal.” 50 Cent tweeted about a marginal stock all weekend and into early Monday , calling it “BIG MONEY” and saying “you can double your money right now.” The effect was mindblowing: Jackson’s credited with moving the stock of a company called HNHI by $50 million dollars in one day , even though its own auditor reportedly ” expressed concerns about its financial future .” Fitty didn’t mention that he held 30 million shares of the stock, which he picked up for $750,000 last fall. Yesterday’s surge reportedly netted him somewhere between $8.7 million and $10 million. No wonder so many news accounts repeated the name of his hit album, Get Rich or Die Tryin’. HNHI increased in value by about 200%. Even after it dropped more than 23% today, Jackson was way ahead of the game. Fitty’s attorneys presumably got a little worried, because the disclaimers started appearing late Monday: “HNHI is the right investment for me it might not be for u! Do ur homework,” “I own HNHI stocks thoughts on it are my opinion. Talk to your financial advisor …” Old School How does Fitty’s Twitter run compare with Goldman Sach’s Facebook deal? Goldman consolidated a number of its clients into a single artificial “investor” to get around a legal requirement that any company with more than 500 investors be publicly traded and subject to the regulations that protect investors. Felix Salmon observes that this deal is bigger than many IPOs, but doesn’t have to follow any of the same rules. Goldman sure knows how to create a feeding frenzy. They wouldn’t let anybody into the deal for less than $2 million – a surefire way to make the marks salivate – and touted the deal shamelessly to its clients: “When you have a chance I wanted to find a time to discuss a highly confidential and time sensitive investment opportunity … If you agree not to use information that we reveal to you … I will be able to disclose the name of the company and provide you with more information…” Former Goldmanite Nomi Prins captures the essence of the deal: create an artificial bubble and then “pawn off the overpriced goods on the clients.” As Prins notes, Goldman’s giving itself the option to unload this investment if it goes bad, but is locking its clients in until 2013. Knowing Goldman, they’ll also be shorting Facebook somewhere along the way. The country learned their M.O. afer the last crisis by reviewing their internal emails , and by the cynical and lawless way they played clients in the ABACUS deal. To avoid legal trouble this time around, Goldman’s even disclosed in advance that it may short Facebook. Goldman skims a lot off the top, then lets you buy into a deal so skewed that one of its own funds turned it down. In return, you get to say you own a piece of Facebook. Maybe they’ll even give you a nice certificate you can hang on the wall of your Las Vegas investment property. Blowing Bubbles Is Facebook this year’s version of Vegas real estate? It looks that way. Even the most successful business has a real and an inflated value, after all, and I tend to agree with all the people who say Facebook’s going to fade away like MySpace did. Think about it: Facebook has a badly designed interface, it’s difficult to use, and it continues to irritate and infuriate its customers. Badly-managed companies can thrive for a while, but not forever. And the Goldman deal sidesteps the very public accountability that might encourage Facebook to make the changes it needs. But whatever happens to Facebook, the Goldman deal is a bubble machine designed to inflate its price. And Goldman’s tapped the mother lode: the US government. As Simon Johnson points out, their Facebook investment is backed by the Fed – and therefore by the public’s dollars. 50 Cent may have made a few mil, but the big banks have knocked off Fort Knox. Goldman invested $75 million in Facebook early on through a hedge fund. Now they’re saying they’ve put $450 million of their own money into this deal, but they get that money at the ultra-low Fed rate the government gives them. So they don’t need to earn the same returns their clients do. What’s more, they can unload their investment whenever the bubble deflates and walk away with their “client’s” money one more time. Throw in the $60 million plus they’re charging for the deal, and they’re sitting pretty. Those “lucky” Facebook investors: Goldman will get rich. They’ll die tryin’. Fitty vs. Blankey So how does 50 Cent stack up against Goldman – morally, ethically, and legally? For one thing, Mr. Jackson is not a bank or investment manager and doesn’t claim any special financial expertise. Fitty doesn’t receive low-rate loans through the Fed’s discount window. Neither he nor his company, G-Unit Records, received a Federal bailout. 50 Cent did not receive $13 billion in taxpayer money as a “backdoor bailout” through AIG. (Disclaimer: I used to work at AIG.) And 50 Cent has never paid himself a nickel, much less a huge bonus, after being rescued with Federal funds. Goldman wouldn’t admit that it misled clients about its ABACUS product until it was time to plea bargain its way out of SEC fines and potential criminal charges. Until then Goldman execs congratulated themselves for dumping bad investments on their clients. Now that’s cold . Fitty, on the other hand, copped to his actions right away. On the rhetoric front, 50 Cent’s pretty rough: “I’ll hit your vertebrae, rip through your tissues/your wife on the futon huggin’ the shih tzu.” Goldman’s more genteel – but some of its political allies aren’t. Most of its campaign contributions are placed through intermediaries – in this case, the GOP Senate and Congressional Committees. Some of the candidates funded by these groups have used a lot of violent rhetoric, like threatening “Second Amendment” reactions (i.e., gun violence) to decisions they don’t like,firing guns at targets with their political opponent’s face on it, and suggesting they would issue “hunting permits” for “liberals.” If there’s a difference between this rhetoric and 50 Cent’s, I can’t see it. (And despite all their populist Tea Party rhetoric, these candidates have come through for their Wall Street patrons . ) The chorus to the “shih tzu” song is “I’m laughing all the way to the bank.” But 50 Cent has an actual product – music – so he’s a part of the productive economy, not the financial sector. Curtis Jackson’s a self-made success who came up the hard way, with talent. If Kanye is rap’s F. Scott Fitzgerald, its chronicler of the high life’s pain and pleasure, 50 Cent is its Jim Thompson. He’s the poet of blood and bullets. His raps remind me of what a great jazz bass player once told me about that instrument: that it stands on the bordeline between melody and percussion. 50 Cent raps on the border between prose and percussion. There’s no evidence of criminal behavior in either Curtis Jackson’s Twitter move or Goldman’s Facebook deal. But 50 Cent has proved that the so-called “rational” “free market” is neither. And Goldman has proved that Wall Street is still up to its old tricks, getting rich creating bubbles and then getting even richer as they pop. No, I don’t like the violent language. Or the sexism. Or the glorification of bad behavior. But enough about Wall Street: I don’t like those things in music, either. One of the things worth remembering about language is that it reflects deeper values. If we despise what these words reflect, we shouldn’t tolerate the behavior. Don’t censor music. Regulate banks. _______________________________ (Two videos for your enjoyment: 50 Cent and Lloyd Blankfein. Play them at the same time for the proper effect.)

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: The Jobs lost in the Great Recession May Return… By 2018

January 9, 2011

The charade in the bloodied jobs market just won’t quit. That’s the growing contention–strongly promoted by the White House and Wall Street–that the employment picture is on the verge of taking a decided turn for the better and that it’s only a matter of time, thanks to a peppier economy and government stimulus, before the roughly 8.5 million jobs lost during the recent recession will be restored. Friday’s bum employment news–the creation of only 103,000 new jobs in December, nearly 50% lower than the generally expected 150,000–was an unmistakable sign to the contrary, namely that the folks holding such exuberant job expectations are not doing it with a full deck. The key reason: The economy, though on the way back and gnawing away at unemployment, is by no means ready to transition into robust growth. Nor is Corporate America, though sitting with oodles of cash on their balance sheets (about $2 trillion) in a gradually improving economy, ready to commit to more aggressive hiring on a national level. Nor, for that matter, are banks, whose death rate continues at brisk pace (157 failures in 2010, the highest number since 1992), and saddled with a lofty level of overly stated assets, especially in real estate, ready to offer an abundance of cash to would-be buyers to speed up the recovery, in turn leading to more job creations. So it all raises some obvious questions: How long should it realistically take to recover the jobs lost during the recession and get us back to a normal unemployment rate? And what will it cost Uncle Sam to achieve such a goal? For some thoughts, I rang up Madeline Schnapp, the economic skipper of West Coast liquidity tracker TrimTabs Research, partially owned by Goldman Sachs. Sharp, incisive, perceptive and thought-provoking, she is no stranger to my HuffPost contributions, having made a number of timely and on-the-money economic calls. Sorry to say, her words won’t be pleasing to the 14.5 million jobless Americans or the nearly 26 million job seekers, including those who’ve quit the work force and would like full-time employment. For starters, Schnapp figures it will take four to seven years to recuperate all the jobs lost during the recession, which means the timetable could be as far out as 2018. She believes four is probably too optimistic, given such ongoing economic-stifling problems as high unemployment, a dead housing market, a deleveraging consumer, the financial plight of state and local governments saddled with gigantic budget gaps, meaning more layoffs and higher taxes, and a 14% jump in prices at the gas pump over the past three months, equivalent to a $60 billion tax on consumption on an annual basis. Actually, Schnapp thinks there’s a possibility that 20% to 25% of the lost jobs may never come back because of the damaging effects from the eventual collapse of the hyper-charged housing market between 2003 and 2007. Over the past two years, the federal government has spent about $3.5 trillion in bailouts, stimulus and quantitative easing. In 2010, after almost two consecutive years of job losses, the economy generated about 1.1 million jobs. That means each job that year cost taxpayers $3.2 million. Going forward, Schnapp estimates the economy will produce a total of 2.8 million jobs in 2010 and 2011. If that’s right, each job will cost taxpayers $2 million. She further notes that if the Fed keeps printing dollars ad nauseum and the government keeps running trillion dollar-plus deficits, the total price tag to replace the 8.5 million jobs could run $13-$15 trillion. Given her economic concerns, our worry-wart looks for a muddling-along 2011 economy, with anemic growth, say in the 2%-2.5% range. Goldman Sachs, more positive than Schnapp, recently predicted the S&P would wsind up would wind up this year at 1,500. She disagrees, looking for an uninspiring year for investors, with the index trading in a narrow range of 1,050-1,100 on the low side and 1,300 on the high side. Another 2011 thought from Schnapp: She expects another round of quantitative easing or QE3. No, not to further fuel the economy, but to provide bailout money for insolvent states, such as California, Illinois and New Jersey. “They say it can’t happen, but we’ve heard that before,” she says. “I guess deficits work, until you run out of other people’s money.” What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com

Read the full article →

Simon Johnson: The Bill Daley Problem

January 9, 2011

Simon Johnson is the co-author of 13 Bankers , out in paperback on Monday. Bill Daley, President Obama’s newly appointed chief of staff, is an experienced business executive. By all accounts, he is decisive, well-organized, and a skilled negotiator. His appointment, combined with other elements of the White House reshuffle, provides insight into how the president understands our economy — and what is likely to happen over the next couple of years. This is a serious problem. This is not a critique from the left or from the right. The Bill Daley Problem is completely bipartisan — it shows us the White House fails to understand that, at the heart of our economy, we have a huge time bomb. Until this week, Bill Daley was on the top operating committee at JP Morgan Chase. His bank — along with the other largest U.S. banks — have far too little equity and far too much debt relative to that thin level of equity; this makes them highly dangerous from a social point of view. These banks have captured the hearts and minds of top regulators and most of the political class (across the spectrum), most recently with completely specious arguments about why banks cannot be compelled to operate more safely. Top bankers, like Mr. Daley’s former colleagues, are intent of becoming more global — despite the fact that (or perhaps because) we cannot handle the failure of massive global banks. The system that led to the crisis of 2008, and the recession that has so severely damaged so many Americans, encouraged excessive risk-taking by major private sector financial institutions and, yes, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other Government Sponsored Enterprises (although these were most definitely not the major drivers of the crisis — see 13 Bankers ). Today’s most dangerous government sponsored enterprises are the largest six bank holding companies: JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. They are undoubtedly too big to fail — if they were on the brink of failure, they would be rescued by the government, in the sense that their creditors would be protected 100 percent. The market knows this and, as a result, these large institutions can borrow more cheaply than their smaller competitors. This lets them stay big and — amazingly — get bigger. In the latest available data (Q3 of 2010), the big 6 had assets worth 64 percent of GDP. This is up from before the crisis — assets in the big six at the end of 2006 were only about 55 percent of GDP. And this is up massively from 1995, when these same banks (some of which had different names back then) were only 17 percent of GDP. No one can show significant social benefits from the increase in bank size, leverage, and overall riskiness over the past 15 years. The social costs of these banks — and their complete capture of the regulatory apparatus — are apparent in the worst recession and slowest recovery since the 1930s. Paul Volcker gets it; no wonder he has resigned. Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, gets it. Tom Hoenig, president of the Kansas City Fed, gets it. Elizabeth Warren, the tireless champion of consumer rights, gets it. Gene Fama, father of the efficient financial markets view, gets it better than anyone. I discussed the issue in public for two hours at the American Financial Association (AFA) meetings in Denver on Friday with two presidents of the AFA (Raghu Rajan and John Cochrane) and a Nobel Prize winner (Myron Scholes). This is not a left-wing or marginal group — there must have been at least 500 people in the audience (video will be available). The top minds in academic finance understand the problem vividly and are articulate about it — there is no rebuttal to the points being made by Anat Admati and her distinguished colleagues. This is not a left-right issue — again, look at the list of people who co-signed Professor Admati’s recent letter to the Financial Times. This is a question of technical competence. Do the people running the country — including both the executive branch and the legislature — understand economics and finance or not? If the country’s most distinguished nuclear scientists told you, clearly and very publicly, that they now realize a leading reactor design is very dangerous, would you and your politicians stop to listen? Yet our political leadership brush aside concerns about the way big banks operate. Why? Top bankers, including Bill Daley, have pulled off a complete snow job — including since the crisis broke in fall 2008. They have put forward their special interests while claiming to represent the general interest. Business and other groups, of course, do this all the time. But the difference here is the scale of the too big to subsidy — measured in terms of its likely future impact on our citizenship and our fiscal solvency, this will be devastating. Most smart people in the nonfinancial world understand that the big banks have become profoundly damaging to the rest of the private sector. The idea that the president needed to bring a top banker into his inner circle in order to build bridges with business is beyond ludicrous. Bill Daley now controls how information is presented to and decisions are made by the president. Daley’s former boss, Jamie Dimon, is the most dangerous banker in America — presumably he now gets even greater access to the Oval Office. Daley is on the record as opposing strong consumer protection for financial products; Elizabeth Warren faces an even steeper uphill battle. Important regulatory appointments, such as the succession to Sheila Bair at the FDIC, are less likely to go to sensible people. And in all our interactions with other countries, for example around the G20 but also on a bilateral basis, we will pursue the resolutely pro-big finance views of the second Clinton administration. Top executives at big U.S. banks want to be left alone during relatively good times — allowed to take whatever excessive risks they want, to juice their return on equity through massive leverage, to thus boost their pay and enhance their status around the world. But at a moment of severe financial crisis, they also want someone in the White House who will whisper at just the right moment: “Mr. President, if you let this bank fail, it will trigger a worldwide financial panic and another Great Depression. This will be worse than what happened after Lehman Brothers failed.” Let’s be honest. With the appointment of Bill Daley, the big banks have won completely this round of boom-bust-bailout. The risk inherent to our financial system is now higher than it was in the early/mid-2000s. We are set up for another illusory financial expansion and another debilitating crisis. Bill Daley will get it done.

Read the full article →

Real Estate Predictions For Renters In 2011

December 28, 2010

For generations now, our national values have placed an emphasis on home ownership. Renters were the people who were rootless or just not being quite ready to “settle down.” As home ownership has become less of a financial asset and more of a liability over the last few years, there has been a shift in the very fabric of what renting means in our society.

Read the full article →

Video: Cohen Expects More Rate Increases in China in 2011

December 27, 2010

Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) — David Cohen, an economist at Action Economics Ltd., talks about the Christmas Day increase by the People’s Bank of China on a key one-year lending and deposit rate. Cohen speaks with Deirdre Bolton on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Neumann Says China Should Do More to `Temper’ Inflation

December 27, 2010

Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) — Frederic Neumann, economist at HSBC Holdings Plc, talks about the People’s Bank of China’s effort to stem inflation. China’s central bank increased key one-year lending and deposit rates by 25 basis points on Dec. 25 in its second move since mid-October. The change took effect yesterday. Neumann speaks with Deirdre Bolton on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Tanzanian Gold Diggers Pay Tragic Dividend Hunting Ore

December 23, 2010

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Cam Simpson reports on his visit to northern Tanzania where he spoke to villagers searching among waste rock for tiny flecks of gold in a community where where almost half the people live on less than 33 cents a day. Security guards and federal police allegedly have shot and killed people scavenging the gold-laced rocks, according to interviews with 28 people, including victims’ relatives, witnesses, local officials and human-rights workers.

Read the full article →

Video: Tanzanian Gold Diggers Pay Tragic Dividend Hunting Ore

December 23, 2010

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Cam Simpson reports on his visit to northern Tanzania where he spoke to villagers searching among waste rock for tiny flecks of gold in a community where where almost half the people live on less than 33 cents a day. Security guards and federal police allegedly have shot and killed people scavenging the gold-laced rocks, according to interviews with 28 people, including victims’ relatives, witnesses, local officials and human-rights workers.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Blaming the Economy’s Victims for Economic Crimes

December 22, 2010

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF Blame the unions, blame the unemployed, blame loans to the poor, blame the government. As income and wealth increasingly go to a few at the top, public anger is directed at the economy’s victims. I am in a clinic all day participating in a medical study, so I was talking to one of the nurses. She brought up that California is in real trouble, is going broke, it’s a real mess. She says she doesn’t know what we’re going to do. She has heard that, “lots of states are going bankrupt. There is no money anymore.” So I asked her what we should do about it. She said it is because of the unions. “It’s just ridiculous. They want so much.” I asked if she follows the news closely, she said she does. “I watch the news a lot.” Some facts: California is famous for leading the country in a wave of anti-government tax-cutting and into Reaganism . We cut taxes an an anti-government ferver and increased prison spending in a law-and-order fever. Then the federal government cut taxes and increased military spending, leading to big deficits. Now we’re out of money to run the state government and the country is getting there, too. California’s problems have little or nothing to do with what state employees are paid, and a lot to do with tax cuts and people across the state not getting paid enough. Blaming The Unions This weekend CBS’ 60 Minutes joined the anti-worker chorus, blaming public employee unions for the problems faced by the states. Media Matters, in 60 Minutes’ one-sided, GOP-friendly report on state budgets describes the segment, In 2,600 words about state deficits, you won’t find the phrase “tax cuts.” Instead, CBS adopts the Republican framing that deficits are all about spending — frequently with loaded phrasing like “gold-plated retirement and health care packages.” And throughout the report, CBS allows Christie, New Jersey’s Republican governor, to launch attacks on unions and make unsupported claims about budget problems, all without ever challenging his assertions and without including substantive disagreement from Christie critics. … You’d never know from CBS’ report that a big part of the reason that “Christie and his predecessors” failed to make required contributions to the pension fund is that they decided to use the money for tax cuts instead. [emphasis added] Mike Hall at the AFL-CIO blog explains that New Jersey’s workers and pensions are not the problem, While politicians like Christie rail against the pensions public employees have secured through collective bargaining–painting them as overly generous golden parachutes, McEntee notes the average annual pension for an AFSCME member is $19,000, and the workers contribute 80 percent during their lifetime on the job. Tax cuts, income and wealth going to a few at the top, but the unions take the blame because they fight for a better life for working people. Blaming The Unemployed The unemployed and the checks they get are often blamed for their plight. They are called “lazy,” and it is even suggested the be tested for drugs . CAF graduate David Sirota, in Why the ‘Lazy Jobless’ Myth Persists The thesis undergirding all the rhetoric was summed up by conservative commentator Ben Stein, who insisted that “the people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities.” [. . .] The trouble, though, is that the whole narrative averts our focus from the job-killing trade, tax-cut and budget policies that are really responsible for destroying the economy. And this narrative, mind you, is not some run-of-the-mill distraction. The myth of the lazy unemployed is what duck-and-cover exercises and backyard nuclear shelters were to a past era–an alluring palliative that manufactures false comfort in the face of unthinkable disaster. Blaming The Poor And Government Republicans on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission are sabotaging the commission’s work, demanding that “Wall Street” and “deregulation” not appear anywhere in the report. They are refusing to participate , instead releasing a counter-report blaming the government, claiming We, the People forced the giant banks to give home loans to the poor , and blaming the poor for receiving those loans. What People Think People tend to think about what is put in front of them to think about. That’s why everyone goes to see a new movie on the first weekend instead of waiting until they can get good seats with no lines. Wall Street and the likes of the Chamber of Commerce understand this so they put scapegoats in front of the public to mask what they are doing. Right now there is a corporate/right campaign to blame working people for the problems they caused. Like 60 Minutes this weekend, the news sources are run by big corporations, and they have been saying over and over (and over and over) that unions and the unemployed and the poor and the government are the cause of the problems. (When was the last time you saw a union representative on TV, explaining the benefits of joining a union ?) And, naturally, after hearing these things over and over (and over and over), viewers like the nurse at the clinic I am in think they should blame the unions, the unemployed, the poor, the government, too. So much of the income and wealth are concentrating at the top. Taxes have been cut so far. The things our government does for us have been cut back so far. Working people’s wages have been stagnant for so long. But the blame right now is directed at the unions, the poor, the unemployed and our government: We, the People. As the AFL-CIO blog concludes , The long term solution to state and local fiscal challenges … is “a robust economy, one that is creating jobs and replenishing tax revenue.” To repeat: The long term solution to state and local fiscal challenges… is “a robust economy, one that is creating jobs and replenishing tax revenue.” Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Judah Schiller: 5 Must-Dos to Engage Your Employees in 2011

December 22, 2010

Forget about rabbits. 2011 is officially the Year of the Human. The daily news may be filled with stories about scarcity — we’re seemingly running out of everything from natural resources to patience to [fill-in-the-blank here]. But the one thing we are definitely not running out of, at least not any time soon, is feeling, thinking people. Yet, many companies are still missing the boat when it comes to getting their people to show up at work with their hearts, minds and bodies present. Most employees view work only as a means to an end–a way for them to collect a paycheck and receive health benefits. Part of the problem is that companies consistently fail to make a strong connection between their own “big picture” and its relevance to their employees. They continue to talk at rather than with their workers, dictating what’s good for them, rather than making an effort to understand their wants and needs. It’s no wonder that these are the same companies that continue to battle against low morale, high turnover and flagging productivity. According to Human Resources Magazine, employee disengagement is estimated to cost the U.S. economy as much as 350 billion dollars every year. Choosing to tap into employees’ full potential, or not, can ultimately mean the difference between the success or failure of your business. Employee engagement is often lumped in with those things we know we should be better about doing, but often aren’t (flossing and cleaning out the refrigerator come to mind), and is still something that is sorely lacking in the world’s greatest companies. But unlike flossing and cleaning out the fridge, engagement can be fun, interactive, and can result in amazing returns for your business and the people who are the lifeblood of your organization. Here are 5 “must-dos” to effectively engage your employees in 2011: 1) Ask and you shall receive: The New Year is here, and it’s not business as usual. Instead of trying to “solve problems by using the same kind of thinking that created them,” look to your employees to help define your corporate challenges and, in turn, devise innovative solutions to address them. One dynamic way to do this is to create an internal design team that includes people from of all levels of your company. Commit to taking regular “pulse surveys” to find out what your people are thinking about, worrying about and dreaming about, rather than resorting to the ho-hum annual survey. How do they like to work? What makes them happy? What gets them excited? Taking the first step to simply listen will begin to foster trust and deepen your connection with your employees. 2) Find the fun: They don’t call it work for nothing, but all work and no play makes for an unproductive and bored-out-of-their-minds bunch of employees. Fun should be a consistent and easily accessible part of your office environment. Many innovative ways to connect already exist in the outside world. It’s time to start welcoming more of these tools inside the walls of your company. Targeted social media and gaming sites like SVNGR.com and Seriosity.com can help keep your employees accountable and anchored to your mission, each other and their own personal incentives. 3) Use social good as a Trojan horse for engagement: Connecting the dots between engagement and social responsibility is no longer the “wave of the future.” It’s what companies need to be doing now to get ahead. Aligning your employees around a common cause that transcends generational divides, gender and ethnicity is a sure-fire way to spark a sense of purpose and belonging. When your employees feel educated, inspired and empowered around the company’s commitment to social responsibility, sustainability and citizenship, the real magic starts to happen. This kind of “good work” is also what the next generation of employees is adamantly expecting from their employers. 4) Inspire viral and grassroots learning: It might be hard to believe, but in the next four years, Millennials will make up more than half of our country’s workforce. This super-digitalized generation is already accustomed to being engaged virally and through social media. Offering online mentoring and learning opportunities, as well as easy and entertaining ways to collaborate and share ideas, such as through Spigit.com , Slideshare.com and Twiddla.com , enables your employees to dictate what’s most important to them and spur companywide participation. A little healthy “collabotition” in the workplace goes a long way to igniting ambition and inspiring innovation. 5) Create a company of micro-philanthropists: It’s likely that your company already donates money to various causes. Why not ask your employees to get involved, rather than dryly recounting the company’s actions during the next all-staff meeting? Sites like Donorschoose.org , Mobilegiving.org , Changenet.org and Causecast.org all allow individuals to make small donations to the organization of their choice. Make giving an integral and personal part of your company culture by allowing each of your employees to choose a specific non-profit recipient and track the impact of their donation. Whether you are already engaging your employees in one or some of these areas, the most important thing to keep in mind as we head into the Year of the Human is to start viewing “work” through more holistic eyes. Engagement is a two-way street and, to be successful, it requires commitment, enthusiasm and consistency — all things that tend to be in greater supply at the fresh start of a New Year.

Read the full article →

Patricia Handschiegel: The New Power Girls: The United States Invented The Internet, But Sorely Lags In Understanding It And Using It To Its Advantage

December 22, 2010

The topic of net neutrality is on everybody’s mind this week , but it’s not likely even with the laws in place that our government will be able to adequately control much of what will go on. Not only will it be difficult to know where and when carriers might be blocking packets, or playing unfairly, it’s also a watery expectation to assume that those who footed the bill for the internet’s existence (the carriers) should not be able to then operate their business how they want. Would Google turn over the search business it developed and privately funded to other search companies who did not? Would you? Likely not. It’s of course more complicated than this, but net neutrality it not the only thing that threatens the “open” web. In fact, the internet was never open in the first place and that is going to be increasingly important for everybody to understand as we all move forward. An “open” platform is not built and funded by private companies. An “open” platform doesn’t secretly track and spy on its users without their knowing, or sell/share that data (or your Tweets) to third parties without your consent as many sites do, including likely many who are crying fowl on today’s net neutrality ruling. Indeed what defines “open” will become increasingly important in the years to come as the internet moves to its final position of our society and ultimately the world’s dominant information delivery and communications platform. But this is not the only thing that threatens the “open” web. The corporatization of the internet platform is also escalating as businesses online hand over the control to brands — entirely due to the media/web/etc. 2.0 insistence that all business must rely on ad-only models online. If you study content monetization over any of the three legacy information delivery platforms (print media, broadcast TV and radio), ad-only models have rarely been predominant. Granted this is more about business than keeping corporatization at bay, but it can certainly help. Want to get a sense of how corporations control platforms? Just ask any TV network head. By giving brands the same foothold online, businesses on the internet are creating the closed web they are fighting to stop. The bottom line is that while America has invented the internet, a super platform that can do what the five other information delivery AND communications platforms in our society can do, it lacks sorely in understanding it and ultimately, maximizing it for our future. For the past six years our media/business has screamed false and unfounded headlines such as “people won’t pay for content online” despite that people do and have for ten years, and other ridiculous assumptions. It champions tearing down “old” this and that, but the problem is that it doesn’t realize you have to put something there to replace it, or everybody loses. Rather than taking time to educate and be educated, it seeks to do whatever it takes to draw eyeballs and headlines — to the determent of itself and ultimately us all. Rather than leveraging the internet to boom its business, as retail industry did, through research, learning and careful effort, media and music both took the route of letting it dismantle their markets, and this hurts us all. It’s great when barriers are lowered to let others in, but nobody wins when something means a loss of American jobs. Far worse, however, is that our ignorance about the platform we created has the potential to affect us on a global level. Foreign companies are already well vested in American internet business, and that will continue to increase and grow. Many countries are far ahead of us in terms of internet use and innovation, and the recent Wikileaks and Gawker hackings show just exactly what can be done with cyber terrorism, something I’ve read more American media than not say we don’t need to worry about than not. We haven’t even gotten to where things are going to get really sticky yet, such as in identity, currency, and other factors, as the internet will be in everything and everywhere in the future — offline, online, and far more than “mobile” as it has always been designed to be device agnostic. How can anybody begin to create laws and regulations when such a large number have no idea what the internet truly is, how it works and what it’s here to do? The reality is, the internet is not “a place for friends” or to “share,” or run/owned by the people — in fact, it’s on the contrary as the future will continue to reveal and point out. It’s a very sophisticated, very unique and very curious government -created and designed infrastructure that will be the sole platform we tap for everything in the future, from our phone calls to our TV shows to turning on and off the electricity in our houses. For that alone, it should be taken seriously. It also shouldn’t be allowed to weaken our country as it has been. It should be the opposite. It’s fun to watch walls come down and disruption happen, but it’s a two-sided coin that can either benefit or hurt us. Guess which one American business keeps choosing. A look at the market should tell you — most startup tech companies are still reliant on investment capital — not revenue — to survive. What’s unfortunate is that the issues of we are seeing today were put into play more than ten and twenty years ago. If you don’t think that the same is happening as we speak for the years ahead, come back and read this article two years from now. Until America — and American business, its executives, media, etc. — starts to take the platform seriously and truly adapt, net neutrality will hardly be our only problem down the road. Patricia Handschiegel is a serial entrepreneur with a background in internet telecom engineering and platform (TV, phones, print media, etc.) business, spending more than ten years in the carrier market as it built the web, and in all aspects of internet business

Read the full article →

Video: Claro Doesn’t See Any `Disintegration’ in Euro Zone

December 21, 2010

Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) — Francis Claro of Wells Capital Management talks about investing in Europe and his stock picks, including Heidrick & Struggles International Inc. and USG People NV. Claro talks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television’s “Bottom Line.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

iPhone Secrets Among Tips That Led To Arrests

December 16, 2010

NEW YORK — Federal prosecutors in Manhattan broadened their insider trading crackdown Thursday, arresting four people on charges alleging that so-called “expert consultants” revealed secrets about Apple Inc.’s iPhone and other technology products to hedge funds seeking a trading edge on quarterly earnings reports. The latest probe targeted Primary Global Research, a Mountain View, Calif.-based firm that offered consulting services to investors on industry trends, issues and regulations. Instead, prosecutors allege, firm executive James Fleishman used four consultants employed by publicly traded companies to create a corrupt clearinghouse for confidential information. Fleishman, 41, was charged with wire fraud and conspiracy. Three others, all outside “expert consultants” for Primary Global Research until earlier this year, were charged with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, according to papers filed in federal court in Manhattan. Fleishman helped arrange for Primary Global Research clients, including hedge funds, to speak with the consultants, the papers said. The clients were told about highly confidential Apple sales forecasts information, new product features for the iPhone and a top-secret project known internally at Apple as “K48,” which became the iPad, launched this year, the complaint said. The charges allege that a “corrupt network of insiders at some of the world’s leading technology companies served as so-called ‘consultants’ who sold out their employers by stealing and then peddling their valuable inside information,” U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement. He said the allegations describe criminal conduct that went “well beyond any legitimate information-sharing or good faith business practice.” Primary Global Research paid four consultants more than $400,000 merely to participate in phone calls with their clients, “an indication of the value placed on the information,” said FBI Assistant Director Janice K. Fedarcyk. “This wasn’t market research. What the defendants did was purchase and sell insider information,” Fedarcyk said, adding: “Our investigation is most assuredly continuing.” The three consultants charged were Mark Anthony Longoria, 44, of Round Rock, Texas; Walter Shimoon, 39, of San Diego; and Manosha Karunatilaka, 37, of Marlborough, Mass. The prosecution is an offshoot of a probe of Galleon Funds founder Raj Rajaratnam and 22 others in which prosecutors made extensive use of wiretaps, which are more common in drug and organized crime investigations. Rajaratnam has pleaded not guilty and said he only traded with information available to the public. On wiretaps used to build evidence against those arrested Thursday, Fleishman and Longoria could be heard speaking about the Galleon probe, with Fleishman assuring Longoria that Galleon was not a client, according to court papers. The complaint said Longoria responded: “OK. Good. I wasn’t sure. I was, like, really getting nervous.” Richard Choo-Beng Lee, a former hedge fund co-manager who has pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the government, made some of the recordings, the complaint said. Investigators have learned from Lee that his hedge fund’s “practice was to have its employees call a firm consultant before the consultant’s employer was expected to release its quarterly earnings, in part to obtain inside information,” the complaint said. Longoria worked at Advanced Micro Devices Inc. as a supply chain manager, Shimoon worked at Flextronics International Limited as senior director of business development and Karunatilaka worked as an account manager at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. office in Burlington, Mass. The complaint said Shimoon illegally provided information about sales forecasts and new product features for Apple’s iPhone that had been given to employees of Flextronics, which worked with Apple on camera and charger components for the iPhone and iPod. It said he also spoke of the iPad project, saying on secretly recorded conversations with a government cooperating witness: “At Apple you can get fired for saying K48 … outside of a meeting that doesn’t have K48 people in it. That’s how crazy they are about it.” The complaint said Shimoon was also captured on wiretaps promising to get secrets about sales at Research In Motion Ltd., which makes Blackberrys. Shimoon has been terminated and Flextronics has clear policies prohibiting the release of confidential information about the company and its business partners, Flextronics said in a statement. It was not immediately clear who would represent Shimoon at an initial court appearance. For Karunatilaka, bail was set at $250,000 after an initial appearance in federal court in Boston. He was expected to be released Thursday. His lawyer, Brad Bailey, said he was reviewing the allegations against his client and would decide how to proceed. He said it was likely Karunatilaka would appear in Manhattan court sometime in January. Longoria appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin, Texas, who ordered him released on $50,000 unsecured bond and told him to surrender his expired passport. When asked if he was a flight risk, a tearful Longoria said no. “I’m not trying to fight this. I’m here to help. I’ve been cooperating on this from the beginning,” Longoria said. Longoria resigned Oct. 22 from AMD, where he had worked since 2007, said Mike Silverman, a company spokesman. “It appears that AMD is the victim of an insider trading scheme,” Silverman said. He added that AMD was cooperating with investigators. A lawyers for Fleishman did not return phone calls for comment. A fourth consultant for Primary Global Research, former Dell global supply manager Daniel Devore, pleaded guilty Dec. 10 to wire fraud and conspiracy charges in a cooperation deal that could win him leniency at sentencing, prosecutors also announced. His lawyer, John Sutton, declined to comment Thursday. In his plea, Devore told a judge that Primary Global Research paid him about $145,000 to share inside information with the firm’s clients and employees. “I knew that when I was misappropriating Dell’s confidential information and providing it to money managers, I was violating my duties of confidentiality and trust to Dell,” he said, according to a transcript. David Best, a Dell spokesman, said the company would cooperate with authorities. ___ Associated Press Writer Larry Neumeister in New York and AP Technology writers Jordan Robertson in San Francisco and Jessica Mintz in Seattle contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: Joseph Stiglitz on Gordon Brown

December 13, 2010

Joseph Stiglitz is a brilliant economist — arguably the best of his generation. He is also a brave soul. For years he warned about the dangers of hot money ricocheting around the world. And he took a stand in support of the Asian model in the late ’90s in opposition to the powerful Washington Consensus, jousting with his own employer at the World Bank. But as the after-effects of our own financial crisis unfold, Stiglitz has opted to delve more deeply into the political half of the old concept of the political economy. And like many economists, left and right, he does his economic half — his economic brilliance — no good service for indulging. This weekend, Stiglitz published a review of former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s new memoir-cum-policy tract, Beyond the Crash: Overcoming the First Crisis of Globalization in both the Financial Times and Slate. Stiglitz likes and admires Brown, and there’s a rough correspondence between Stiglitz’s left-progressivism and Brown’s Labour credentials. Brown, he says, unlike many “other people,” particularly those “who were responsible for the creation of the crisis,” instantly recognized the significance of it all. “As soon as Northern Rock began to teeter, he realized there were deep structural problems with the financial sector and he tried to act on what he saw. He grasped immediately that the problem was not just one of liquidity but of a weakness in the financial sector built on years of mismanagement, lax regulation and reckless speculation. He also saw early on that unless a government recapitalisation was accompanied by requirements that banks continue lending to businesses, the crisis in the financial sector would spread to the broader economy.” Now it’s a little hard to tell whether Stiglitz knows all this because it’s in the book or from conversations with Brown. In either case, Stiglitz displays no skepticism about Brown’s sudden, and startling, epiphany — or indeed that he was somehow far more advanced than others in power. In fact, Northern Rock was the U.K.’s Bear Stearns Cos. Both were runs (one by depositors, the other by counterparties and lenders) that forced the hands of policymakers to engage in a bailout. And once those moves were made, both countries found themselves spiraling down into deeper crisis. The U.S. ended up nationalizing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and injecting money into the largest banks; the U.K. essentially nationalized its largest banks, with the exception of Barclays. Both countries remain mired in post-crisis malaise, with incomplete recoveries and demands to reduce deficits. The U.K., now under a coalition government led by Tory David Cameron, is involved in a fierce cost-cutting campaign that is sparking widespread social tensions. The U.S. may be marginally better off only because of its entrenched advantages – its size and status as home of the world’s reserve currency — and perhaps because the Obama administration has avoided severe austerity measures. So where does Brown fit into all this? First, Brown served as chancellor of the exchequer (and heir apparent) under Tony Blair beginning in 1997; he became prime minister when Blair resigned in 2007, just as the crisis was beginning. Stiglitz manages to ignore the fact that Brown presided for a full decade over the very mismanagement and structural flaws he so quickly identified when it blew up. This makes Henry Paulson, Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke look like latecomers to the party. Stiglitz manages to spread the blame around to the usual suspects; one of the pleasures of reading this is wondering when he’ll get to Brown’s own complicity. And finally he does. “Brown also shares the disappointment that more wasn’t done in the aftermath of the east Asian economic crisis in 1998. To him, that episode showed how interconnected the global economy was. He expresses disappointment with the Financial Stability Board. But he doesn’t reveal who was on the other side of the battles — one can only guess that it might have been some of the same people who had fought in the U.S. against derivatives regulation.” Notice the recurrence of “disappointment” in others. See how easily Stiglitz slides from Brown to others. And what’s that “one can only guess”? So Robert Rubin, Larry Summers and Alan Greenspan — two of three gone from office by 2001, while Brown continued to preside — were responsible not only for beating up Brooksley Born on derivatives, but for somehow battling Brown to silence over issues that included the size of London’s financial center, the leveraging up of U.K. banks, deregulation and the overheating of real estate. You can blame the Committee to Save the World for a lot of stuff, but you can’t blame them for what occurred after George W. Bush took office. Maybe that’s why Brown doesn’t single them out. Stiglitz, however, is eager to give Brown a pass. “He doesn’t dwell, however, on the mistakes of the past,” he writes of Brown, “either those that led to the crisis or the more recent one [presumably post-crisis economic responses]. What he tries to do is learn the lessons — as different as they may be from the conventional wisdom that prevailed before the crisis.” Ah, the old conventional wisdom. Perhaps Brown realizes what Stiglitz chooses to forget: The blame game is a kind of contagion; few are immune. It’s one thing for Brown to ritually blame Margaret Thatcher for everything — “We needed to overturn 30 years of policymaking,” he declares, 10 of which occurred under Labour — but anything closer than the ’90s poses a threat to his own reputation. After all, the Clinton New Democrats, including Summers and Rubin (who were Stiglitz’s great antagonists in the Asia crisis debates) and Tony Blair’s New Labour generally shared a centrist governing philosophy that gave a large role to finance as the engine. What was not to like? Labour continued to win elections, and the U.K. seemed to prosper, particularly the City. Let’s face it: Brown missed the bubble just like everyone else. Brown today is a sad figure — a man who waited all those years for ultimate power, only to get it just as everything was collapsing around him. That sadness, of course, is diluted by the fact that he had oversight over the very economy that swept him under — unlike Obama who inherited the mess. Brown did act with dispatch and focus, and he was a voice calling for harmonization of policies around the globe, culminating in the London G-20 meeting in 2009, perhaps his finest moment. As for his bank nationalization policies, it’s a little hard to discern whether they were clearly superior to steps taken in the U.S. Stiglitz certainly believes they were, though he offers no evidence. “The U.S. strategy of letting the banks continue with the same practices, including credit card abuses, was doomed economically and politically,” Stiglitz writes. The British public obviously did not agree. Making these kinds of glib national comparisons is fraught with difficulties. The crisis, alas, still has a way to go before it’s firmly placed in history. Comparing Brown to Rubin, Bush, Paulson or Obama involves far more than simply resorting to the conflicts and the clash of ideas and politics from over a decade ago. It involves issues that are far more nuanced and ambiguous than economic doctrines, whether left or right. And indeed, we may never know for certain whether Brown was the great and magnanimous hero of Stiglitz’s telling or a figure brought low by forces he failed to foresee. Robert Teitelman is editor in chief of The Deal

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: It’s (Still) The Economic Paradigm, Stupid!

December 10, 2010

Yesterday I wrote that the President may have sacrificed his long-term vision on trade and economic/industrial policy to day-to-day concerns and politics. The tax-cut deal is another indicator that a big-picture vision has been sacrificed. But however much smoke gets thrown up to mask the real problem it’s still all about the economic paradigm . There is still a lot of forward-thinking work to do on our economy. The big picture is, of course, jobs. It is balance of trade, a coherent and especially comprehensive economic/industrial policy, education, infrastructure. But even more than those, fixing the real economic mess is about finding a sustainable and equitable formula, and changing the equations of who gets what for what. It is a bigger picture. But now we are totally caught in the day-to-day fights over tax cuts for the rich, giving forever more and more to the big financial institutions, letting the big corporations get away with more and more while delivering less and less and making us work harder and harder. It seems that all we do now is just react to corporate/conservative assaults. We are trying to fight off attacks on everything, everything and on every, every front. Instead of job-creation programs we are fighting over just giving unemployed people the same unemployment benefits that American workers have always gotten. Instead of doing something about climate change we are fighting to keep the big oil companies from killing rail projects and green energy initiatives. The corporate/conservatives are using their ” Overton Window ” tactics to push the discourse ever further to the right and away from addressing the real problems. (I don’t mean Glenn Beck’s book. More info here and here .) And we are now living the result. Step back, remember how we got here. Thirty years ago the corporate conservatives launched their assault on We, the People. They elected Ronald Reagan, who declared that “We, the People are the problem,” and that decision-making by We the People (government) had gotten too big. Now the Reagan Revolution has come home to roost and we are living in the conservative dream. The rich ever richer with more and more power, the rest of us are “the help,” just trying to get by, and our minds are under continual assault from a sophisticated propaganda barrage designed to keep us from doing something about it. The basics have not changed . The fundamental changes we need are still needed. The corporate conservatives have all the money in the world and are so well organized but they can’t fight off reality forever . The planet really is warming and the climate really is changing and it really is because of carbon. The conservative economic model really does not work and is draining the people and the planet for the benefit of just a few. In my first post for the Campaign for America’s Future, It’s The Economic Paradigm, Stupid! , I wrote, It is not just the economy out of whack. The business practices that brought us here — overextraction, overextension, overleveraging, overconsumption — have also whacked the planet’s resources. The fisheries are increasingly depleted. The aquifers are increasingly drained. The forests are increasingly logged. The landfills are increasingly full. And, of course, the planet is increasingly hotter. Our economic system has also taken a toll on the people. Too many hours at a stressful workplace with too little sleep have burned many of us out. Our thinking and identity are about our jobs, not our spirit and character. Our values are devoted to markets with many of us placing making money over loving and caring for families and others. And there’s no time for that stuff anyway. We have become consumers instead of citizens and humans. Decades of falling wages, decreasing savings and increasing debt have tapped us out. Consumption has used us up. And we’re fed up. The problems are still the problems, only more so. And we’re still fed up, only more so. (*Please click the links) This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Marian Salzman: Who’s in Control?

December 10, 2010

This is the tenth in a series of 12 posts expounding on the 2011 forecasts in the annual trends report from Salzman, president of Euro RSCG Worldwide PR and an internationally respected trendspotter. Remember “The Gong Show,” where there was the loud bonnnnnng to save contestants from catastrophe’s bottomless pit? Hello, Central Casting…. Has anybody seen the gong? Our 24/7 news cycle with daily cascades of worsening news has become enough to blanch even an egg. State pension funds are coming up $1 trillion short . The FDIC’s list of failed banks , a parade of former stalwarts, numbered 140 in 2009 and 149 through Nov. 19 of this year. Yes, Virginia, sometimes facades really do hide blank vessels. The ire at home, though, pales lately against the anger in Great Britain over Ireland’s required $110 billion IMF bailout . The Guardian says , “the western world teeters on the edge of calamity caused by the bank-lending extravaganza that fuelled the great property bubble.” (Echo, anyone?) Ireland’s house price index dropped almost 19 percent in 2009, to April 2003 levels–but, more shockingly, amid Flickr feeds of abandoned Irish houses, one learned that house prices would have to come down 57 percent more for the average household income to afford one. Irish government officials, meanwhile, expanded from fat cats to “morbidly obese cats”–after disclosures that 66 public servants receive more than €500,000 each (about U.S.$662,000; David Cameron’s salary, by comparison, equals about $225,800). And Bono has apparently abandoned his home shores for the Netherlands, where business tax rates are much lower. Investors dumped Spanish and Portuguese bonds in a panic sell-off; Iceland is in a cash crisis ; and this week, Ireland announced $8 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts to secure its IMF loan. Prime ministers and world leaders at the G-20 meeting in Seoul, contemporaneously, denied it was just Ireland on their minds, but how to deal with a future of restabilizing the shared currency, without country-by-country costs far outweighing the benefits to the union? Who’s in control? If we could find somebody, what possible line would be drawn around their responsibilities? (And what would Jean Monnet have said? He who thought up the EU in the 1950s, revolutionized industry for unparalleled European postwar prosperity and constantly repeated, “Continue, continue, there is no future for the people of Europe other than in union.) But, continue, continue this way? Is it any wonder that we the people of the U.S. might feel a great longing for some old way? A strong nostalgia for, yes indeed, the repressive but sedate 1950s, when the idea of union was so positive? A Norman Rockwell magazine cover, “Home for Thanksgiving,” showed a heartwarming mom and uniformed son joined to peel the taters, after a war of huge sacrifices. By 1957, tune in to June Cleaver issuing forth maternal clucking–seen through Beaver’s eyes, the Tom Sawyer of the television age. Barbara Billingsley (the real-life June Cleaver) died earlier this year, and I found all the buzz around that very significant. Did we mourn her together because June Cleaver’s death stands for the end of ideals that appeared to be collective, ideals around motherhood, gender roles , knowing and keeping your place because society itself was orderly? The flip side–and arguably more apropos to the insane volatility we’ve experienced in the last couple of years–lies in Dennis Hopper’s death this May. As Frank Booth in Blue Velvet , Hopper inhabited the dark side of the American dream. Whether you vote for pathos or horror, what can’t be argued is how finally the curtain has rung down over a simpler epoch, long-gone as the age of Lassie or silly love songs about blue velvet or blue suede shoes. One would need more than a weatherman to call out the rogue winds that have unmoored whole continents and sent stock and sterling swirling. It used to be that the things lamented as cultural fall-offs had to do with mores. Conservative parents in the ’60s responding to problems of a post-Cleaver decade blamed Dr. Spock and the Beatles. Meanwhile, in France, where new philosophies were being written, Simone de Beauvoir described Brigitte Bardot–the opposite of mommy figure–in a 1959 essay as a “locomotive of women’s history.” Lately, it strikes me as fitting to recall Peter Fonda’s warning to Hopper, as Billy, in Easy Rider : “We blew it.” That could well be the underscore of the last few years. These massive failures go straight to what mental health professionals call family systems. The effect of unsettling losses of control, where you realize you have none, is called ambiguity. In literature, ambiguity underpins terror. The less you know, the more you fear the evil behind the curtain, the unforeseen Frankenstein born of hope. As I’ve written in earlier trends in this series, we’ve all been experiencing the many effects of our loss-of-faith crisis . Stepping right up to the fear-filled plate, the Tea Party has tapped into widespread anxieties Americans have of losing control, being overwhelmed by vast, inhumane systems. The market phrase “wild swings” applies, too, to human life. In uncertain, ambiguous times, it does and should give anybody concerned about addictive and compulsive behaviors plenty to worry about. From ADHD in kids to eating disorders, suicide attempts and miscellaneous substance addictions that have parents and spouses shaking their heads over what that new thing is called, much less what it is , our wired society makes our worst impulses as easily accessible as borrowing a cup of sugar from neighbors used to be. Shopping addictions are said to affect 6 percent of Americans. Gambling is especially risky for teens. Next year, we’ll see mass-scale demands for greater control, but how will they be expressed? From the home to the boardroom, no doubt, with outcomes possibly short-term and private but longer-term socially disruptive. What precisely should be controlled, and by whom? Such queries promise to expose new schisms and widen already appearing cracks in the social network. There are those who consider addiction issues morality issues, and even sexuality an arena for legislating self-control. (But who wins a hormonal battle? Not even Christine O’Donnell could read a crystal ball on that score.) There are others who think regulatory control is the answer to corporations spinning out of control. Then there’s the issue of who controls the airwaves, the broadband, the Internet and the media, where all this gets endlessly dissected for effect, not meaning. Conservatives complain about liberal media, and liberals berate conservative agendas thinly veiled. On both sides of the aisle, election laws permit shadowy nonprofits to make contributions –and control us without ever being seen. In 2011, we’ll all be looking for more control in answer to being sick at heart, sick to busting, of unpredictability. Like “riders on the storm” (as the recently pardoned Jim Morrison sang), “into this house we’re born/into this world we’re thrown.” But we’ll be looking to redress our vertigo with greater control. Previously: “Mad as Hell–and Only Getting Madder” “Talk to the Hands” “Net Gain” “Public Mycasting System” “Booting Up” “Yes, We Can…Reinvent Ourselves” “Reinvention, Part II” “Separated at Worth” “Gender Bender” On Monday: “Tapping Minitrends”

Read the full article →

Don Tapscott: Macrowikinomics: Thriving in the Age of Hyper-Transparency

December 10, 2010

This article is the fifth installment in series to be written by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams, authors of the newly released book Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World . Mark Parker, the CEO of Nike calls it “A masterpiece. An iconic and defining book for our times.” The Economist says it’s a Schumpeterian story of creative Destruction.” The book argues that many of the institutions of the industrial age have finally come to the end of their lifecycle, and are now being reinvented around a new set of principles and a networked model. Today’s blog looks this new age of WikiLeaks and hyper-transparency **** The arrest of Julian Assange doesn’t change the new reality faced by governments and corporations that have always craved secrecy. Even if Assange is put behind bars for an extended period, others will be happy to take his place. Think of the whack-a-mole game at the arcade. Hit one on the head and another will pop up. The WikiLeaks episode is just a hint of the world to come. We are entering an era of hyper-transparency. Courtesy of the Internet, people everywhere have at their fingertips the most powerful tool ever for finding out what’s really going and informing others. They are gaining unprecedented access to all sorts of information about governments, corporations and other organizations in society. Assange has announced that WikiLeaks is going after private-sector corporations next, starting with the financial services industry. This will undoubtedly unleash a new round of whistleblowers keen to reveal what they see as evidence of duplicity and moral turpitude by their corporate masters. But forced transparency goes beyond revenge by disgruntled employees. Customers can evaluate the worth of products and services at levels not possible before. Employees share formerly secret information about corporate strategy, management and challenges. To collaborate effectively, companies and their business partners have no choice but to share intimate knowledge. Powerful institutional investors today own or manage most wealth, and they are developing x-ray vision. Finally, in a world of instant communications, whistleblowers, inquisitive media, and Googling, citizens and communities routinely put firms under the microscope. Overall this is a positive development. Whether you’re a government or company, when you’re increasingly naked, fitness is no longer optional. Survival will force you to get buff. To be sure, all organizations have a right to secrecy. Companies have legitimate trade secrets. Transparency should refer to the release or exposure of pertinent information — information that can help stakeholders if they have it or harm them if they do not. Employees should not violate confidentially agreements or the law as in the case of WikiLeaks. But rather than defaulting to opacity as was done in the past, increasingly it makes sense to default to openness. Consumer electronics retailer Best Buy has adopted the principle that “our customers should know everything that we know” including data about the defect levels of the products they are selling. CEO Brian Dunn says this is not just a matter of building trust but rather “customers have a right to this information.” Nike has decided to reveal information about its patents and through launching the Green Exchange shares critical environmental data so that other companies can benefit. Fedex has built transparency into its supply chain as the company has found that free and open flow of information reduces transaction costs. Accenture CEO Bill Green has shocking candor with employees about everything from their financial performance to his personal struggle and tough decision to terminate the company’s contract with Tiger Woods. “Transparency with employees builds trust; it speeds up the metabolism of collaboration and increases loyalty,” he says. “Being open makes us better, and it’s just the right thing to do.” Rather than something to be feared, transparency is becoming central to business success. Every company needs a transparency strategy. It has to rethink what new information should be made available to employees, customers, business partners and shareholders. Corporations that are open perform better. Transparency is a new form of power, which pays off when harnessed. Embrace transparency as a force for good. It will result in high-performance business operations. Create good value because value is evidenced like never before. Embrace the principles of integrity, honesty, consideration and accountability as part of your organization’s DNA. In doing so you can build trust — the sine qua non of the networked world. Don’t confuse transparency with the lack of privacy. Transparency is an opportunity and increasingly an obligation for institutions. But transparency applies to institutions, not to individuals. Individuals have no such opportunity or obligation; they have a right to privacy. So while you’re becoming more open as an organization become more scrupulous to protect the private information of customers, employees and other people who are stakeholders. Much of this transparency argument also applies to governments. They are also becoming more open, which is good. Fifty years ago, few countries routinely released information about their economies. Indeed, many treated such information as state secrets. Now scores of countries post detailed economic statistics on the IMF’s website. A half-century ago, no country had laws specifically requiring government officials to provide information to their citizens. Now, nearly seventy countries do, and the number is still growing. Until as recently as the late 1990s, environmental regulation consisted largely of governments telling corporations what production processes to use. Newer regulations are increasingly about directing companies to tell the public the pollutants they are creating. By throwing thousands of raw cables out in the open, WikiLeaks has invited the world to sift through the details and draw its own conclusions. Washington’s elite may be discomforted by the notion that journalists and interested citizens alike can now hunt for embarrassing and perhaps even incriminating interchanges among diplomats. But in a world of hyper transparency, it turns out that many things including war and diplomatic relations will be subject to scrutiny. Even the world’s most ardent freedom-haters — including the despotic regimes in countries like Burma and Iran — cannot restrain the nascent forces of openness that are percolating in their societies. As the Iranian youth mobilization for freedom so vividly demonstrated, an explosive combination of youthful demographics and the spread of the Internet is helping oppressed peoples everywhere wrest open the authoritarian stranglehold that hangs over their social and economic destinies. Smart companies and governments understand that becoming more transparent is in the best interest of the public. Macrowikinomics available at: Macrowikinomics.com Follow Anthony Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/adw_tweets

Read the full article →

China Takes Another Step To Curb Bank Lending

December 10, 2010

BEIJING — China ordered its banks to increase their reserves in a move to curb surging lending as financial markets watched for a widely anticipated interest rate hike amid efforts to cool inflation. The central bank’s order Friday was the third reserve increase in five weeks and came as Beijing tries to rein in a flood of money flowing through the economy from stimulus spending and bank lending that helped China rebound from the global crisis. Beijing has announced a slew of measures in recent weeks to cool inflation that rose to a 25-month high of 4.4 percent in October, well above the government’s 3 percent target. Analysts and traders expect a rate hike soon to bring lending and deposit rates, which were slashed during the crisis, back to more normal levels. The order Friday by the People’s Bank of China told commercial lenders to increase minimum reserves by 0.5 percent of deposits. The move weighed on world markets. Gains in European shares were tempered and Asian stock benchmarks mostly closed lower ahead of the news in anticipation of an interest rate hike or other credit tightening measure. China raised interest rates Oct. 19 for the first time since the crisis, highlighting the divergence of its robust expansion from the United States, Europe and Japan, which still are trying to shore up growth. Chinese business newspapers have reported that a rate hike might be announced as early as this weekend. “A rate hike still cannot be ruled out this weekend,” said Mark Williams, an analyst for Capital Economics, in a report. The announcement came as Chinese leaders began an annual economic planning meeting that is expected to run through Sunday. “It may be that the People’s Bank has chosen to defer a symbolically more significant move on interest rates until those discussions have concluded,” Williams said. On Friday, regulators announced Chinese banks lent a total of 564 billion yuan ($82 billion) in October. That would push total lending so far this year to 7.45 trillion yuan and mean they would likely overshoot Beijing’s official 2010 lending target of 7.5 trillion yuan. The state press has carried reports on the necessity of a rate hike, apparently to prepare the public and entrepreneurs for a change. Inflation so far is limited to food costs, but analysts say easy credit flowing through the economy will start to push up prices in other areas if Beijing doesn’t tighten credit. The reserve increase came after Chinese stock markets closed. Stocks have fallen in expectation of more interest rate hikes, which investors worry might further slow economic growth and reduce credit that has been helping to support stock prices. China’s rapid economic expansion eased to 9.6 percent in the three months ending in September from a post-crisis high of 11.9 percent in the first quarter. It is expected to fall further in coming months but to stay strong. The ruling Communist Party’s top body, the Politburo, announced Dec. 3 that it was ordering a “prudent monetary policy” next year, a change from the “relatively easy” credit policy in place throughout the crisis. The Oct. 19 hike pushed the lending rate on a one-year loan to 5.56 percent. JP Morgan & Co. says it expects three to four more increases beginning as early as this month and pushing the benchmark rate to 6.31 percent by mid-2011. Analysts believe a key worry for policymakers is the low rates paid on Chinese bank accounts. Inflation has risen well above the 2.5 percent paid on deposits, which has prompted an outflow of money into stocks and real estate as families seek a better return, fueling fears of a dangerous price boom and bust. Beijing also has tried to cool inflation by launching an effort to increase vegetable supplies and has ordered a crackdown on what it says is hoarding and price-fixing of fuel and other materials. ___ People’s Bank of China (in Chinese): http://www.pbc.gov.cn

Read the full article →

Michael Wenger: The People Who Need This Deal

December 8, 2010

The current outrage among progressives about the tax deal negotiated by President Obama and Republicans reminds me of a philosophical debate we used to have when I was an anti-poverty community organizer in the late 1960s in southern West Virginia. Most organizers were idealistic middle-class college students or recent college graduates who were convinced they were on the side of the angels in trying to change a system that unfairly condemned the powerless to a daily struggle for economic survival while those with political and economic power wielded their power for personal gain at the expense of the powerless. We believed passionately that compromise equaled “selling out” and that it was better to fail while standing on principle than to take half a loaf. But while we could and would trade our community organizing efforts for economically secure careers after a few years, those who were struggling to put food on their tables, a roof over their family’s head, and clothes on their children’s backs were less interested in changing the system than they were in making it to the next day. To them, as President Obama alluded to in his press conference, an abstract debate about principle was a luxury they couldn’t afford. That’s what progressives need to keep in mind over the next few days as this deal moves toward a vote in Congress. I stand with progressives in disliking this deal. By telegraphing his willingness to compromise before the negotiations even began, President Obama significantly weakened his position. Thus, Republicans knew they didn’t have to budge on the tax cuts for the rich. Nonetheless, it is difficult for me to see how progressives can justify a no vote on the deal if they really care about their middle and working-class constituents. First, a close look at the deal reveals that it is heavily weighted on the side of the middle and working class. Of the approximately $990 billion that this deal is expected to cost, $79 billion is a result of tax cuts for the wealthy. Add another $68 billion for the estate tax changes, and you have a total of $147 billion wasted on the rich. That’s not chump change, but it amounts to less than 15% of the total. On the other hand, the total cost of extending middle income tax cuts and unemployment compensation benefits, providing a one-year payroll tax holiday, indexing the alternative minimum tax for inflation, and extending the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit and the college tuition deduction amounts to $617 billion, or more than 60% of the total. The remaining $226 billion is for business incentives for capital investments and for research and development. In sum, this doesn’t seem like such a bad deal. Second, and more important, failing to pass this deal means sticking it to out-of-work parents who need the unemployment compensation check to make it into next week, to students who need the college tuition break to make into the next semester, and to the working poor who need the Earned Income Tax Credit to make ends meet. To those who argue that if we hold out and stand on principle, we can get a better deal, I would remind them that they’re not the ones at risk. They will still be able to dine out at their favorite restaurant, return to a comfortable home, write a check for the rent or the mortgage, and fall asleep under their electric blanket. If their strategy fails, no harm done — to them. From a strictly political point of view, this is not a bad deal either. First, by putting more money in the pockets of those who will spend it quickly and by providing additional incentives for business, it clearly will help to strengthen the economy, which is, after all, the key to the President’s re-election prospects. Second, passage of this deal will open the door to possible votes during the lame duck session on the Dream Act, the Start Treaty, and “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Third, when the 2012 election comes around, Democrats will be able to point to the blatant Republican hypocrisy about the deficit, and with the economy stronger, they’ll be able to puncture the Republican argument that we shouldn’t raise anybody’s taxes in an economic downturn. Progressives may feel that extending tax cuts for the rich is immoral and that the president could have gotten a better deal. In my opinion, they are correct. But they didn’t have the courage to bring the tax cut extension to a vote before the mid-term elections, when they might have succeeded in getting a better deal. So, as they ponder their vote while seeking to get out of town in time to be able to spend Christmas opening presents with their families, they should think about those who will spend a present-less Christmas choosing between heating their home, if it hasn’t already been foreclosed, and feeding their kids. Those are the people who need this deal, and they need it now. The views expressed here are solely those of the author.

Read the full article →

Startup Orbitix Transforms Smartphones Into Remote Controls

December 7, 2010

Controlling a small ball with a smartphone is just the tip of the iceberg for entrepreneur Ian Bernstein. The 27-year-old’s Boulder, Colorado-based startup, Orbotix , has developed a robotic ball named Sphero that can be rolled around using a smartphone, in much the same manner as remote-controlled cars. “One night I was just playing with my phone and realized that you can text and download all these cool apps and check your email but why can’t you control physical devices around you?” said Bernstein, who has also used the technology to open garage doors and unlock cars. “I thought, I can make this happen and make it easier for other people to do this as well.” Bernstein, who said he’s built robots since age 12, came up with the initial idea to move physical objects with a smartphone and sought help from his co-founder and chief software architect, Adam Wilson, to figure out how to do it. Over the summer, the pair graduated from Boulder’s startup incubator program TechStars, which also invested $12,000 in the venture for a 6-percent equity stake. Orbotix has since completed an undisclosed Series A funding round, led by Boulder-based venture capital firm Foundry Group. Targeting gamers, Orbotix hopes to launch a new sumo-wrestling game using Sphero next month at the annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, barring any technical hurdles. He said Orbotix hopes to start selling the ball sometime next year for under $100. “We make money from both the physical sale of the balls, but we also make money on the application sales,” Bernstein said, adding that another possible revenue stream would be from mobile-app companies that build on top of their technology. “They can make revenue from those apps and we can take a small percentage.” Another potential use for the technology would be to help physically-challenged people control objects around them more easily, said Bernstein. He added it might be a preferable alternative to carrying a “pocket full of keys or a pile of remotes.” “We make it very easy for companies to integrate this technology and make their devices mobile-device controlled,” Bernstein said, who is working on additional Sphero games such as golf and a “cat app” that would allow users to play with their pets. “Right now we’re just focusing on entertainment devices.” THE PITCH Orbotix chief executive Paul Berberian said 70 percent of apps for the Android and iPhone mobile devices are entertainment or game-related. He added that “hot” consumer electronic devices can sell in the millions of units in the U.S. and internationally. Asia could also be a very strong market for Orbotix because of the huge interest in robotics, he said. Berberian acknowledges that there are challenges up ahead. “Trying to be in market in 2011 is actually pretty aggressive for a consumer electronics device,” Berberian said, noting the seven-employee company won’t make any money this year and joked that by the end of 2011 revenues “will be something greater than zero and probably less than $20 million.” Berberian said the company must conduct a big marketing push to get the device into major retailers and online stores. Despite the challenges, he remains optimistic. “We’re changing the way people interact with the real world.” Watch founder Ian Bernstein demonstrate Orbitix’s new tool: Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: Miles to Go Before the PMC Industry Rests

December 7, 2010

When reading about private military contractors there are two pieces of supposed conventional wisdom to keep in mind. The first, which is especially touted by PMC advocates, is that media coverage of their sector is frequently shallow, inaccurate, incomplete, out of context or wildly sensationalistic. The second is that while there may be problems things are a lot better than they used to be and are getting better yet. Those assertions are, at least partly, true. For example, the tired old canard that private security contractors are just mercenaries in drag is scurrilous and should have been laid to rest many years ago. And yes, thanks to the efforts of legislators, non-governmental organizations, reporters, academicians, lawyers, groups like the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and the Commission on Wartime Contracting and even some executive branch officials the overall environment, from an oversight and accountability perspective, is somewhat better. But that is not the entire truth. To paraphrase Robert Frost’s famous poem, “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening,” the PMC industry has promises to keep and miles to go before it rests. As a case in point, consider the remarks made last week by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), He is Chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee (DPC). He is retiring after 30 years in Congress. On December 2 he addressed the Senate and reviewed the 21 hearings the DPC has conducted on contracting waste, fraud and corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003. You can see a listing of past DPC hearings here . Sadly, none of the media seems to have covered Dorgan’s remarks. Here is a case where PMC advocates are right; media coverage is lacking. As far as I know I am the first to write on this. But his remarks merit careful reading as they illustrate how far the government has to go before it reaches a level of reasonably effective oversight of PMC. Note that I wrote reasonably effective, not perfect. You can find Dorgan’s remarks in the Congressional Record for December 2, 2010 (Senate)] [Page S8377-S8380]. I recommend you read the whole thing as it is not very long. Here are a few excerpts. I believe I have held 21 hearings as chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee over recent years–21 separate hearings on the subject of waste, fraud, and abuse in contracting in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of it still goes on in terms of the work with the Pentagon on this contracting issue. I have just received a letter from the inspector general at the Pentagon, who is looking into one of the issues of the last hearings– the issue of soldiers and contractors who were exposed to sodium dichromate, a chemical that was the subject of the movie “Erin Brockovich,” soldiers who were exposed and not told they were exposed to that deadly carcinogen and some of whom have already died. They were both National Guard and Regular Army soldiers. In the context of doing a lot of these hearings, I have discovered and I believe that throughout the last decade, we have seen the greatest waste and fraud and abuse in the history of this country. It has contributed immeasurably to this overspending and deficits and debt. I wanted to talk about that work we did, myself and my colleagues, over 21 separate hearings. At one of the hearings we held, we had testimony from a man who, in Iraq, was responsible for rooting out corruption in the Iraqi Government. His name was Judge al-Radhi. I have a photograph of Judge al-Radhi. He testified in this country. He testified that in his work as head of the anticorruption unit in Iraq, he found that $18 billion was missing, most of it American money, most of it coming from the American taxpayer. Just missing. Now, why was he here in the country testifying at a hearing I held? Because he got booted out of Iraq, and he got no support from the U.S. Government as he was booted out of Iraq, and he ended up in this country. But he is the person who was supposed to be rooting out and investigating and prosecuting waste and fraud and abuse. His investigations and the investigations of his staff–some of whom were assassinated, some of whose families were killed–show there was $18 billion–$18 billion–missing, and most of it was American money. Well, that is the story about Judge al-Radhi. We had a hearing early on in this process and talked about the issue of contractors and contracting. As you know, in the early part of the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, money was just shoved out the back door of the Pentagon, hiring contractors, very large contracts, in most cases no-bid, sole-source contracts. A very courageous woman came to testify before our committee. Her name was Bunnatine Greenhouse . She was the highest civilian official at the Army Corps of Engineers, the highest civilian official in the Pentagon in charge of contracting. Here is what she said. She objected to the way the Pentagon was doing these contracts, massive contracts, sole-source, a massive amount of money, and she watched as the normal processes were avoided and ignored. She testified in public: I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to Kellogg, Brown & Root represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career. This is an extraordinary woman, the highest civilian person in the Army Corps of Engineers. She was in charge of contracting. Two master’s degrees, came from a family in Louisiana. All three kids have advanced degrees. Her brother, by the way, was one of the 50 top professional basketball players in the last century, Elvin Hayes. Bunnatine Greenhouse. Remember that name. A very courageous woman, she saw abuses, spoke about it publicly, and for that she lost her career. She gave up her career. She was told: Resign or be fired. Let me talk about what she meant when she said the most unbelievable abuses she had seen in contracting. I want to do it starting small because then I am going to talk about billions of dollars. But at one of our hearings, we had a man who kind of looked like a bookkeeper at a John Deere dealership in a small town. He was kind of a good old guy with glasses, and he had been in charge of purchasing for Kellogg, Brown & Root or Halliburton over in Kuwait, purchasing the things our troops needed in Iraq. He came and testified, and he said: You know, as I was purchasing things, I was told by my employer, Halliburton: Don’t worry what the cost is, the taxpayer pays for this. This is cost-plus. So he told us a number of examples, big examples, but he brought a small one that I thought reflected the entire attitude. This is a towel. I ask unanimous consent to show the towel on the floor of the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DORGAN. This is a towel. Halliburton was to purchase towels for the troops, hand towels. You know, they were purchasing hand towels to be awarded to the troops. So he ordered some white hand towels for the troops, and his boss said: Well, you can’t order those white hand towels. You have to order the hand towels that have the logo of our company, “Kellogg, Brown & Root,” on the hand towel. Mr. Bunting said: Yes, but that would quadruple the cost. His boss said: That doesn’t matter. This is a cost-plus contract. Order the towels. Put our company name on them. I mean, this is such a small but important symbol of the behavior that went on for most of the decade that fleeced the American taxpayers. … We heard from witnesses about the Parsons Corporation, which got a $243 million contract to build or repair 150 health clinics in Iraq. Two years later, the money was all gone, and there weren’t 150 health clinics, there were 20. I had a doctor, a very brave, courageous physician, come to this country to testify to what he saw of the ones that were completed. Unbelievable. So what happened to the money? The American taxpayers lost the money. Did this improve the health of the Iraqis? The physician who came to testify said he went to the Minister of Health in Iraq and said to the Minister of Health: Where are those clinics, because I am told the Americans have spent $243 million to build health clinics. Where are the clinics? The Iraqi Health Minister said: Well, most of them are imaginary clinics. Yes, but the money was not imaginary. The American taxpayers’ money is gone. We had several hearings on the issue of Kellogg, Brown & Root. And I mention them because they got the biggest contract, sole-source contract. That is why they are the ones that are mentioned the most. They were providing water treatment to the military facilities in Iraq. So our solders are in military camps in Iraq, and KBR gets the water treatment contract. It turns out that the nonpotable water they were providing to soldiers in the camps that we had a hearing on was more contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River. We actually had, from a whistleblower, the internal memorandum from Kellogg, Brown & Root, by the guy who was in charge of the water contract in Iraq, and in his memorandum, he said this was a near miss. It could have caused mass sickness or death. But publicly, they said it didn’t happen. The Defense Department said it did not happen. But it did happen, and I asked the inspector general to investigate it. He did. He did a report and said that both the Defense Department and Kellogg, Brown & Root were wrong. It did happen, in fact. That kind of contaminated water was being served to the troops because the contract was a contract that was not provided for appropriately by the company. The company was taking the money and not doing what it was supposed to do with the water. By the way, in the middle of these hearings, while the Department of Defense, Department of the Army, as well as Kellogg, Brown & Root were denying it all, I got an e-mail here in the Senate from an Army doctor, a captain, and she wrote to me and said: I am a physician in the camp. I had my lieutenant follow the water line to find out what was happening because I had patients here who showed that they were suffering diseases and suffering problems as a result of contaminated water. So that came from the physician who was in Iraq on the ground. So despite all of the denials, the inspector general finally issued a report saying: No, no, the Defense Department was wrong, as was Kellogg, Brown & Root. A contract to provide water to these soldiers across Iraq at the Army camps was not being appropriately handled, and very contaminated water was going to those camps. The list is almost endless. I know there is a photograph I have shown on the floor previously because it is another contract to provide electrical capabilities to the Army camps. When you put up an Army camp, you have the need to provide electricity. And I held two hearings on this subject. This is a photograph of SGT Ryan Maseth–quite a remarkable young man, a Green Beret from Pennsylvania. He is shown there with his mother, who is a very courageous woman as well. He was killed in Iraq, but Sergeant Maseth wasn’t killed by a bullet from an enemy gun; Sergeant Maseth was killed taking a shower. He was electrocuted in a shower. And it wasn’t just Sergeant Maseth; others lost their lives as well–electrocuted in a shower, power-washing a Jeep. The fact is, what we discovered when we held the hearings was that the work that was done to provide electricity and to wire these camps was done in some cases by people who didn’t have the foggiest idea what they were doing. Third-country nationals who couldn’t speak English and didn’t know the first thing about electricity were working on these issues. The Army originally told Mrs. Maseth that her son died, they thought, because he took an electrical appliance into the shower. No, he didn’t. He was killed because shoddy electrical work was done that ended up killing this soldier. Now, Kellogg, Brown & Root denied that, as did the Defense Department. The inspector general did the report and said: Oh, yeah. Yeah, that sure did happen. In fact, let me show you what the inspector general has said. This is from Jim Childs, master electrician hired by the Army Corps of Engineers, to inspect this electrical work for which the American taxpayer paid a bundle. Jim Childs, master electrician, went in after I held the hearings. He said: [T]he electrical work performed by KBR in Iraq was some of the most hazardous, worst quality work I have ever inspected. Let me show what Kellogg, Brown & Root said: The assertion that KBR has a track record of shoddy electrical work is simply unfounded. The inspector general did the inspection. We had to redo much of the work in Iraq and Afghanistan, inspect it all and redo much of it. In the meantime, people died. We have demonstrated that there is evidence of shoddy work in a range of areas. Yet the contractors continue to be given additional contracts. For the shoddy electrical work for which some soldiers gave their lives, this contractor was not only given the money from the contract but bonus awards for excellent work. I have tried very hard to get the Pentagon to take back those bonuses, unsuccessfully. But the reason I am going through this is to point out that we have for a decade now been shoveling money out the door at a time when we are deep in debt, spending a great deal of money on the defense of this country, on the Defense Department, on the war effort, and so on. A substantial portion of that which goes out the back of the Pentagon in the form of contracts has represented the most egregious waste in the history of the country. … I started by talking about the issue of sodium dichromate. We think about 1,000 soldiers were at risk at a place in Iraq that is called Qarmat Ali. Some have died. Those soldiers who were at Qarmat Ali told of seeing something like sand blowing all over the place. It was red, however. That was the sodium diechromate, a deadly carcinogen. It is the subject over which a movie was made called “Erin Brockovich.” We have tried for a long time to get the Pentagon to be as active and involved as they should be with respect to the health and safety of those 1,000 soldiers who were potentially exposed. Like most of these issues, they have been very slow to respond. My point is twofold. One is about supporting America’s fighting men and women, doing what is right for them. There have been a number of people in the Pentagon–one of whom testified before the Armed Services Committee in the Senate and who I strongly believe knew he was not telling the truth. He was a general, as a matter of fact. There have been a number who have denied virtually all of these circumstances. Yet inspectors general have investigated and said they are wrong. Obviously, the contractor denies these things. The contractors have gotten wealthy doing this. We have had whistleblowers come in. A woman came in and told us she was working at a recreational facility in the war theater, and that is at the base. There is a facility where you can play pool and ping-pong and do various things. It was a facility with many different rooms. She worked for Kellogg, Brown & Root and she was to keep track of how many people came in because they got paid based on how many people came in. She said: What they told me to do was to keep track of how many people came in to each room, and that is what we billed the government for. If somebody came in and went through three rooms, the government was billed for three visits. I went to the people in charge and said: This is fraud. We can’t do this. We are defrauding the government. They immediately put me in detention in a room under guard and sent me out of the country the next day. It is the story of virtually all the hearings we have held. … This has been an abysmal record. In this decade, the amount of money spent on contractors–in many cases with no-bid, sole-source contracts that were negotiated under the most abusive conditions and in violation, in many cases, of rules, according to the highest civilian official in charge of contracting–has been a disgrace. This country needs to do much better. The work I and a number of my colleagues did holding these hearings has in many ways held up a spotlight and tried to shine it on the same spot. We have cajoled, embarrassed, and pushed, and I think we have made some progress. But so much more needs to be done and can be done.

Read the full article →

Divorce Investment Firms Fund Cases For A Cut

December 5, 2010

While this business is in its infancy, Balance Point is part of a bigger trend — the growing industry that invests in other people’s lawsuits, arming plaintiffs with money to help them win more money from defendants. Banks, hedge funds and boutique firms like Balance Point now have a total of $1 billion invested in lawsuits at any given time, industry participants estimate.

Read the full article →

TAX CUT MYTHS: Fact Checking The Showdown In Congress

December 4, 2010

NEW YORK — As debate rages on extending tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, politicians are making misleading statements about who might be hurt or helped. Before the midterm elections, President Barack Obama insisted that lower income-tax rates should be permanently extended only to those he called the “middle class.” People in the top two tax brackets would face higher rates. Now, with Republicans triumphant, the White House is trying to hash out a compromise so rates don’t automatically revert to their higher, pre-2001 levels for everyone in the new year. One possible deal: extending all the lower rates for a yet-undetermined period of time, perhaps two or three years. Time is running out, as is patience. In a purely symbolic vote, House Democrats on Thursday passed a bill extending lower rates for everyone but those in the top brackets. House Republican leader John Boehner said the vote ran counter to efforts to forge a deal, dubbing it “chicken crap” political maneuvering. Here are a few myths, half-truths and short-hand distortions that have marred the debate: _ Under the Obama plan, taxes will increase for families making more than $250,000. Wrong. Actually, a family could make a lot more and still not face higher taxes. Obama wants to raise the top two brackets from 33 percent to 36 percent and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The first of the two – 36 percent – is widely assumed to kick in at $250,000. Obama says that himself. But that’s not right. The higher rate would apply to families with $232,000 or more of taxable income, or what’s left after personal exemptions and deductions have been subtracted from income. Deductions can be sizable, especially for wealthy people. Think state and local taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions. The result is that a family making $300,000 or even more could have taxable income of less than $232,000. “A lot of people making more than $250,000 won’t be paying higher taxes,” says Clint Stretch, a managing principal of Deloitte Tax. So where does the $250,000 come from? That’s a number for “adjusted gross income,” which is total income minus a few things like 401(k) contributions and alimony payments. A family that had adjusted gross income of $250,000 and took two personal exemptions, plus a standard deduction instead of itemizing, would have taxable income of $232,000. So $250,000 is distorting. It refers to adjusted gross income, not total income. And most people in that income range itemize their deductions. The key number for families is taxable income of $232,000; for individuals, it’s taxable income of $191,000. Only 2 percent of U.S. households would face the 36 percent tax rate, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. _ Tax hikes would prevent small businesses from hiring. Well, maybe. But the numbers cited as proof are flimsy at best. Critics say Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the highest earners would hobble the businesses that generate most of the nation’s new jobs. Yet fewer than 3 percent of small businesses produce enough income to face the higher rates, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some Republicans note that this tiny slice accounts for half of total small-business income. So the damage to the economy would be more than you’d think, they say. But many of these businesses aren’t what most people would consider small anyway. The IRS doesn’t have a category of tax filers called “small business.” Analysts who study taxes use the next best thing, which isn’t very good at all: business owners who use their personal 1040 to file taxes instead of a corporate return. For example, some hedge funds and law firms pay their taxes through the personal returns of their individual partners. While these are lumped in as “small businesses” and would pay higher taxes, they are far different from the retail stores and small manufacturers that most people associate with the term and which would not pay higher taxes. _ Keeping Bush’s tax cuts for the top earners would swell U.S. debt by $700 billion, unconscionable in an age of budget-busting outlays. Somewhat misleading. The lower tax receipts would accumulate over 10 years – not one year. On average, that means $70 billion less for the government each year, or about 1/30th of all federal receipts. _ Bush tax cuts for millionaires average more than $100,000 a year and should be eliminated. Misleading, again. The term millionaire can include people making tens of millions or even billions. Their tax breaks are much larger. An average doesn’t capture the benefit for most millionaires. According to Deloitte Tax, a typical family making exactly $1 million pays about $50,000 less each year in federal income taxes than it would if the Obama plan were rejected and the tax cuts expired. _ The rich would pay 36 percent or more of their income in taxes under Obama’s plan. Wrong. A rich family would pay 36 percent – and 39.6 percent – only on taxable income above $232,000. The family would continue to benefit from the other four brackets established earlier this decade – 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent and 28 percent – on taxable income below $232,000. A family with taxable income of $350,000 would pay a higher rate on $118,000. The family would pay $42,480 in taxes on that amount, or $3,540 more than it pays now. Of course, for the really rich, the two higher brackets would take a bigger bite. A family making $2 million would pay about $100,000 more in taxes under Obama’s plan, according to the Tax Policy Center. _ The tax debate is all about income tax rates. Wrong. For all the attention given to higher taxes on earned income if current rates expire, the big hit to some families will come from taxes on capital gains and dividends. The government now takes 15 percent of both. If the Bush cuts aren’t renewed, the tax on long-term gains would rise to 20 percent. And the rate on dividends would shift to your income tax rate, or a maximum 39.6 percent. Under Obama’s plan, the tax on dividends would rise to 20 percent for everyone. If Congress doesn’t act to stop taxes from reverting to their pre-2001 levels, new limits would be placed on deductions and exemptions, too. And a $1,000 child credit would be halved.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: 9.8%: The Number That The Deficit Commission Left Out

December 4, 2010

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. 9.8%! It’s still all about jobs. It’s still an emergency. And the DC elite still don’t get it — or don’t care. They give us a “deficit commission” not a jobs commission. They’ve got it nice while the rest of us have it not-so-nice. Maybe we should move the Congress out of DC so they can see for themselves what is happening to America. If you visit DC (and don’t go to the “wrong” areas) you see nice buildings, nice stores, nice houses, nice hotels, nice trains, nice cars and lots and lots of nice and very expensive restaurants. You see lots of nice nicely-dressed people walking in a hurry to their nice jobs. Lots of nice jobs. Nice, very expensive houses. Nice cars. Nice life. Nice fantasy. But if you leave DC you see something very, very different. Congress clearly doesn’t see what the rest of us see . If they did, how could they possibly do the things they are doing? There is an absolute emergency going on in the country and Congress refuses to even see it. With 9.8% of us jobless — that is the official rate, not counting the people who have given up or are “under”employed or took pay cuts or whatever — Congress is debating tax cuts for the rich and cutting back on programs for the rest of us. Congress actually did act on jobs last week: with unemployment near 10% they killed unemployment benefits for people out of work more than 26 weeks! What You See Outside Of DC This fall I spent some time driving around Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. I was covering some of the events on the Keep It Made In America Tour . I am from Silicon Valley, and it’s still pretty nice right here, so the extent and breadth of the decline of our cities and towns was somewhat of a surprise to me. Of course I know what is going on, but when you actually come from somewhere that is still pretty nice and see it firsthand – and everywhere – the abrupt transition makes its point. Here is what you see in town after town. As you approach the town the first thing you encounter is the vulture circle that surrounds it. This is the circle of Wall Street-owned chains emulating the Wal-Mart model of sucking cash out of the area, and sending it to the wealthy elites who own … almost everything now. Nice stores near highway exits. National chains, all the same… Next is the circle of home equity extraction, the newer houses with the big first and second Wall Street mortgages. These houses mostly look OK — except the foreclosures with the brown lawns and grass growing in the cracks in the driveway. This area has the car dealers and strip malls that used to sell the nice cars or nice goods that feasted on those “take money out of your house” refinancings or second mortgages. Now they have nail and hair salons or are just “for lease.” Then you get to the areas of older houses, more of them boarded up than you want to see, boarded up stores on a few of the corners of the larger streets. Lots of the still-occupied houses have bars on the windows. Then you get to the old, crumbling downtown where there are many empty storefronts, some boarded, a few government buildings here and there. And somewhere is “the old plant.” One or more closed-up, fenced-off, rusting old factories or mills with broken windows, maybe part of it falling down, where the people used to work, the jobs moved to Mexico or China. Much of the country is like this now . So many of the older small towns, crumbling, the money sucked out by the Wall Street elite. The factories sold off, closed. The people can’t make a living, the towns can’t make a living, the country can’t make a living, the Wall Street elite making a killing. As I said, I am from Silicon Valley, and it’s still pretty nice here, but you can see it starting here, too . One of every four or five office or light-industrial buildings has an “Available” sign. The region has the same number of manufacturing jobs as it had when the “tech revolution” began – the rest moved to China. Even exclusive Palo Alto has empty storefronts on the main drag. It is even happening here. It will get worse. But it is not happening yet in the parts of New York and DC where the well-to-do elite spend their time . So they don’t see or feel or care what is happening to the country. And these plutocrats control all of the levers of power, making it impossible for the rest of us to participate in the system to fix the situation. Which means that people are starting to talk about moving outside of the system. Tea Party, for example. Militias, for example. Nonvoting, for example. Deficit Commission Instead of Jobs Commission? The priorities of the plutocratic DC elite do not reflect America’s problems. DC gives us a deficit commission instead of a jobs commission. Their deficit commission proposes to cut the lifeline of retirement. There is nothing about investing in our crumbling infrastructure or education or the new green industries that move us away from the oil/coal economy that is draining us and threatening our climate and coastlines. There is nothing about an economic/industrial policy to restore our competitiveness in the world economy. Perhaps moving the Congress would help, so they can see the gap that has formed between the DC elite and the rest of us. I suggest Lorain, Ohio . Then after a month, Wheeling, West Virginia . Month after that, Canton, Ohio . Next, Erie, Pennsylvania . Then move it permanently to Flint, Michigan . About the video . And, of course, the chart that no one in DC is able to understand: Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Unemployment Benefits Expire For 2 Million

December 2, 2010

Shawn Slonsky’s children know by now not to give him Christmas lists filled with the latest gizmos. The 44-year-old union electrician is one of nearly 2 million Americans whose extended unemployment benefits will run out this month, making the holiday season less about celebration than survival. “We’ll put up decorations, but we just don’t have the money for a Christmas tree,” Slonsky said. Benefits that had been extended up to 99 weeks started running out Wednesday. Unless Congress approves a longer extension, the Labor Department estimates about 2 million people will be cut off by Christmas. Support groups for the so-called 99ers have sprung up online, offering chances to vent along with tips on resumes and job interviews. Advocacy groups such as the National Employment Law Project have turned their plight into a rallying cry for Congress to extend jobless benefits. Things used to be different for Slonsky, who lives in Massillon, Ohio. Before work dried up, he earned about $100,000 a year. He and his wife lived in a three-bedroom house where deer meandered through the backyard. Then they lost their jobs. Their house went into foreclosure and they had to move in with his 73-year-old father. Now, Slonsky is dreading the holidays as his 99 weeks run out. “It’s hard to be in a jovial mood all the time when you’ve got this storm cloud hanging over your head,” he said. The average weekly unemployment benefit in the U.S. is $302.90, though it varies widely depending on how states calculate the payment. Because of supplemental state programs and other factors, it’s hard to know for sure who will lose their benefits at any given time. Congressional opponents of extending the benefits beyond this month say fiscal responsibility should come first. Republicans in the House and Senate, along with a handful of conservative Democrats, say they’re open to extending benefits, but not if it means adding to the $13.8 trillion national debt. Republicans maintain they are willing to instead use unspent money from Obama stimulus programs to foot the bill: a $12.5 billion tab for three months. Democrats argue that the extended benefits should be paid for with deficit spending because it injects money into the economy. The GOP didn’t pay any political price for stalling efforts earlier this year to extend jobless benefits that provide critical help to the unemployed – including a seven-week stretch over the summer when jobless benefits were a piece of a failed Democratic tax and jobs bill. But bad publicity because the benefits end over the holidays has long been forecast. Democrats hope that a final deal on extending Bush-era income tax cuts to the wealthy and middle class will include an agreement from Republicans to another extension of deficit-financed emergency unemployment benefits. U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the No. 3 Republican in the House, said extended benefits must be paid for now, rather than later, if they’re going to win support from fiscal conservatives. “The fact that we have to keep extending unemployment benefits shows that the economic policies of this administration have failed,” said Pence spokeswoman Courtney Kolb. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told The Associated Press on Wednesday that declining to extend the benefits would be a mistake for Congress. “This is a bad way to start off the new, incoming season of new politicians that said that they wanted to make government work for people in a better way,” she said. Even if Congress does lengthen benefits, cash assistance is at best a stopgap measure, said Carol Hardison, executive director of Crisis Assistance Ministry in Charlotte, N.C., which has seen 20,000 new clients since the Great Recession started in December 2007. “We’re going to have to have a new conversation with the people who are still suffering, about the potentially drastic changes they’re going to have to make to stay out of the homeless shelter,” she said. Forget Christmas presents. What the 99ers want most of all is what remains elusive in the worst economy in generations: a job. “I am not searching for a job, I am begging for one,” said Felicia Robbins, 30, as she prepared to move out of a homeless shelter in Pensacola, Fla., where she and her five children have been living. She is using the last of her cash, about $500, to move into a small, unfurnished rental home. Robbins lost her job as a juvenile justice worker in 2009 and her last $235 unemployment check will arrive Dec. 13. Her 10-year-old car isn’t running, and she walks each day to the local unemployment office to look for work. Jeanne Reinman, 61, of Greenville, S.C., still has her house, but even that comes with a downside. After losing her computer design job a year and a half ago, Reinman scraped by with her savings and a weekly $351 unemployment check. When her nest egg vanished in July, she started using her unemployment to pay off her mortgage and stopped paying her credit card bills. She recently informed a creditor she couldn’t make payments on a loan because her benefits were ending. “I’m more concerned about trying to hang onto my house than paying you,” she told the creditor. Ninety-nine weeks may seem like a long time to find a job. But even as the economy grows, jobs that vanished in the Great Recession have not returned. The private sector added about 159,000 jobs in October – half as many as needed to reduce the unemployment rate of 9.6 percent, which the Federal Reserve expects will hover around 9 percent for all of next year. For people like JoAnn Sampson, decisions made by Congress can seem very distant. The former cart driver at U.S. Airways in Charlotte and her husband are both facing the end of unemployment benefits, and she can’t get so much as an entry-level job. “When you try to apply for retail or fast food, they say ‘You’re overqualified,’ they say ‘We don’t pay that much money,’ they say, ‘You don’t want this job,’” she said. Sampson counts her blessings: At least her two children, a teenager and a college student, are too old to expect much from Christmas this year. Wayne Pittman has been telling his family not expect much for Christmas either. The 46-year-old carpenter, along with his wife and 9-year-old son, have stopped going to movies and restaurants and buying new clothes. With his $297 weekly checks gone, holiday gifts are definitely out. “It’s not in our budget,” Pittman said. “I have a little boy, and that’s kind of hard to explain to him. To try to let him know, certain things he’s not going to be getting.” ___ This report includes contributions from Associated Press writers Meg Kinnard, in Columbia, S.C.; Ray Henry, in Atlanta; Melissa Nelson, in Pensacola, Fla.; Lucas L. Johnson II in Nashville, Tenn.; Mark Hamrick in Washington; and Jeannie Nuss in Columbus, Ohio.

Read the full article →