Here's another comment on a NYTimes op-ed, this time one from Gail Collins called "Running on Empty." I think she got it right, and here's what I had to say in reaction:
It’s clear that neither most politicians in this country nor the people who elect them heard what President Obama said in his inaugural address: “... in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.” And “... we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”
Sorry to say, Mr. President, we haven’t declared an end to pettiness, and our politics take place in the adult-free zone. We are a nation of cable chatter and radio bombasts where intelligence and facts have little room in the conversation. Personally, I long for a political debate that is civil and rational rather than one that is confrontational and emotional.
That may be a generalization, but it’s not too far from accurate when we are still paying attention to the rants of Sarah Palin, and the great majority of people in this country have no idea who Paul Krugman is. So I think you got it right, Gail, about our politics, and it’s not a pretty picture.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
A Theory of Business
On occasion, I like to submit a comment on an op-ed that I've read in The New York Times. On Friday, I felt so motivated to comment on Paul Krugman's piece "Don't Cry for Wall Street." Here's what I had to say:
I have a theory about business, including the banking business. Here it is: Businesses do not exist to make a profit; they exist to serve the needs of their customers and the larger society of which they are a part.
To the degree they do that, they will earn the means to be around tomorrow to continue doing it. When businesses exploit their customers and ignore the good of society, they ultimately undermine their own viability. In other words, I see profit for what it really is: as the way to measure the quality of a business's service to others--and so are its losses. When Toyota was making money and GM was losing money, what do you think that said about the two companies and what they were doing for their customers?
With that said, a lot of banking businesses have made tremendous profits by ignoring this idea, especially the part about paying attention to the good of society. By doing this, they certainly brought the economy to its knees a couple of years ago—and we still have a long way to go to recover.
Even now some banks remain overly profitable. I sincerely doubt that Goldman Sachs’ profits are a measure of the quality of its service to others. Those folks know how to game the system, and as long as they and others like them have the ability to do that, we will all pay the price. And by all, I'm including the banks themselves, as they will come tumbling down just like the rest of us eventually.
That's why regulation and rules are important. They give us a level playing field and help balance the clear asymmetry of information and power that exists today. In reality, it's not Wall Street vs. Main Street; it's Wall Street and Main Street, and we're all in this together.
Keep raising your voice of sanity, Paul. I for one greatly appreciate it.
I have a theory about business, including the banking business. Here it is: Businesses do not exist to make a profit; they exist to serve the needs of their customers and the larger society of which they are a part.
To the degree they do that, they will earn the means to be around tomorrow to continue doing it. When businesses exploit their customers and ignore the good of society, they ultimately undermine their own viability. In other words, I see profit for what it really is: as the way to measure the quality of a business's service to others--and so are its losses. When Toyota was making money and GM was losing money, what do you think that said about the two companies and what they were doing for their customers?
With that said, a lot of banking businesses have made tremendous profits by ignoring this idea, especially the part about paying attention to the good of society. By doing this, they certainly brought the economy to its knees a couple of years ago—and we still have a long way to go to recover.
Even now some banks remain overly profitable. I sincerely doubt that Goldman Sachs’ profits are a measure of the quality of its service to others. Those folks know how to game the system, and as long as they and others like them have the ability to do that, we will all pay the price. And by all, I'm including the banks themselves, as they will come tumbling down just like the rest of us eventually.
That's why regulation and rules are important. They give us a level playing field and help balance the clear asymmetry of information and power that exists today. In reality, it's not Wall Street vs. Main Street; it's Wall Street and Main Street, and we're all in this together.
Keep raising your voice of sanity, Paul. I for one greatly appreciate it.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Maureen Dowd and No Drama Obama
On Sunday, January 10, Maureen Dowd did another of her numbers on Obama to which I could not resist responding. Here's what I had to say:
It’s so refreshing to have a smart guy in charge who keeps cool and manages well. It’s so refreshing to have a guy who examines the facts and makes reality-based decisions.
It’s not refreshing that we still haven’t figured out how to completely stop young aspirational/operational crazies from Al Queda from getting on American airplanes with dangerous materials.
But that is as much a failure of Congress not passing legislation to implement the 9/11 commission suggestions as it is in the executive branch.
No drama works for me. I wished it worked for Congress as well (not to mention the occasional columnist). We have too much junk politics, too much fake drama, in this country. Please refrain from encouraging more.
In fact, next time you have the urge to complain about Obama’s style, turn that urge on its head and tell readers why no drama is good and why junk politics is bad. I’m pretty sure you would quickly be rewarded with the number 1 spot on the most e-mailed list if you did.
John Woods
It’s so refreshing to have a smart guy in charge who keeps cool and manages well. It’s so refreshing to have a guy who examines the facts and makes reality-based decisions.
It’s not refreshing that we still haven’t figured out how to completely stop young aspirational/operational crazies from Al Queda from getting on American airplanes with dangerous materials.
But that is as much a failure of Congress not passing legislation to implement the 9/11 commission suggestions as it is in the executive branch.
No drama works for me. I wished it worked for Congress as well (not to mention the occasional columnist). We have too much junk politics, too much fake drama, in this country. Please refrain from encouraging more.
In fact, next time you have the urge to complain about Obama’s style, turn that urge on its head and tell readers why no drama is good and why junk politics is bad. I’m pretty sure you would quickly be rewarded with the number 1 spot on the most e-mailed list if you did.
John Woods
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
