In As You Like It, one of Shakespeare's characters, Jacques, said:
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages."
Shakespeare was almost right. The world is not a stage it is a sales call. Even a newborn recognizes very quickly that crying outburst bring him food and attention. Any parent that has had children go through the "terrible two's"will testify to the fact that two year olds know that throwing temper tantrums brings rewards (i.e. getting what you want). This is a child's crude way of selling her/his point. This behavior continues throughout our lives as teenagers trying to be accepted, compromising with your parents and teachers, negotiating with your spouse and children and continue until the time we die. We are constantly in sales mode throughout life.
There is not one instance in our lives that we are not negotiating for something from someone. Everything we do in our lives is governed by how well we negotiate (or communicate) our position to get someone to do something for us that we need that they might not otherwise do for us. The problem, however, is that we are poor equipped with the basic selling skills necessary to win most of the negotiations that will be presented during our lifetime.
In all our of relationships business, personal, family, religious, and social we are constantly selling. I use the word "selling" in the sense that if the world is a sales call we are always, by definition, selling. In this competitive world refining and honing your communication skills or selling skills will help you advance in all areas of your life. The next time you are tyring to convince someone to do something or to get you something try using basic selling skills. Learning basic selling skills may help you effectively convey your wishes and have someone act on those desires. And see if this starts changing your life by getting all you ask for out of life.
Remember the world is a sales call.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Too Big To Fail!
The current and past administrations have and are still using a theory that they believe is a fact that there are certain companies (i.e. enterprises) too big to fail. Their failure would result in catastrophic economic harm across the world. These enterprises include financial institutions, manufacturers, insurance companies and others.
What is the basis of this theory becoming fact? Why is bigger better and is there really any company too big to fail? We have a habit in America to "super size" everything. Big, in our American culture, has always been associated with good, with the exception of weight gain. It is not just french fires and soft drinks but in the early 60's we started to see a transformation to big stuff. As we entered the golden age where everyone could attain upper middle class living the concept of bigger is better became the course de jour for everything. We witnessed audio speakers getting bigger and bigger. Cars and trucks getting bigger. This cultural identity unique to the American perspective started spreading beyond appliances, audio equipment, and cars and soon included houses, schools, malls, airports, buildings.
So here we are with schools that encompass blocks and blocks and house thousands of students pretending that there is some magical financial maneuvering that suggest big is good because it is less expensive. Then we build huge airports where it takes longer to get through to the gate than the trip from your home to the airport. The malls went from local servicing of a community to state and then regional service capability. Wal-Mart ate up small town America because big is good and small is bad. Economies of scale was the battle cry.
We became a nation obsessed with bigger is better and this eventually spilled over to our business culture where we started building bigger and bigger companies. We rationalized it as a war in the competitive battle for global markets. If we are to win this battle big is good. We can be everywhere for everyone providing everything.
Was MCI too big to fail? Was Enron too big to fail? Was American Steel too big to fail? Was Sperry too big to fail? Is GM too big to fail? Is AIG too big to fail? Is Citi too big to fail? Is Fannie Mae too big to fail?
Failure is good. It is the counter balancing effect to capitalism. The fear of failure is what puts the fear of GOD on anyone starting or managing a business. I think the global meltdown has answered my question of is bigger better. And the answer is no. Being bigger did not prevent the meltdown or insulate these large behemoths from drowning in red ink. I think the bigger is better experiment as it relates to capitalism is dead. Big is slow. Small is fast. In complex markets speed to change and adapt is more important than size. Size is a hindrance when speed is a large part of the new market dynamics.
What is the basis of this theory becoming fact? Why is bigger better and is there really any company too big to fail? We have a habit in America to "super size" everything. Big, in our American culture, has always been associated with good, with the exception of weight gain. It is not just french fires and soft drinks but in the early 60's we started to see a transformation to big stuff. As we entered the golden age where everyone could attain upper middle class living the concept of bigger is better became the course de jour for everything. We witnessed audio speakers getting bigger and bigger. Cars and trucks getting bigger. This cultural identity unique to the American perspective started spreading beyond appliances, audio equipment, and cars and soon included houses, schools, malls, airports, buildings.
So here we are with schools that encompass blocks and blocks and house thousands of students pretending that there is some magical financial maneuvering that suggest big is good because it is less expensive. Then we build huge airports where it takes longer to get through to the gate than the trip from your home to the airport. The malls went from local servicing of a community to state and then regional service capability. Wal-Mart ate up small town America because big is good and small is bad. Economies of scale was the battle cry.
We became a nation obsessed with bigger is better and this eventually spilled over to our business culture where we started building bigger and bigger companies. We rationalized it as a war in the competitive battle for global markets. If we are to win this battle big is good. We can be everywhere for everyone providing everything.
Was MCI too big to fail? Was Enron too big to fail? Was American Steel too big to fail? Was Sperry too big to fail? Is GM too big to fail? Is AIG too big to fail? Is Citi too big to fail? Is Fannie Mae too big to fail?
Failure is good. It is the counter balancing effect to capitalism. The fear of failure is what puts the fear of GOD on anyone starting or managing a business. I think the global meltdown has answered my question of is bigger better. And the answer is no. Being bigger did not prevent the meltdown or insulate these large behemoths from drowning in red ink. I think the bigger is better experiment as it relates to capitalism is dead. Big is slow. Small is fast. In complex markets speed to change and adapt is more important than size. Size is a hindrance when speed is a large part of the new market dynamics.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Chavez at it again!
In December of 2007 I wrote a blog called "Watch out for Chavez". A basic wake up call to The US to quit ignoring the politics south of our border. Interesting how we pay more attention to countries literally a world away and ignore our own back yard. At that time Chavez was trying to change the constitution to allow him to serve for life. This failed and at that time Chavez vowed to continue the fight. Fast forward to 2009 and we watch, almost unnoticed, Chavez got one step closer to become a monarch for life by having laws passed to remove presidential term limits effectively keeping him in office until 2021.
If the US does not take him out (or anybody take him out for that matter) we have to deal with a mad "commie" that sells us 40% of our oil requirements. Not only do we make him richer every day we also give him more power over a region we need to protect and defend. With a new administration I hope they pay attention to the affairs a little closer to home.
If the US does not take him out (or anybody take him out for that matter) we have to deal with a mad "commie" that sells us 40% of our oil requirements. Not only do we make him richer every day we also give him more power over a region we need to protect and defend. With a new administration I hope they pay attention to the affairs a little closer to home.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
School vouchers
When you ask any parent that has a child in a public school about the quality of their child's school they inevitably determine that the school is of high quality. If all parents believe this where are the bad schools? I happen to live in a state that the performance of the state schools are at the bottom rung of the educational ladder. They have been like this for over 75 years and they keep blaming everyone to everything for their dismal rankings.
There is plenty of blame to go around. Critics blame the legislature, the teachers' union, the teachers, the school board, the federal government, and in the last few years the immigrant population. They are the reason for overcrowding and under performance. Forget about the last 40 years when they weren't here. But they are convenient to blame and don't speak great English anyway so how can they argue back less fear of deportation. Everyone gets blamed, but like the rest of our government, no one is held accountable. Let us not forget the parents and the students who have the most to gain and the most to loose by squandering an education. This,to me, is the root cause of failure - lack of respect and discipline for a system designed to move you forward through education a critical key to success.
So here comes the voucher discussion. The debate has long centred on issuing vouchers (i.e. taxpayer money) for school choice (i.e.private schools) to force schools to compete or else loose students thus tax payer funding. This is a free market idea. I am not a fan of government being in the free market business (look at our banks)mainly because they are so bad at how they form and deliver services, hence bad public school policy leads to bad schooling. Diverting funding from already cash-strapped schools is a no no to most if not all public school advocates. Their claim is public education is critical to the bedrock of democracy and should be supported.
There are numerous studies that indicate public schools perform just as well as private schools and moving kids to private schools does little to enhance their opportunity. We can get lost in the minutia of the debates. but my issue is one of taxation without representation. If you choose to send your child to private school why are you required to pay taxes for a system you do not use? Secondly, why can you not get a tax credit for double paying for education - tuition and taxes? Thirdly, schools are overcrowded today what would happen if all the private schools kids entered public schools? Public schools are saving millions due to the fact that private schools kids do not attend and if they did new investments would have to be made. There is a lot of public money saved due to kids attending school elsewhere. So why not give a little back. For those that believe more money for schools is the answer ignore the fact that there is no correlation between more money and smarter kids. Just as there is no correlation between money and happiness.
There is plenty of blame to go around. Critics blame the legislature, the teachers' union, the teachers, the school board, the federal government, and in the last few years the immigrant population. They are the reason for overcrowding and under performance. Forget about the last 40 years when they weren't here. But they are convenient to blame and don't speak great English anyway so how can they argue back less fear of deportation. Everyone gets blamed, but like the rest of our government, no one is held accountable. Let us not forget the parents and the students who have the most to gain and the most to loose by squandering an education. This,to me, is the root cause of failure - lack of respect and discipline for a system designed to move you forward through education a critical key to success.
So here comes the voucher discussion. The debate has long centred on issuing vouchers (i.e. taxpayer money) for school choice (i.e.private schools) to force schools to compete or else loose students thus tax payer funding. This is a free market idea. I am not a fan of government being in the free market business (look at our banks)mainly because they are so bad at how they form and deliver services, hence bad public school policy leads to bad schooling. Diverting funding from already cash-strapped schools is a no no to most if not all public school advocates. Their claim is public education is critical to the bedrock of democracy and should be supported.
There are numerous studies that indicate public schools perform just as well as private schools and moving kids to private schools does little to enhance their opportunity. We can get lost in the minutia of the debates. but my issue is one of taxation without representation. If you choose to send your child to private school why are you required to pay taxes for a system you do not use? Secondly, why can you not get a tax credit for double paying for education - tuition and taxes? Thirdly, schools are overcrowded today what would happen if all the private schools kids entered public schools? Public schools are saving millions due to the fact that private schools kids do not attend and if they did new investments would have to be made. There is a lot of public money saved due to kids attending school elsewhere. So why not give a little back. For those that believe more money for schools is the answer ignore the fact that there is no correlation between more money and smarter kids. Just as there is no correlation between money and happiness.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
What happened with the banks?
Imagine if you will that the federal government believes all Americans have the right to home ownership as an inalienable right as the pursuit of happiness. So in its infinite wisdom instructs the largest mortgage purchaser in the world, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), to require banks to loosen lending requirements to sub-par borrowers to make the dream of home ownership a reality to those who otherwise could not afford a home. As a sweetener Fannie Mae provided liquidty to insure banks and mortgage companies had plenty of easy money for what would later become and known as toxic loans. The risk was cut out of the equation by Fannie Mae's backing and so went the oversight. Loan committees that recommend granting loans for its borrowers to its bank board of directors no longer had to evaluate risk or health of the borrower. Fannie Mae would bear the brunt of the risk.
But what if CitiBank or any other AAA credit-rated company decides to do just that. Lend to people that qualify by merit (financially capable)and lend to people that do not qualify to satisfy a dream of home ownership with a quota backed by Fannie Mae. So, Citi Bank, that is AAA rated bundles the good loans with the bad loans (now known as toxic loans)to create a loan package that is sold to investors, funds, etc. The loan portfolio has a AAA rated credit grade on it due to Citi Bank even though the loans in the loan portfolio when blended (package) is sub-par at best and certainly not AAA rated loans.
Along comes Lehman Brothers who purchase the loans and leverages them 30 times against their value for borrowing purposes and at the same time have them insured by AIG which became easy because AIG believes the loan portfolio to be AAA rated quality but it was not. So as a result Lehman borrows huge sums of money aginst the bad loans. As the loans become uncollectable the market punishes Lehman and starts putting pressure on them to reduce thier lending. And eventually they run out of money. The loans are brought into question and as the market value of homes erode so does the value of the portfolio. As the loan value dimminishes more pressure is put on Lehman to shore up the portfolio usually by putting up more cash. Cash it does not have because it cannot borrow. So the cycle continues. Lehman seeks insurance releif thorugh it's policy with AIG. Now AIG unravels insuring loans that were toxic. An so does Fannie Mae.
Welcome to the free market. Where is the oversight? Where is the Congress? Where are the internal and external auditors? With freedom comes responsibility. Where are the fiscal hawks when you need them?
But what if CitiBank or any other AAA credit-rated company decides to do just that. Lend to people that qualify by merit (financially capable)and lend to people that do not qualify to satisfy a dream of home ownership with a quota backed by Fannie Mae. So, Citi Bank, that is AAA rated bundles the good loans with the bad loans (now known as toxic loans)to create a loan package that is sold to investors, funds, etc. The loan portfolio has a AAA rated credit grade on it due to Citi Bank even though the loans in the loan portfolio when blended (package) is sub-par at best and certainly not AAA rated loans.
Along comes Lehman Brothers who purchase the loans and leverages them 30 times against their value for borrowing purposes and at the same time have them insured by AIG which became easy because AIG believes the loan portfolio to be AAA rated quality but it was not. So as a result Lehman borrows huge sums of money aginst the bad loans. As the loans become uncollectable the market punishes Lehman and starts putting pressure on them to reduce thier lending. And eventually they run out of money. The loans are brought into question and as the market value of homes erode so does the value of the portfolio. As the loan value dimminishes more pressure is put on Lehman to shore up the portfolio usually by putting up more cash. Cash it does not have because it cannot borrow. So the cycle continues. Lehman seeks insurance releif thorugh it's policy with AIG. Now AIG unravels insuring loans that were toxic. An so does Fannie Mae.
Welcome to the free market. Where is the oversight? Where is the Congress? Where are the internal and external auditors? With freedom comes responsibility. Where are the fiscal hawks when you need them?
Monday, January 5, 2009
Political (in)experience
Caroline Kennedy is making her pitch to be the next senator of NY replacing Hillary Clinton as she moves to a cabinet position. I do not know whether or not Kennedy is qualified or not. This is not the topic I want to discuss but rather the schizofrenia of the American public and how short our memory is in relation to politics and the problems associated with it.
The big question "Is she qualified?" This seems to be the question the media and the pundits are fixated on. I really don't get it. We just went through 8 years of a congress receiving its lowest approval ratings from the public since inception. We had a president that has over 68% of Americans dis-approving of his job performance and we just elected a new president that only had 2 years of Seante experience. Is experience really an issue?
How can the public forget so easily? We, as Americans, want term limits to bring in fresh blood. We want to stop corruption and graft that make so many politicians wealthy ( see Bob Dole - poor Kansas farmer and came out of the senate a millionaire). We hate anyone in office that sets records for the amount of time they spent in the game. We have too many old white guys that have been at it too long but yet when it coms to what we need - a fresh, inexperienced voice- we reject it on the grounds of inexperience.
If its experience we want then recruit or elect the same hacks that have brought us to the brink of economic collapase, made us the bullies of the world, and have harmed our reputation maybe beyond repair. America, please make up your mind. We need different results by bringing in new and different prespectives. We can not get new results from the same old thing. WAKE UP!
The big question "Is she qualified?" This seems to be the question the media and the pundits are fixated on. I really don't get it. We just went through 8 years of a congress receiving its lowest approval ratings from the public since inception. We had a president that has over 68% of Americans dis-approving of his job performance and we just elected a new president that only had 2 years of Seante experience. Is experience really an issue?
How can the public forget so easily? We, as Americans, want term limits to bring in fresh blood. We want to stop corruption and graft that make so many politicians wealthy ( see Bob Dole - poor Kansas farmer and came out of the senate a millionaire). We hate anyone in office that sets records for the amount of time they spent in the game. We have too many old white guys that have been at it too long but yet when it coms to what we need - a fresh, inexperienced voice- we reject it on the grounds of inexperience.
If its experience we want then recruit or elect the same hacks that have brought us to the brink of economic collapase, made us the bullies of the world, and have harmed our reputation maybe beyond repair. America, please make up your mind. We need different results by bringing in new and different prespectives. We can not get new results from the same old thing. WAKE UP!
Playing the race card
It has been a while since I decided to write again and much has happened. We have a new black president and many believe this to be good. I think so too but also see this change bringing in a lot of discussion. As part of a story I saw some interesting items with the newsheads in relation to the Illinois Senate seat vacated by Obama. With the Illinois governor possibly headed to jail his choice for the senate has been greeted with less than enthusiasm. But my issue isn't the governor it is the injection of race into the conversation. This discussion really sums up the differences between Blacks and Hispanics and the differences in our value systems. I am not sure who brought up the race card but I have heard it from many sides. Side A say it has to be a Black because a Black held the seat. (so what?) Side B says it should be the most qualified, which makes me think about another senate seat in New York where one of the Kennedy's is vying for top pole position.
Why does this situation define differences between Blacks and Hispanics is because there is another senate seat be given up due to another appointment in Colorado held by a Hispanic, Senator Ken Salazar, yet he is being replaced by a white person by a white governor. Should Hispanics be playing the race card? Are Hispanics playing the race card and insisting on a Hispanic replacement so as not to add to the white washing of the senate? According to what I see and hear this is not the case. As a matter of fact there is little discussion in the "liberal" press or the conservative press. (I liked it much better when we only had one press). Does this mean that Hispanics have no power to command and demand a Hispanic replacement? Or does this mean that whites and blacks do not really care what Hispanics say and do with no one paying attention or cares? In either case Hispanics just do not play the race card a lesson all can learn.
Why does this situation define differences between Blacks and Hispanics is because there is another senate seat be given up due to another appointment in Colorado held by a Hispanic, Senator Ken Salazar, yet he is being replaced by a white person by a white governor. Should Hispanics be playing the race card? Are Hispanics playing the race card and insisting on a Hispanic replacement so as not to add to the white washing of the senate? According to what I see and hear this is not the case. As a matter of fact there is little discussion in the "liberal" press or the conservative press. (I liked it much better when we only had one press). Does this mean that Hispanics have no power to command and demand a Hispanic replacement? Or does this mean that whites and blacks do not really care what Hispanics say and do with no one paying attention or cares? In either case Hispanics just do not play the race card a lesson all can learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)