More or Less?

After listening to Obama's speech regarding the future of the war in Afghanistan, first I'll say I don't necessarily disagree with the plan. Having said that, the overarching theme behind the current administration's policies seems to be "more now, less later". More troops now, less troops later. More stimulus now, less deficit later. More health care coverage now, less health issues later. When you break down the individual issues and assess the situations on a case-by-case basis, the proposals make sense.

To counter rising insurgency amongst Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, more resources are needed. On the surface, this "surge" strategy sounds eerily familiar to that embarked upon by the Bush administration (note we never heard Obama use the word "surge" in his address at West Point).

To counter rising unemployment, freezing of the credit markets, and a lack of business & consumer spending, the economy needed a stimulus. Anywhere from 500k to 1m jobs have been sustained, GDP was held buoyant (about 3-4% of GDP was attributed to the stimulus, and we still saw a contraction), and liquidity was pumped in the marketplace due to the stimulus and other measures enacted by the fed.

To counter rising health care costs and the number of uninsured individuals in the U.S, health care needed reform. The current bill is still under debate, yet the underlying proposal outlines a strategy to cover more individuals now, to lower the overall health burden on society.

So yes, maybe on a case-by-case basis more is needed. More support now, less problems later. But when you take a step a back and look at the broad reality of the Obama administration and it's proposals, it seems that they're not addressing the root of the problem. They're not tackling the underlying issues, but rather trying to clean-up the aftermath of dramatic failures in policy and leadership. I see the US standing beneath a dam. A dam with cracks that we try to fill with barely chewed gum. One crack temporarily stopped, another spouts out.

All Obama's carefully crafted composition sounds reminiscent of his campaign - lofty, optimistic, hopeful, forward looking. I heed and appreciate that. But at what point can we stop delaying to the future? At what point can we say more is not less? More is More.

Name that Decade (00's)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/15segal.html

In response to this NY Times article, and the end of decade, here are some name suggestions for this decade:

-Decade of Boom and Doom
-King of Pop
-Death of Pop

Let's hear some names...

Socializing at Work

“People who surf the Internet for fun at work – within a reasonable limit of less than 20% of their total time in the office – are more productive by about 9% than those who don’t.”

key word reasonable. How do you measure a 9% increase in productivity?

The Fallibility of a Government Driven Economy

You’re the investor looking at the two largest companies in the world:

One has a proven track record of financial viability and productivity. With a great HR department and focus on employee driven production, this company has consistently fermented growth and output from the lowest levels of production. Due to continuous turnover at the top, executive leadership has always driven the strategic direction rather than the production itself. However, in recent years there has been a fundamental shift in leadership style, elements of production, and a ballooning debt burden on the balance sheets. The ever-changing turnover in leadership has led to failed strategies and impossible goals.

The other has consistently maintained a top-down decision driven model. Executive leadership has a heavy hand in the production output. With a clear vision and minimal change at the top, they have been able to effectively and consistently implement their asset-driven strategy. Large profit margins have led to loads of cash on the books, and continue to drive cap-ex and investment within. That said, employees are still waiting for their piece of the prize. HR? What HR? Employees are more concerned with humane resources than human resources. Until recently, this company shunned foreign investment within, and rejected outside opinion. However, they have started to take note of what others are saying, and even responding with demands.

This oversimplified view of the US vs. China highlights an important point – leadership. The political system of the US is centered around change and turnover. This is the pivotal driving force behind the success of democracy. If we (the people electing you) don’t like you, we won’t vote for you. Simple. Problem is, when we (our forefathers) setup the constitution with the idea of democracy, they never intended for the central government to have as much economic influence and power as we have come to see. The foundation of capitalism is to let the market dictate economics, not the government. If I were a shareholder in a company, and knew that there was a new CEO and BOD every 4 years, I’d be damned if I let them decide how to spend money and drive financial viability. Talk about a moral hazard! What opportunity will they have to see through their vision, their decisions? None, and if it flops, oh well, they’re already out of office, they’re gone! The fundamental weakness of a democracy is an economically powerful government. Never has the United States seen such amounts spent by the government. China has also seen an increase in government stimulus in recent months due to the dire economic environment. However, its leadership has and will be on the ship’s deck throughout the storm. They won’t be jumping overboard anytime soon – which bodes well to all the passengers on board.