Comments

I am pretty sure you shouldn't look for the invite to speak to Citi et al this year, Tom. Wait . . . maybe they need you now more than ever.

Posted by anon at April 7, 2008 9:18 AM

While I truly enjoy these indictments of the un-smart, it makes me want to ask: Tom, who's doing it right today? Is this just a flu epidemic, or bubonic plague?

Is small business going to jump into the breach left when the big guys collapse, or simply be crushed by falling debris?

Just read that California is 99.2% 'small business'—a few of them are my clients and I honestly wonder how they'll be doing a year from now.

Posted by Joel D Canfield at April 7, 2008 10:23 AM

Well said Tom – can I ask you - did these people pass their maths exams at junior school?

I recall reading an article 18 months ago in the Daily Mail (UK) that informed us how the wives and girlfriends of London Financial dealers in the City of London were finding it difficult to find new ways of spending just the bonuses of their other half. I have trouble taking this stuff seriously while 20,000 people – mainly children - die every day – due to poverty on our one planet. I refuse to accept these obscene payments as fairness. As Bono said ‘This is a justice issue’

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 7, 2008 10:41 AM

We have a culture in which "If you're not growing, you're going backwards."

We have a culture in which you are expected to smash all records, every quarter or you'll be written off.

We have a culture in which if you admit to any kind of personal failing, you'll certainly be personally excoriated and probably sacked and/or sued as well.

We have a culture in which quiet, modest leadership is ridiculed as not being out there on the edge. You have to be larger than life, loud and outspoken.

We have a culture in which everything has to happen RIGHT NOW and virtually no-one is prepared to play the long game.

We have a culture in which style long since mattered more than substance.

And we're surprised that these insanities happen? I'm amazed the whole edifice even holds itself together, at all!

Posted by Mark JF at April 7, 2008 10:42 AM

It goes back to basic issues and training - if there isn't a sound rational foundation for your action you can't build. Anything founded on smoke & mirrors will fall.
But as long as the architects of these structures are "rewarded" with tens of millions they will continue.

Posted by Bob Smith at April 7, 2008 11:05 AM

There's a school of thought that says a great leader (in this instance presumably Weill) will ensure that any successor will be weaker (in order to preserve his legacy of greatness), and ensure to never be outshone. It's technically in the subconscious.

Prince is by trade an attorney not a leader, or even a manager.

Posted by Alex Andrei at April 7, 2008 11:48 AM

Tom,

In the late 80's I worked at Travenol Labs (e.g. Baxter --- I think it was mentioned in someone's book on Excellence). Vern Loucks decided to get bigger by acquiring American Hospital Supply, a cultural miss match. The rank and file thought it was a dumb idea. He got a big bonus. I got laid off with a lot of other people. Baxter then figured out it wasn't working and divested a lot of business. He got another big bonus.

So how do I can join this club? Actually I think I much prefer James Sinegal's style at Costco.

Posted by Bruce Fryer at April 7, 2008 12:19 PM

At the end of the day the universal truth that you cannot get something for nothing always wins out in the end.

Mankind seems to forget this on a regular basis.....

I can remember about 10 years ago I did farely well out of some share options I had with the company I worked for. We all (included me) celebrated. However I think I was about the only person around who was thinking basically I haven't really earned this - I got lucky. I wondered what the down side to the economy would be if lots of people started getting basically free money. Sure enough it wasn't long before heavy restrictions appeared on the accounting of share options........

Posted by PaulH at April 7, 2008 2:11 PM

Wow! Brilliance is often used indiscriminately. But this post is sheer brilliance. And to the point about "what goes must come down," I offer these lyrics:

What goes up must come down
Spinning wheels got to go round
Talking about your troubles it's a crying shame
Ride a painted pony
Let the spinning wheel spin

...

Someone is waiting just for you
Spinning wheel is spinning true
Drop all your troubles by the river side
Catch a painted pony
On the spinning wheel ride

...

What goes up must come down...

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 7, 2008 2:22 PM

I might be wrong but did I not see somewhere that...

ING had written a number of mortgages (100,000?) and...

ING kept all of them, selling or securitizing nary a one and...

ING have had 15 defaults.

Posted by s g at April 7, 2008 2:41 PM

Tom

The real reason for you not to smile is you/we will not learn anything about what is happening today by an analysis based on our moribund C20th theories of organisation. These failures come from people who have done exactly what you and I have always preached to clients and anyone who would listen to us. These failures come from people who had a go - people who took action in the new flat world of the internet. These people discarded past practice and instead went full tilt at a new global economy with "fire, aim, ready" tattooed on the insides of their eyeballs...

Some may have been negligent, some may have be less than measured about what their rewards should be, and some may have been foolish not to try to understand what the quants meant when they showed them the global networked (virtual assets based) lending model they were using.

But returning to the big picture - these failures have little or nothing to do with the old C20th models of organisation as you suggest here, nor do they related to big versus small, nor to any type of battle of centralised versus decentralised systems, nor are they about simplicity versus complexity, etc. These failures are simply the first in a very long line of failures in what are the very early prototypes of some very innovative C21st models of organisation.

The 'full on' prototyping of these C21st models started within financial services because they were the first to run new breed global networked systems with new breed global networked products - one is what we now call sub-prime lines of credit or loans. They fell over as prototypes often do! But not everything within those prototypes was senseless or displayed malice of forethought....

Sorry Tom, these failures have nothing to do with the theories, recipes, and warnings that you have given us all over the past 25 years. These are the prototype failures of a new financial services industry that will be global, networked, and huge by 2050. They will all learn from these prototypes and they will come back with better examples of them. In the long run we will all benefit from these mistakes...

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at April 7, 2008 5:06 PM

Fundamental truth: Derivatives are not a business.
Fundamental truth: Business paper is not a business.
Fundamental truth: Business measurements are not for gambling- but for measuring real performance.
The Wall Street Casino won't be closed until we have campaign finance reform, because the regulators are sucking at the same tit.
I ran for Congress- talking about things like this, and obviously, no one got it.
Shoulda stuck to a chicken in every pot line of BS.
Thanks for speaking the truth Tom.

Posted by David Esrati at April 7, 2008 5:37 PM

Can I suggest something that I haven't seen anyone address lately? What about physics envy? The desire by these mathematically oriented economists to mimic their physicist friends in their precision and predictability is what led to a lot of these disastrous economic models. Charlie Munger addressed this several years ago in one of his talks.

Posted by Doug at April 7, 2008 9:59 PM

Doug, I agree. Precision is not a substitute for accuracy. One can be more accurate (this will implode) without precision (3Q 20XX).

Also, economic models have several problems. First, they have simplifying assumptions. Second, they are based on historical data. This is a problem with the changes that have happened in the markets over time. Where is the historical data over several business cycles given the current market conditions, variables, types of securities, ease of international capital flows, etc? A third problem is a particular pet peeve of mine: risk is defined as historical volatility. This might be a great first order approximation, but nothing more than that. Of course, I had to mimic and lie to pass my undergraduate exams.

Another problem is the culture on Wall Street. I have a relative that got a PhD in math but could not get a job. He got an MBA Finance. As one of the early "rocket scientists" on Wall St, he was fired for writing a memo pointing out the errors and over-simplification of the firm's proposed modeling. He focused on assumptions that quite simply were inaccurate and that he felt were designed to get the desired outcome.

There are many other contributing factors, some listed above. The problem is that there are so many different ways to contribute to the problems that the structure was weakened from many sides and then failed, perhaps catastrophically.

Posted by s g at April 7, 2008 11:06 PM

So the point has been raised that this is about go getting types defining the new economy and this experiment went a bit wrong. The problem is that this is global in impact.

One of the things I find facinating is not how business deals with success and go getting people types. It's how business consistently fails to use so called negative people types effectively. The people who can point out flaws in the logic, argument and plans. Trust me you need both.

Posted by PaulH at April 8, 2008 1:48 AM

What we are seeing appears to have more to do with old human issues of not turning that "meter dialed down even a little bitsy bitgreed," and complicity aligned with that PT Barnum quote of that sucker being born every minute. Coupled with this is the safety net of bailouts and a naïve trust in the professional. (There is responsibility all around.) The "derivatives on derivates on derivates" probably has less to do with a new economy and experience and more to do with the inability to turn that meter dialed down.

There is also something else to consider here. I am afraid that when we have arrived at a certain level of power, perceived intellectual prowess, and financial security there may also be the potential of not facing real world issues. Many philosophers had this same problem of being isolated from the real world and thus conceiving notions that may not have had any basis in what was happening in the real world.

The day to day of work can become a game of sorts that is influenced by mental machinations, conquests, privileges, and influence through perceived notions real or not and a reckless thoughtlessness of the greater global impact of decisions. But unlike the philosopher who may or may not have had great impact on society, those who are playing in this arena are indeed playing serious games.

These games are serious and central, though they do not appear as such to the players. This truth is veiled in inner contradictions and complications. I have a friend who simply cannot see certain seemingly obvious game playing and he is a good guy. It is probably possible to be a world class economist, Wall Street professional etc., and be utterly duped by your own made up derivatives. One needs only to lose touch with the reality of our choices and their impact. And, there is that fine line between fantasy and reality. Who’s watching?

The derivatives are no longer derivatives for they have not derived out of anything substantial, anything meaningful save the game which has been played by the most astute and elite of their profession. I do not put these adjectives in quotes, for I believe that many here are indeed able, most capable; the question is will they avail themselves to consider the local, national and global impact of such serious games? Speculation is not investment.

I appreciate Joel D Canfield’s comment that essentially asks, “Where do we go from here?”

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 8, 2008 7:37 AM

I think it's a trifle unfair to put all the blame on the financial services industry. Surely those taking out crazy mortgages are to blame too? Surely their desire for half a million dollar mansions played a part?

Posted by Chetan Dhruve at April 9, 2008 4:08 AM

Chetan..yes, that had something to do with it. However I would broaden that out to say both sides desire for bigger mansions is behind it. I do grow concerned that the actual base of USA these days is capitalism and profit, trumping democracy and freedom. A real big mess.

Posted by Mike Neiss at April 9, 2008 5:20 AM

Chetan Dhruve....you make a great point. If you read the thread here and other places on this blog, personal responsibility is big. We're with you for sure.

Another point...when we live in a society where bigger is always better and where the external is far greater than the internal(image over substance, though it's very possible to have both), the climate for such a mess is ripe.

In any event, the global economy hasn't seen the worst yet. I read yesterday that the estimated loss is expected to be close to $945 billion worldwide before its all over.

That dial that TP spoke of needs to be turned down just an itsy bitsy teeny weeny bit (with these numbers such a marginal turn would be great indeed!) and we all need to take personal responsibility and consider the importance of who is influencing you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 9, 2008 5:31 AM

Mike...WOW! That's a great leap. While I understand your concern, this cannot not be possible with the complicit or implicit will of the people. In the US, "We the People" must be vigilant and take personal responsibility.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 9, 2008 5:40 AM

May I point you all at this rather good comment on common sense and complexity in London's Financial Times today:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f442410-056e-11dd-a9e0-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Posted by Mark JF at April 9, 2008 6:48 AM

Chetan / Judith - personal responsibility should play a large part. However, I don't think it's quite that black and white:

When loans are sold to people who clearly have neither the means to repay them nor the intellect to understand what they are getting into, then the question of mis-selling arises.

When lenders are prepared to take huge hits to their profits but never (or rarely) to take action against people who lie, cheat and abuse credit then the question of "encouragement" arises. The attitude seems to be, "We wouldn't want to admit our checks and controls went awry or we might get in trouble with the regulator or sued by someone for over-lending." (I'm not saying it makes the original crime any less worse or at all excusable, just more likely.)

Lenders and borrowers alike should take responsibility for their actions, or lack of. To Judith's point ("We the People" must be vigilant and take personal responsibility): businesses are not faceless robots but living entities run by We the People whose personal responsibility doesn't stop when we clock on.

Posted by Mark JF at April 9, 2008 7:06 AM

MarkJF...when we speak of individual and collective responsibility on ethics and wrongdoing, is it often black and white. Though motives are questionable; actions are not. This is the importance of a system of law. The actions of the borrowers and lenders place the responsibility at the feet of both.

It is not a matter as to what powers business; it is quite obvious that business is powered by people. But the significance to the personal refers to that which is individual. We must be personally responsible for our own actions. There will forever be the personal and public, the individual and collective. It is not a matter of where one ends and another begins; it is a matter of our consistent actions. Consistent actions points to responsibility.

Our actions may also point to the power of influence and the knowing of the powerful to bend the people in the direction it wants through marketing, advertising etc. People lead yourselves! Be responsible. Corporations are a part of the collective, whether private or public. Those who are a part of such entities should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law when wrongdoing is determined.

Let there by outcry! When practices do not break the law but are blatantly unethical, this should be known by the masses, broadcasted by all forms of media, including Youtube. I've actually enjoyed many of these videos that speak to such practices in such a way that sink in profoundly, though I have laughed hysterically.

To those who have been following this blog for any period of time it will be apparent that responsibility, individual and collective, has been a huge part of our discussions. Lead yourself! Be responsible to the voices you listen to, to those that influence you. There are many out there; which voices are you listening? Which ones form your sense of identity? Which ones affect or hinder your purpose? This is my point! Be personally responsible. Taking such a view does not exonerate criminal behavior or unethical unscrupulous scurrilous business practices. It does, however, empower individuals to be vigilant and thoughtful.

"We the People" includes all people but it is the collective consciousness that together we can establish unions and make change. It is the notion that tyranny will not prevail. It is the notion that independence prevails, though there be many. E Pluribus Unum. Out of Many, One. So, this "We the People" powered by the majority of the people, being neither complicit or implicit in dupery, nor foolish or greedy will rise and form “A More Perfect Union” anywhere in the world.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 9, 2008 8:47 AM

I am concerned that the issue is beyond personal responsibility. I think that the responsibility being suggested has been and will continue to be filtered out through market, organizational et al dynamics. People with it in the dimension we are talking about are not hired, promoted or successful in the field.

Posted by s g at April 9, 2008 11:50 AM

Judith and Mike, I completely agree. MarkJF, no doubt there were people who were mis-sold mortgages (ie, people who were suckered into these deals).

What I'm saying is that equally, I am sure there's a section of the population that said, "What the heck, I know I can't repay, but at the worst, they'll take back the house. But if house prices keep going up, as they seem to be doing, I'm going to make some big bucks!"

The problem isn't that they didn't know what they were getting in to. The problem is that they got way too greedy. It's not easy to keep a lid on your greed when people around you seem to be making easy money out of their houses. In fact in this case, a lack of greed probably came across as a lack of financial ambition. And who wants to look contented (ie, a loser)?

The real problem is that the home-owners never truly expected their houses to be in danger. So when things went awry, it became easy to shout and scream at an easy target (the financial services industry) because after all, while there may be laws against industry's greed, there are no laws against home-owners' greed.

(I do not work in the financial services industry in any capacity.)

Posted by Chetan Dhruve at April 9, 2008 12:53 PM

Agree here Chetan...I personally know people who have third mortgages on their homes, when I really doubt they were credit worthy enough for the first mortgage. Personal responsibility should be factored in. I don't like bailouts with public dollars...period...whether to corporations or individuals. And don't even get me going on farm subsidies :)

Posted by Mike Neiss at April 9, 2008 3:34 PM

Chetan...I too "do not work in the financial services industry in any capacity." There are many reasons for our actions. Individually, we need to understand what these reasons are and act the next time in accordance to make better decisions.

sg...if this is "beyond personal responsibility," we should at least begin there; we should, in fact, always begin there. Taking reponsibility for our actions are important to better ensure that bad decisions will be lessened. This to me is personal responsibility. Stricter regulations of some sort are probably also needed.

The problem with personal responsibility after the fact is that so many worldwide have been affected by the decisions of many individuals, lenders and borrowers alike.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 9, 2008 3:37 PM

Amen Judith

Posted by Mike Neiss at April 9, 2008 9:20 PM

Judith: I agree; it is a good place to start.

My thinking and point is that at some point we need to ask if the characteristics that we mean by personal responsibility are attracted to the industry, if the industry and organizations are open to them, if the industry and organizations attracts, recruits, rewards, keeps, promotes, values, protects et cetera, these characteristics.

Do these characteristics hunt in that arena or are they hunted and eaten? My observation over the past 25 years is the latter, not the former. I was hoping that the story of my relative would illustrate this.

I would love to figure out a way to change that but have failed miserably to date.

Posted by s g at April 9, 2008 9:28 PM

sg...I appreciate your comment. Personal responsibility is just that...personal. It is not based on whether the organization or industry values or devalues our personal sense of integrity, honesty, respect, honor etc. Though, it would be generally good to aspire to such characteristics as a whole.

People generally do not appreciate others who either exalt their values systems above others or those who set their standards and snub their nose at those who do no quite meet their mark. Often this is real or perceived when we are constantly pointing out the errors, shortcomings or dislikes of others. Simply being the change you wish to see may have a greater impact than insisting and expecting others to respond to our value systems or our personal sense of responsibility.

While it is very probable to expect that the aforementioned values would be honored, it is also probably that they won’t. But to insist that others relate to our personal value systems will never work. Nor, will our consistently calling things out. It would be my hope that such characteristics are valued, but if they are not it is always my great honor to try and exemplify these characteristics in my daily work. This is personal responsibility to me.

The idea of being hunted and eaten in an arena that does not presumably value honorable characteristics seems rather weak to me. There will always be politics and other matters to consider. There are as many personalities and variances in strengths and weaknesses of character as there are people. There are also differences in skills and abilities. Personal responsibility does not focus outwardly, but inwardly. Hopefully, leaders will create teams that will enhance the skills of knowledge workers from one team member to another.

Yes, there is most certainly the responsibility of leaders to facilitate a healthy work environment, but it is the interrelations of knowledge workers that will make the difference. Industry and organizations are powered by people. They are not independent entities. Industries and organizations are changed by people. Let the change first begin with you.

I fully understand that you cannot alone fight an organization on your own. Try being the change you wish to see and aligning yourselves with others that share your passion for excellence and who believe in doing work that matters. From this, will come that collective body poised for change. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” (Margaret Mead)

It is also my gut feeling that you and your uncle are missing the all-important political component in business. Remember TP’s slide: “If you don’t LOVE POLITICS…find another life, (Don’t pretend to be a leader.”) Your figuring out a way to change from being the hunted or eaten begins with you.

Generally, dealing with others in environments that require all to be in a particular space over a particular time span i.e., a competitive work 9-5 work environment, is not for the faint of heart. Such environments are certainly not for the perpetual naïve either. I offer these words in full recognition that I do not know your particular situation or environment. I offer them not as truth but as mere thoughts. All the very best, sg, to you and yours.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 9, 2008 11:14 PM

I think we all know or know of people who've abused the ease with which you could get credit prior to the recent crunch. Putting aside personal dislikes for public subsidy, bail-outs etc, what concerns me most is the failure by government and financial institutions alike to hold anyone accountable. Relying on personal accountability is a rather impractical and utopian standpoint. You could predict some of the problems when we live in an era where people say, "There's so many people abusing credit and getting away with it, no-one ever gets penalised for it and someone will bail me out if I get into trouble."

I don't want to see a return to Victorian debtor prisons, far from it. I do want to see personal responsibility enforced and if that means barring company officers who failed to ensure adequate control or prosecuting borrowers who made fraudulent applications, it should happen.

We're quick to claim (often spurious) "rights" but slow to acknowledge responsibility and to hold ourselves and others accountable.

Posted by Mark JF at April 10, 2008 2:55 AM

What is personal responsibility if it does not lead to personal accountability? And...please… show me the fundamental difference in both? There probably isn't a vast difference. Being responsible is being accountable. If we properly judge ourselves others, others will not judge us, at least to the point where it really matters. It is not merely a question of holding people accountable. The greater point is to let responsibility begin with me.

For me, the greater question to start with is that we hold ourselves accountable. And when we have missed the mark, purposefully or unwittingly, there should be measures in place that will hold us accountable and realign processes all along. Maybe it would have been good to stagger such instruments throughout to see their probability of success rather than have so many defaults at the same time.

Perhaps such instruments should have been given more discriminately. Some entrepreneurs and small business owners may have been able, for example, to afford such a loan in the beginning, but as the economy began to slide could no longer do so. If these were given to the likes of these the default numbers may be far lower. This would be the difference from others who simply got into such situations on a wink and a prayer. In any event, there are still personal responsibilities to consider for all. But these "no doc" instruments, given to all indiscriminately, was undoubtedly the problem.

I see the view of personal responsibility and accountability intrinsically linked. The sense of the former being "rather impractical and utopian" is precisely the problem that may have gotten us to this grand mess, the sense of the lender and borrower alike. Personal responsibility should NOT be considered as impractical and utopian. But such responsibility should be greatly valued and encouraged.

We need to halt and set right the mindset that there is no personal responsibility. If given the choice between being on the planet with those who consider personal responsibility as "rather impractical and utopian," and those who do not, I would much rather be with the former than the latter. Beam me up!

It seems that MarkJF's argument takes several sides simultaneously. I understand this. It is good to see, however, that personal responsibility is eventual valued above all else and that accountability can prevail as a natural progression, especially with certain legal and ethical measures in place to encourage our higher better selves.

It would be rather naïve to think that loop holes are not inherently a part of most systems. But those who exploit them to the fullest extent, allowing for personal gain for that certain elite without consideration of the whole, should be held accountable and sent to that Victorian prison so mentioned. I would be for this. Well...maybe not exactly.

Exploitation for personal benefit to the detriment of the millions worldwide should be seriously dealt with. This was my point earlier about the importance of the law for those wittingly devise schemes or exploit loop holes to the detriment of the whole. If these ideas are “rather impractical and utopian” we all need to be beamed up; what we have now is a big mess and another and another will be soon on the way.

Let there be personal responsibility and let it begin with me.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 10, 2008 6:18 AM

I love the idea of personal responsiblity. GK Chesterton wrote a letter to The Times in answer to their question – What is wrong with the world?

GKS letter was the shortest in the history of The Times newspaper. It read as follows:

Dear Sirs

In answer to your question what is wrong with the world – I am.

Yours sincerely

GK Chesterton

Don't you just love that?

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 10, 2008 9:35 AM

I LOVE IT, TREVOR! THANK YOU!!!

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 10, 2008 10:28 AM

I am not, nor do not claim to be, a "Tom Peters Leader." Well before Mr. Peters focused on this point, I was aware that I was not one of the people that Mr. Peters was addressing. I identify more with the characteristics that Mr. Peters suggests to "Tom Peters Leaders" that they recruit and mentor.

I think that his comments on being a "Tom Peters Leader" are often illustrative. I also see that some significant characteristics in many organizations or situations make the idea dead on arrival in their culture.

I agree that personal responsibility is personal. One of the criticisms I have about the public discourse on public responsibility is that it is more trying to impose responsibility on others.

I agree with much talk that I hear: that people who do NOT take personal responsibility or unfairly shift it to others are those who are promoted in too many American business organizations.

I stand by my observation that much of the financial industry and organizations are allergic to long-term concerns that potentially affect the public interest in particular ways and people who are attached to such inclinations. As PaulH nicely suggested, this is considered a negative not a positive.

I think to suggest that investment banks, hedge funds, etc, are receptive to acting in the public interest and have the culture and inclination to see such future issues when it is in conflict of their short-term interests and prestige is ludicrous.

We might all beat our chests wishing they should be but that is to be unrealistic and does not reflect the normal to and fro of their cultures. It is against their culture and structure.

Posted by s g at April 11, 2008 1:01 PM

s g...I appreciate your comment. Can you tell me what a "Tom Peters Leader" is? I'm afraid I don't know. Have I missed something? Who is the "they" referenced here and who is doing the mentoring and recruiting? Shall I sign up?

In considering matters of significance or any matter at all, trying to reduce the I so that the thought of others can emerge clearly is of great importance. Our actions are the best indicator of our thoughts.

Speaking of I, sometimes I capture the thoughts of others clearly, other times I fail miserably. What is wonderful, however, is dialogue. In any event, your words are valued. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 11, 2008 1:40 PM

When I was first married, about 30 years ago, my father advised me that when I finally buy a house I should take an attorney with me to the bank for the closing. Well this I did, and my advisor friend repeated almost verbatim what the banker said and charged me $200! For the banker's benefit there was not a foreclosure nor a default on mine. I have since learned that yes, it is important to have an advisor with you looking out for your best interest. But one must also ask good questions at the time. Don't sign anything or even get up from the table without knowing exactly what you are getting into. Is caveat emptor really out of fashion?
As far as personal responsibility is concerned, if it is that important, why do we have no fault insurance and no fault divorce? I don't believe this is an American problem or a Capitalist problem, it is a human problem. Life is a promise in the end and we are only as good as our word.

By the way Albert Schweitzer was asked what is wrong with people and he is quoted as saying "people just don't think."

Posted by Mike M at April 13, 2008 7:12 AM

My partner and I have been buying houses in this market. With my real estate and marketing experience and his investing experience, we’ve got a good thing going. My partner has done exceptionally well. Even though he is a senior executive with a multi-national, he lives comfortably well under his means, invests wisely (selling both short and long and creating innovative scientific-like living charts), believes that cash is king (putting him now in a very enviable position though we differ to some extent with the saying itself: love is king), and hardly ever follow the “wisdom” of those spouting it in the media or anywhere else for that matter.

Recently we went to sign an offer and being somewhat risk averse, he wanted to bring a lawyer in and get title insurance. I assured him that the lawyer was not necessary and neither was title insurance, as I would pore of the various documents and be certain that we would a clear title at closing. Here is a very astute and wealthy man who could indeed lose a bundle of these houses and not be personally affected. Yet, he was very scrupulous about being certain that all matters were painstakingly understood. We pored over these documents the night before and he insisted that we do it once again at the signing. (This was a bit draining and unnecessary to me, as I’ve read such documents countless of times before. But I obliged. I can only imagine what the closing will be like with the title documents!) After some thought, I could see the wisdom here. We all need to be this careful, even when we know the business or trust the seller. We miss things and so do they.

Albert Schweitzer’s words have truth, but I also think that people want to believe that others have their best interest at heart. We often believe this, even when it is not so. (I remember once a friend telling me something very wise. She said, “Judith, when people tell you who they are and show you by their actions, believe them.”) This is partially why marketing and sales go hand in hand. It is not only that the products need advertising, but that there needs to be emotional attachment to the product. This is often gained by making the customer believe that the need for the product is paramount, and that the company that produces the product has the customer’s best interest at heart. Putting both aside, the customer needs to determine desire, need and ability. This is personal responsibility.

Good points were brought up about no fault insurance and no fault divorces. No fault insurance is an option among many others which is reflective in premiums and deductibles. No fault divorce is a means of allowing adults to untangle themselves without culpability. Love can be a messy thing. To what extent are these things systemic of a larger problem of personal responsibility? I’m not sure.

"Let the buyer beware" held true back in the day and should be held as truth today.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 13, 2008 8:47 AM

Tom..."Jack, he who walkethed on water for 20 years--then bequeathed his successor a financial mess"...it certainly seems clear that GE wasn't worth the $60/share or so that the market was valuing it at circa 2000, but a financial mess? What in particular do you have in mind?

Posted by david foster at April 13, 2008 4:18 PM

David...looking at the charts, forty percent or so of GE's market capitalization appears to be in financial services. It appears that Mr. Welsh did not build a company of products, as was the company's original structure, but one of finance, even with its diversity of markets.

Maybe this will be a lesson to other companies that move away from their base. Not that they shouldn't necessarily, but perhaps how such things are should be re-evaluated. (No brainer, eh?) And maybe there is something to be said for sticking to what you do best. If it's product development, do that. If it’s financial services, do that. Big conglomerates may not work best. Is this TP's point?

If GE would not have reported such loss of $46.9 billion (so late in the quarter,) shareholders may not have even noticed. Not really! But they seemed sincerely shocked as if their stock would not be affected by the prime mortgage mess.

It appears that GE was not insulated from the crises as initially thought, being bellwether company and all….so much for them and the likes of Bear Stearns. This is getting pretty scary, though I believe that opportunities exist more than ever before. Did you know that more millionaires were made during the Depression than in any other time in our history?

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 13, 2008 5:58 PM

Judith...thanks for the response. However, I'm not sure where you're finding a loss of $46.9 billion. The reported number that I see for the first quarter is a (positive) net income of $4.3 billion.

Welch may have over-emphasized financial businesses, but also deserves credit for retaining product businesses like transportation (locomotives), which were surely being sneered at by many during the late 1990s and which are now important contributors to growth.

Posted by david foster at April 13, 2008 6:41 PM

David...a very astute friend had been talking about GE for some time now with regards to its financial businesses. He was quite leery about this. So, when its stock fell so sharply last week, it reminded me of his ever so wise admonitions.

There is no personal disregard for the work of Mr. Welch. I respect and greatly value what I have learned from him in reading his books. I wonder, however, if TP's point about the success of such conglomerates in the long run is applicable here. My very astute friend, by the way, agrees with TP about such big companies.

I also wonder if bigger is always better. And just because there are successes with some things do not mean that others things will be equally successful. This does not in any way take away from any successes that Mr. Welch and others have had. These things are laudable.

Regarding the loss of $46.9 billion, I refer you to the link below. If this number is inaccurate, I stand to be corrected. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 13, 2008 7:03 PM

Judith...the link didn't post.

Posted by david foster at April 13, 2008 9:13 PM

David...sorry. Here it is:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/business/ci_8893810

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 13, 2008 9:27 PM

David...I copy this article for you in its entirety below as the system here perhaps perceives it as spam. I've tried a few times to post it. So, here it is:

GE loss shocks market investors
By Stephen Singer
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Article Launched: 04/12/2008 07:02:44 AM PDT

HARTFORD, Conn. — General Electric Co. CEO Jeff Immelt was expected to tell the world Friday how the conglomerate's global strategy had paid off and allowed it to ride out the credit crisis.

Instead, he found himself defending the company's business model after GE shocked investors with lower-than expected earnings and a profit warning that wiped $46.9 billion off GE's value and sent the overall market slumping.

Fairfield-based GE, which typically hits its targets, reported that profit fell 6 percent, to $4.3 billion, or 43 cents per share, from $4.57 billion a year earlier. Earnings from continuing operations came to $4.4 billion, or 44 cents per share, down 8 percent.

That was well below the 51 cents per share expected by analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial for profit from continuing operations. The company itself had forecast a profit of 50 cents to 53 cents per share.

GE shares tumbled nearly 13 percent to end the day at $32.05, with about seven times as many shares traded as normally change hands.

The company blamed disruptions in its financial business late in the quarter for its inability to advise Wall Street in advance about the deterioration in its earnings. Executives faced tough questioning from analysts in a conference call.

Steve Tusa, an analyst at JPMorgan, told GE executives that "it makes it hard for investors, especially in this environment, to have conviction, I think, that you guys really are a safe, reliable growth company — which is kind of the core of the value proposition you guys have put forth to the investment community."

Immelt blamed the financial service market for part of the trouble and defended GE.

"I think clearly we are in an unprecedented area, vis-a-vis what we have seen in March and at the end of the day, our earnings — I'm not giving an excuse — our earnings being down 20 percent vs. the industry are still reasonably strong and so I think our business model is still strong," he said.

Scott Davis of Morgan Stanley, however, said GE's business model may need work.

"You have underperformed in the up cycle and now you are on pace to underperform in the down cycle," he told company officials.

Immelt said in GE's annual report, issued less than a month ago, that the conglomerate would outperform the Standard & Poor's 500 Index this year.

On Friday, GE lowered its outlook for earnings from continuing operations to between $2.20 and $2.30 per share for the full year, to account for an expected 5 percent to 10 percent decline in financial services profit. The company had projected earnings from continuing operations of at least $2.42 a share in 2008, and analysts had expected $2.43.

For the fiscal second quarter, GE forecast earnings per share of 53 cents to 55 cents. Analysts had predicted 58 cents.

Immelt said financial services deteriorated sharply in late March after the near-collapse of Bear Stearns. GE officials also said the quarter's weak results were due to the continued shutdown of a Salt Lake City medical manufacturer that contributed to a 17 percent decline in its health care business.

In addition, softness in the retail sector hurt GE appliance sales.

GE's infrastructure business, which makes train locomotives, water treatment plants and other large products, again generated strong revenue and profits. The unit, which has been a consistent money maker for GE, produced a revenue gain of 23 percent for the quarter and profit was up 17 percent.

"Typically, with GE you get one or two businesses that outperform and one or two that underperform," said analyst Matt Collins at Edward Jones in St. Louis. "In the end, it turns out to be balanced."

This quarter, however, four of six businesses were below expectations "and infrastructure was not enough to make up for the difference," he said.

Goldman Sachs analyst Deane M. Dray downgraded GE shares to neutral, saying in an investor note that he expects the "magnitude and timing of GE's miss and sharply lower 2008 guidance to shake investor confidence" and that it "raises credibility concerns for GE."

Nigel Coe, an analyst at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., also downgraded GE to hold.

To keep a buy rating, "we would need to see a clear roadmap for the stock to return closer to the $40 level," he said in an investors note, but called the outlook "extremely cloudy."

Collins of Edward Jones said GE will be under intense pressure to deliver on expectations for the rest of the year.

"GE was viewed as a dependable performer until this morning," he said.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 13, 2008 9:37 PM

Thanks, Judith. The $46.9 number refers to the decline in the company's market capitalization in reaction to the announcement....ie, the fall in the stock price. This is different from the fundamental profit or loss of the company itself.

I think it's pretty clear that GE, from the standpoint of the underlying business, is not worth much less than it was on the day Jack Welch retired. Either the company was overvalued in 1999/2000, or is undervalued now, or both....I suspect the correct answer is "both." Time will tell...

Posted by david foster at April 14, 2008 8:49 AM

Thanks, David. The "difference from the fundamental profit or loss of the company itself," I missed.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 14, 2008 9:24 AM

David...is this tremendous fall in the company's market capitalization, nonetheless, significant to global markets? It seems to have been.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 14, 2008 9:29 AM

judith, your post got caught up in the spam filter. if you want to add a link in a comment, then don't link a url. the spam filter is okay with one link, but when it sees two links or more, it assusmes spam. we can still pull those out of the filter and post them, which i did with your most recent, but you had gone ahead and put the article in, which is fine.
wishing you a wonderful monday morning.

-erik

Posted by erik hansen at April 14, 2008 10:07 AM

Thanks, Erik. I assumed as much. In the future, I will do exactly as you suggested. I added the entire article as not to leave David hanging. Wishing you also a wonderful joy-filled Monday morning. Life is beautiful.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 14, 2008 10:50 AM

Erik..quite off the point, but something you might get...in the words of "MP" "spam, spam, spam, spam..." (mp=monty python)

Judith...in metro area next week if you are around 4 lunch..best..mtn

Posted by Mike Neiss at April 16, 2008 7:30 PM

Hey Mike...I'm around next week. Let's! Give me a call or shoot me an email.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 16, 2008 8:24 PM

Mike - next you will be telling me you are from the Ministry of Silly Walks ... and by the way this parrot is definitely deceased it is no more ... it is an 'ex' parrot' :)

'MP' - they just can't match this classic comedy nowadays - thanks for the reminder!

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 17, 2008 9:46 AM

yes, mike, i do know, and now i'll have to look around to see if i can find an audio file of the spam song.

Posted by erik at April 17, 2008 11:04 AM

Some regulations will be required. In public, private, and NGO sectors, the Monarchs are mostly the mediocre. The Global Financial Systems, beginning with China, must be reviewed and harmonized. Clearly, no one but the USA can make a difference.

Besides regulations, new harbingers, extremely over-watching of the American financial system, I wonder if the White House has enough science-based experts on economics, finance, and innovation to start offsetting these horrendous trends.

I wonder why so many scientists cannot enter the USA and get the green card and a fellowship and some strong R&D&I(nnovation) for America. Will America send them STRAIGHT to China, India, U.K., E.U., Japan, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Brazil, or Russia? Hay, it is your prerogative indeed! Yes, get the RULE OF LAW to RULE the BORDERS. But get the rule of law to capture any relevant “knowledge bearer” for the Innovation War III+.

The US Americanized the world. Let America Americanized the granting of visa and citizenship of “adding-value people.”

I know many international entrepreneurs and professionals with a global sophistication that will SHOCK the highest representatives of the Pentagon, the Silicon Valley, the Los Alamos National Laboratories, with a VAST AND ROBUTS (1) knowledge base, and (2) relational-capital repository.

What can the professional of the previous paragraphs do for the USA? With the backing and institutions and resources and infrastructures (beginning with communications) of United States, said professional can bring into America lucrative business, say, from Japan, Germany, Britain, Singapore, that, otherwise, will never get to American shores in the form of NEW, LUCRATIVE EARNINGS AND INVESTMENTS.

Yes, undocumented citizens must be obligated to OBEY THE RULE OF LAW. Get mean and lean and humane with the borders. But demolish bureaucracy pertaining to capturing forever these professionals, entrepreneurs, creativitists, and scientist. IF THE USA OPTS NOT TO MAKE IT THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE AGENDA OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE USA WILL NOT BE THE SUPER POWER #1.

Ask Bill Gates III. He explained to the U.S. Congress. Every talented BRAIN of the world must be welcome and given all the documents and even the naturalization easily. If they operate on sensible areas of the field of knowledge, subject them to Draconian contracts, but capture them expedite-ly.

John Kao is on a crusade on the American urgent need to bring in, and assimilate TALENTED PEOPLE the fastest. America must remember that there are too many strong and rich players that will pay these professionals handsomely. What does America envision to be—geopolitically and towards the totality of the world—in the next 7 years?

If a foreigner is a talented person and is trained in US/UK/Canada colleges/universities and speak and write fluent English+ and has a client in Tokyo and two in western Europe—that with the backing of a US reputable firm—can land a millionaire/billionaire contract in continental USA, What will Congress/ICE (Immigration/Customs) tell the many unemployed that could be working otherwise if the visa policy were formally facilitate?

Do we wish consumer spending to spend infinitely more and be able to pay up their loans and other financial obligations? Will you keep the overseas professional from outside the American Heartland so that unemployed, as many businesses have been transferred to ‘Chindia’ or Singapore, to live with dignity, integrity and in pursuit of a True American Dream, achievable?

If one knows a foreigner that goes to a U.S. embassy, ask him/her what is like. They tell them that they feel pressured, prosecuted a priori, having done nothing illegal anywhere in the world. Many go immediately to U.K., Australia, and Canada, and Germany.

‘American Innovation Thrust’ cannot wait for kids of 14 to reassured and armor America’s leading role as a Super Power. Yes, they will have a relevant future, but in due time and DEPENDING ON LEGISTATION-DRIVEN BY MODERNITY AND DIVERSITY.

We need in-reversal outsourcings, not to re-capture American expatriates only, but also foreigners that admire American values, which were trained and indoctrinated in the U.S. and the U.K.

On the other side, this crisis offers an opportunity to make America even more innovative and with leading innovation more universal inside its borders and more universal within its legitimate interests worldwide. American spheres of influences can be taken to the greatest level without shooting a weapon, just by doing innovation-based businesses.

Get Silicon Valley to work with Los Alamos National Laboratories with MIT with CALTECH with Microsoft with HARVARD with San Diego Innovation Hubs with the Pentagon with DARPA with GOOGLE with every College/University with any relevant ‘wiki’.

Yes, everything is connected with everything else. But, at a more visible and tangible scale, IMMEDIATELY CONNECT EVERYTING WITH EVERYTHING TO BRING ABOUT THE UTMOST OUT OF LUCRATIVE TECHNOLOGY. Skunk Works is urgently needed. The ethos of the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program can be a pervasive starting point. Get every significant talent on the boat.

Otherwise, What position would American like to hold?

Andres Agostini
www.AgosBlogs.blogspot.com

Posted by Andres Agostini at April 17, 2008 3:53 PM

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Andres.

Two thoughts:

1) I wonder how well your idea will go over in our heightened political time. But maybe it can be done under the radar as many things often are. The US continues to bring in emigres, the greatest being from the 1930s. Their contributions were indeed great and influential. But do you think the US needs the infusion of such emigres now? Have we not produced the likes of these great minds? Are emigres our only solution? I sincerely love the notion of intellecutal collaborations and entreprenurial partnerships. But I'm sure any nation would oppose the idea that they could not produce from within solutions.

2) I'm not sure if you know this but your line, "it's your perogative," is reminiscent of a song, at least for me, "It's My Perogative," by the once baggy pant breakdancing hip hop sly ex-husband of Whitney Houston, who seemingly turned her out debunking this once untouchable singing acting superstar. Do you know the artist Bobby Brown of the once popular R&B group, New Edition? Know the song "It's My Perogative?"

Some might say it's our perogative...indeed. And I would hope that our perogative continues to include highly successful collaborations, if not emigration.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 17, 2008 7:20 PM

Judith, you’re welcome and thank you for your ensuing, valid reflection and other appreciated contributions. I guess we are going either to understand that these are POWERFUL TIME or go bohemian in a virtual reality. I respect all professions, occupations, interests, including people from fine arts, performing arts, and musical arts, so forth.

I have found to my satisfaction that many authors, including Tom, are so uncomfortable with many things happenings. The alarming topic of declining robustly talented, pro-American people from overseas is increasingly becoming more and more the designated subject matter of thinkers and writers that are true Americans.

Incidentally, thinking over and over, I am not suggesting making the most of the basic science, creativity, innovation, researching, consulting and other INNOVATION-VALUE ADDED to foreigners first (just in case). No, I will start IMMEDIATELY with a huge effort to get Americans themselves to run America optimally and up and up the optimum beyond the skies. However, America has a population of 300 million.

Chindia has a population of 2,600 million and growing. Russia and Brazil are growing and wish to be super rogue Economics powers, among other things. In many recondite locations of the world, people just got TIRED of being poor. They will do anything to compete with America. A top official from Asia, not from Japan or Singapore, said that his country is like a wild cat “that will catch every mouse legally or not so legally as long as it is lucrative for his nation.” To this particular nation, Is anything, anything at all, really valid? It seems so, unfortunately.

Maybe America needs, NOW, a new “New Deal,” emphasized and optimized and enhanced and long-term sustained. Get all the American kids and middle-age adults first. Then, recalling the population of Chindia, get the Americanized foreigners immediately on the boat. There are too many who ADMIRE THE BEST VALUES, LIKE THE AS-IT-IS AMERICAN CULTURE, AND ARE PROLIFIC speaking the Lingua Franca (American English). Clearly, they do understand that America is changing as so is the world.

Some of these splendid international talents can bring about decent employment to native or not native Americans in almost no time. Got to see more “Proudly Made in the USA.”

If I could speak to the President and the Congress, I would tell them that, in many cases and besides corruption, the American Financial System’s difficulties are also happening, BECAUSE OF LINEAR THINKING AND A HORRENDOUS LACK OF INNOVATION. Just a POV.

I would tell these honorable people verbatim:

- Get a new “New Deal” NOW,
- Get Tom Peters and Michael Porter and Gary Hamel and Ray Kurzweil to conform a Blue Ribbon, Presidential/Congressional Commission (zero partisanship), with omni-mode powers.
- Get the R&D of the PENTAGON/DARPA/NASA work CLOSELY with Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Duke University, the Foundation of Science, Los Alamos, SILICON VALLEY, the San Diego Innovation Hub, the Massachusetts Basin of Universities, PERDUE, PRINCETON, MIAMI, CAMBRIDGE, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, PriceWaterHouseCooper, E&Y, AMD, DELL, and a long etc.
- Make teachers and professors the NATIONAL FATHERS that will FOUND Century 21 in order to open up opportunities. Paying them extremely well, with perks, with national unimpeachable recognition.
- Compress the numbers of years between high school and university, instilling much more dense practical and universal education and formation. Get 21 faster to MBAs and to Ph.D.s.
- Reengineer, based on the Internet, CONTINOUS EDUCATION for students or workers of any age. You may wish to create the United States Continuous Education Intranet.
- Motivate, restore, and give a sense of purpose to the SENIORS. Why is it that in the Western Hemisphere Seniors are increasingly dislike and abandon?
- Get extreme in (1) Biotechnology, (2) Nanotechnology, (3) Materiel Sciences, (4) Neurosciences, and all exact and social sciences.
- Set incredible awards to raises more than exponentially the number of physics, biologists, chemists, and mathematicians, among others.

The US needs to lead the way because the US brings about a least worse world. There is an author from Scotland (Europe), who says that he dislikes the US, but he acknowledges that all of the wars in Centuries 20 and 21 are the result of grave European conflicts in centuries 18 and 19, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Behind those “human factors” that dislike Westerners and others people, as per this author that I prefer not to mention now, there is a group of nations supplying all sort of unthinkable resources to make enemies against to the US worldwide.

Through robust education and advancement in the U.S., not only the economy will be infinitely better, but the DIPLOMATIC EFFORT, holding the stick handy, CAN BE LIGHT YEARS MORE EFFECTIVE.

I don’t know about NATO. I believe that North America, Britain, Australia, Japan, and the EU must institute the most formidable block ever, led by the U.S.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at April 18, 2008 4:04 PM

Andy...I'm not sure if numbers in and of themselves will altogether be the distinguishing factor. Historically, the lesser has often ruled the larger, even the mightier. (This ruling may be morphed into something else these days.) What was that saying about the sun never setting on the British Empire?

Effective international diplomacy to solve world issues is most certainly preferable I am afraid, however, that there will probably always be war as we seem inherently bent on ruling others. But perhaps technology will lessen this sense with the advent of greater online merging markets.

Sometimes a sense of collaboration, an extended hand of fellowship or trade, has been used as a means of usurping. Simply ask indiginous people worldwide. The question is can we overcome such bad faith? Or even if this is necessary in the eyes of many nationals beyond a sense of protectionism.

Can we make trade policies truly open and fair? I would certainly hope so. Another thought which I hinted on earlier...are borders different from commerce? That which is done via technology has a means of affecting international commerce and perhaps could overtime affect borders. I wonder what time might this be?

May I ask Andy...what part of the world are you from?

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 19, 2008 10:31 PM

Another question, Andy...who are the "true Americans" you referenced? Are there fake disingenious ones to be assisted, aligned or replaced by those from without with truer nobler wiser ideas?

By the way, I too appreciate many professions, having, in fact, engaged in many disciplines and the fine and performing arts since my early youth.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 19, 2008 10:49 PM

Judith, anyone holding the American citizenship legally, including everyone that is an international person, talented, over-committed to the U.S. best values (reforming in the making). Remember, What role does America wish to play economically with a China (1,400 million people), India (1,200 million people), Russia, Brazil, and the E.U.

There is competition between power and superpowers is so voracious that there is no time to cry the past.

EVERYONE, as per the people and the laws and news laws, MUST BE INCLUDED, AND MUST BE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS. No minority, at all, left behind, since I will not work out then. I do understand your point.

Every person, every ethnicity, every knowledge, every though, every discipline, every neighborhood, every community, every credo, every profession, every occupation WITH TALENT, as per my humble POV, will ASAP be indispensable. Everyone must be treated EQUAL WITHOUT A FAIL, not in the fine print, but in the GREAT AND SMALL ACTIONS.

There is too much at risk here for the U.S.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at April 20, 2008 7:57 PM

Andy...crying over the past is not the purpose here; this I RARELY do. What is significant, however, is that a small country large or small can have dominance of world economies and land mass...hence the reference to Great Britain.

It would not matter how many billions upon billions there are in the world. The race for the past to repeat itself is a real thing, albeit perhaps in another vein. We appear to be in a technological global race to secure such dominance worldwide. We also appear to be in a psychological race to embed ideology that may or may not be self-destructive.

People...think for yourselves! None of this mind-controlling leave YOUR brain at home crap, allowing the more enlightened scientific ones to make decisions for you, no matter the appearance of truth, or the "beauty" of words. And this goes for me, you, and any others.

Every idea of collaboration or union, including ways of introducing fairness globally, is not just or pure in nature. It is arguable that not much politically is. Ordinary people, unencumbered by mind control and spin, come to great conclusions and make great decisions. Wisdom listens intently. Wisdom measures a thing thoroughly, including derivatives of the past, the mindset of the present, and the positioning of the future.

Andy, your idea of fairness is indeed laudable, whether it will actually materialize is doubtable worldwide, economically or otherwise. But what each of us can do is to let fairness begin with us in our daily actions and speak out whenever necessary. The understanding of the micro out of which grows the macro is important here. Margaret Mead's quote about that small group making powerful changes globally comes to mind. When in reverse there appears to be bad faith.

In reference to understanding my point about "class" and "minority," to what are you referring?

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 20, 2008 9:15 PM