Comments

Tom, I agree with you. God-like individuals with great character will not save us. I think “greed” might be the wrong word. I don’t think unbridled greed is ever good. Wanting to improve your life and the lives of those around you is good, wanting to build a better mousetrap is good and wanting and expecting compensation is right. But taking advantage of a situation to line one’s own pocket without a thought to the future can never work in the long term. Someone pays the price.

I think greed will always be with us, but I believe character moderates it; makes us think about consequences, makes us think about the other guy (gal). Some regulation is good, but you can never have enough regulations to fix human nature. Only character can deal with that.

Posted by Michael McKinney at October 8, 2008 11:17 AM

Michael, I thought a lot about the words. For better or worse, when there is something big going on--the Web in the 90s, the railroads, etc, irrational exuberance (greed by another name, folks piling on in hopes of big bucks) speeds the diffusion process immeasurably, like it or not. In this case, which is so infuriating, the greed wasn't directed to something that would last, like railroads. It was dedicated to the pocketbooks of the perps.

The "good news," if you believe in greed, is no rose colored glasses--you've got to build a system to contain it. (True of all goverenance--I guess, I know I'm one of those, like Hobbes, who fears for man's inner beast.)

I want character in those with whom I associate--personally or professionally; but I know that that is not nearly enough for the system as a whole.

Make sense?

Posted by tom peters at October 8, 2008 11:48 AM

There's no such thing as too much Ayn Rand.

Posted by Mark Wickens at October 8, 2008 12:39 PM

Tom, I couldn't agree more with your points about what you/I don't believe in, but it was your last paragraph that struck most closely to home. My wife is a small business owner who has seen her business almost completely evaporate over the past few weeks/months. At first she was very aggressive - as always - about finding ways to attract new customers. She tried old stand-by's, she tried new things and a few things that were almost out of character, but to no avail. Now she is, like you, admittedly unable to focus and I think your word disoriented is a perfect description. She's tried so many things, and sees so many things outside of her control that she feels like she's just going in circles and isn't quite sure how to stop the merry-go-round.

I guess I'm an eternal optimist. I tell her to focus on doing small things that she enjoys and not let the bigger world get her too spun up. Sure things really suck and chances are they will suck more before they suck less, but I have faith that they will get better. In the mean time we just hang on for the ride, learn what we can from it and hope it doesn't suck everything out of us.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at October 8, 2008 12:40 PM

I find the dialog fascinating and a very typical phase of soul searching and reflection in difficult times. Difficult times, call out for different action which does not imply doing sacrifices but instead take smart actions. But believe it or not we are not thinking smart at this time because we are getting knocked out by the fear of the worse. Yes, It is out there, but I believe every individual can figure out a way to outdo the difficult times. I am not sure if this is optimism but sure it is self confidence. Also I am sure it is the biggest natural phenomenon 'survival of the fittest' and fittest does not necessarily mean lean

Posted by Arvinder Singh at October 8, 2008 12:55 PM

Thank you all. Good comments.

If interested, my opinions are here:

http://www.slideshare.net/andresagostini/an-inconvenient-fact-on-wall-street-by-andres-agostini-wwwagostininewsblogspotcom-presentation

Andy Agostini

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at October 8, 2008 2:50 PM

Thank you all for your postings.

See my comments on the link associated to my name.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at October 8, 2008 2:55 PM

Come on Tom don't be like that about people like me and Tom Friedman who believe in the new flat world theories (brought to you by your locally owned and run Internet Service Provider)... I also believe that this new flatness spells the end to Nation State control of C21st global networked economies such as those being produced by the likes of Google, Skype, Ning, etc (not to be confused with globalisation which is a by-product of C20th mass production spread around the globe and produced by the likes of GE, GM, Ford, etc)... You should be please to have me on the same page as you because I always thought you wanted to "hang with" freaks, nut cases, et al like me... So loosen up mate and go with the flow - the world is changing whether we like it or not...

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 8, 2008 3:48 PM

I am a reformed drunk of sorts, Richard; that is, I was a flatearther long before Tom Friedman. Call me Silicon Valley GaGa, circa 1996, or some such. I's not that I have seen the light, but that I have indeed done a lot of rethinking.

I would like to go on at length, but will only say in reiteration of one point only, that I wish X100 I believed in the more or less eclipse of the nation state's worst characteristics such as chauvinism--I think, alas, it is utter rubbish. Fukuyama's The End of History has been replaced by Robert Kaplan's The Return of History and the End of Dreams.

I am delighted you are here and delighted we disagree--I live for disagreements. I have no reason to think I'm right, but no reason to think you are either.

Posted by tom peters at October 8, 2008 4:19 PM

Tom – at times of depression (I know about these things) - we can be at our most creative.

Andrew – brilliant comments …. And as a fellow incurable optimist I always try to look for positives regardless of what is going on round me.

Call me stupid - I don’t care - but I think a lot of this stuff is about mindset.

As Richard says we ‘nut cases’ all need to stick together and provide an upbeat message – even when the s*** is hitting the fan all around us.

After all if we optimists don’t keep looking at the world through our rose tinted spectacles then even the rose tinted spectacle makers don’t have a job!

I’m really not making light of this and I’m not suggesting there is a lot of fun ‘out there’ right now. But for crying out loud … can we get this into some sort of relative proportion … has anyone died yet? Maybe we should try asking what hardship really means to the families of the 30,000 people (mainly children) who die on our one planet every day due to extreme poverty. (Yes … I know I’ve written that thousand of times on this Blog – no apologies …. Yes I know I don’t understand these things and Yes ….I know it is really complex)

Lets be frank does it really matter if we cannot get two new cars this year or the umpteenth television and computer in the house? … Is it really a big deal if we don’t after all get three holidays next year? … Will it really damage the finance whiz kids in the city if their bonuses this year don’t actually amount to millions of pounds/dollars?

In any case …. Now the big Banks in the UK have been all but nationalised it’s probably only a matter of time before this temporary panic is history and the financial sales people emerge from their temporary hiding holes to flog mortgages and loans to people who can ill afford it to boos up their bonuses again.

Now … Nurse ….where is my anti-cynical medication please???!!!

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 8, 2008 4:33 PM

It's not just about greed, it's about the herd mentality. One person or group does something dumb, makes money and gets away with it. Suddenly everyone acts like it's a good idea even when they know it now.

Naked greed did not drive into debt. Chasing our neighbors greed did.

Mark

Posted by Mark Polino at October 8, 2008 5:03 PM

Congratulations! This post was selected as one of the five best business blog posts of the week in my Three Star Leadership Midweek Review of the Business Blogs.

http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2008/10/08/10808-a-midweek-look-at-the-business-blogs.aspx

Wally Bock

Posted by Wally Bock at October 8, 2008 6:25 PM

Tom, I couldn't agree more with your thoughts.

Timely.

I think now, more than ever, is a true opportunity for those with guts and determination to stake their claim in the business world.

What comes down, goes up.

Now is the time to cut costs.

Now is the time to remove "dead weight" (under-performing assets) from the company.

Now is the time to acquire high performer talent that other companies unwittingly shed.

Now is the time to take a competitive stand.

Thank you, Tom...

Posted by Chris Young at October 8, 2008 7:28 PM

Mark, I definitely agree with your comments. My perception is after the most recent recession there was this tidal wave of cash injected into the economy. I remember thinking, "wow there seems to be a new bank going up in every new mini-mall being built." It just didn't look sustainable. After seeing all these beautiful homes being built I was always asking myself, "man I wonder what these people do for a living?". It was a chance to have a "dream home" and worry about the consequences later.

That "dream home" also costs $600/month to heat, $9800 in property taxes because the school district insists on paying PE teachers 85k, and you have a brand new Suburban you dropped another $40k on. It was a good idea and you looked like you were " just doin' it". But look where it got US!

Posted by Chris at October 9, 2008 12:22 AM

With one eye to any future legislation and regulation that might be mooted, here's my idea. Given that a lot of the problem is about individual assumption of debt and corporate risk, three rules:

1) No individual shall take on debt greater than 4 times his or her salary.

2) No person or corporate body can sell anything (e.g. futures, options etc) unless they actually own it.

3) No corporate body may acquire any business at a multiple of more than 10 times earnings unless it has 75% shareholder approval.

Might need some finessing to get the principles written up in a way the corporates can't work around them but I think it'd be decent framework.

Posted by Mark JF at October 9, 2008 2:37 AM

Fascinating to me (as a total dumbo in economic theory) that when the economy goes south in such a gigantic way, the big bad ogre - aka ‘government’ (by which we actually mean you and me - ordinary working folks through taxation) has to come riding in to the rescue of the pathetic failure of something called free market.

Whatever happened to the allegedly wonderful free market place that is best left alone to make up its own rules with almost paranoia about non government interference?

I note Marks three golden rules and they look great to me … Well done Mark.

Interesting how suddenly when there is a problem we see ‘musts’ and ‘shoulds’ starting to appear. Again doesn't sound much like ‘let the market make up its own rules’ and resist government ‘interference’ at all costs. (Code for ‘We know what we are doing ... thanks but no thanks - keep out please big bad government – we are experts and we know best’ … Well Mr/Ms Free Market – you obviously DIDN’T know what you were doing ….)

Regulation was clearly needed well before the horse bolted. But hey what do I know?

Seems to me like we want to ‘blame’ the government in good times if they show any sign whatsoever of what is described as ‘interference’ ….. But then when things go pear shaped we look to the ordinary working person through taxation to come to the rescue.

Sounds to me having our cake and eating it too as my Mom says.

Come on folks - even Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 9, 2008 3:38 AM

Not sure I agree about the "more government is needed" meme in this particular instance.

1- One of the drivers of this crisis was government pressing banks to make riskier loans. Although the reason behind this pressure was laudable (push home ownership down the economic ladder), the banks needed a way to get rid of these loans that impartial investors would not buy.

2- The idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not at least partially government is ludicrous. Were they not exempt from the standard accounting and corporate governance rules this crisis would never have happened.

My view is that the desired result could have been resolved for far less money with three simple steps ...
1- Extend FHA-type mortgage insurance for these mortgages, provided the bank is willing to reset the mortgage to standard terms (no prepay penalty, 6% fixed).
2- Temporarily adjust the SarbOx Mark-to-Market rules for these loans and securities to let their (lack of) value settle into the books gradually.
3- Reduce (or remove!) the Capital Gains tax as a way to "rev the engine" by incenting capital back into the credit markets.

Total cost ... WAY LESS than $700 billion.

Posted by Tom Jedrzejewicz at October 9, 2008 11:47 AM

I do not see greed and self-interest as the same thing.

Self-interest: To run a company, I negotiate an annual bonus 10% of the company's growth in value. I grow the company's by $1 billion per year. I receive a bonus of $10 million.

Greed: The company loses $10 billion in value in the 3 years I run it. I am handed a $30 million severance package.

Posted by Greg at October 9, 2008 1:20 PM

More government means more people employed by government. That means higher taxes to pay the payroll of the people working for the government.
It also means you get more people in the working world who do not have to earn the dollars from a paying customer.
After a while, the not-for-profits and government people begin to see wanting money for work done as greedy and quite unpleasant. Profits are seen to be a dirty word. I would be wary of adding more people to the government payroll.
I worked for a bank as a strategist in the 1990's and the senior management watched their government regulations and their required cash levels like a hawk. Once the government brings down that bar and relaxes the rules, the banks are aware that the risk is going up but because everyone does it, they all have to in order to be competitive.
Reminds me of a manufacturing client who told me he wants to manufacture in North America but in China, he has set up a company there because he pays so little business tax. He asks what can he do? If he doesn't take advantage of the low tax rate there, someone else will.
If we are in the flat or spiky world, we are now at the stage where we should look at wages, taxes, health care costs, etc. that make up a product's costs and what that means to the community and to the country where it is being bought. Is there a social cost to getting cheap goods not made by higher paid and higher taxed American workers? Is there a social cost for manufacturing output being passed by China in 2009?
I have always agreed with Tom about free trade but am wondering if that model still stands today.

Posted by Jacoline Loewen at October 9, 2008 2:15 PM

I just keep seeing the Gordon Gekko 'greed' monologue playing in my head when I think of someone marching in and running whatever system Bernake/Paulson, et all actually end up implementing. The only difference now is that I'n not sure how it will end.....

Posted by Greg Cooper at October 9, 2008 2:31 PM

The great new cereal "Credit Crunch"

Hugely expensive, profit in it for someone, and a newcomer on the shelves of early morning get up and go for all those investors.

Probably sits close by to Coco Pops (some clown reference), Frosties (the ice age of financial doom has yet to really set in) and maybe even Shredies (I only have a rude comment here so will refrain)

Out of dark times there should be some dark humour also, keep with the 44 and the musings Tom and find light where it touches you....

Patrick

Posted by Patrick at October 9, 2008 3:00 PM

Greg - maybe the problem with greed isn't greed but a simple failure of arithmetic. 10% of $1bn is...?

Posted by Mark JF at October 9, 2008 3:47 PM

Let me start with a disclosure...I chose to go with a Masters in Management over an MBA because I wasn't all that interested in finance. Still, these times have peaked my interest in trying to understand economics at the macro level. Having a small business for 25 years and being part of Tom's for 10, I think I get micro economics. Cash is king!

Some random thoughts. I really don't mind people being rewarded financially for doing great work. We keep score in American business primarily by counting $'s. I still have ambitions to grow my business, yes to serve some greater good, but also I want financial security and a few perks now and then. Frank Sinatra said, "I have been rich and I have been poor. Rich is better." I can't find much argument with that. The problem is that there seems not to be a clear connection between performance and executive pay. Steve Miller,CEO of bankrupt Delphi defends his successful efforts to provide a huge executive pay package at the same time he cut the wages of the workers from $68 to $28 @ hour (wage and benefits). GM is trading at under $5.00 a share today. As a former GM'er let me say that Rick Wagoner is a good and bright man, but for heavens sake, don't you think he deserves a HUGE paycut? Fair traders decry government meddling, yet at the same time condone corporate blackmail of local communities when they demand tax abatements. Chrysler all but left the city of Toledo bankrupt by meeting their demands to keep Jeep in its city of origin. And don't even get me going on the numerous subsidies.

Oh, and this cost control thing....someone explain to me why I should cut the price of my services when my clients are increasing the price of their products??

OK, I am rambling a bit...apologize. My one place I would love to see government regulations increased and significantly changed is regarding the rules for corporate board membership. If we want to fix the compensation imbalance and overall mess it has got to start there.

And Andrew..hope you are well and I will be placing an order for those really cool note cards your wife produces...

Posted by Mike Neiss at October 9, 2008 6:05 PM

Sorry not to disagree with you, Tom Peters, but this comment is pure beauty:

"I would like to go on at length, but will only say in reiteration of one point only, that I wish X100 I believed in the more or less eclipse of the nation state's worst characteristics such as chauvinism--I think, alas, it is utter rubbish. Fukuyama's The End of History has been replaced by Robert Kaplan's The Return of History and the End of Dreams."

The more things change the more they stay the same. The key may be to determine the cycle in order to determine direction. Forging forward includes understanding the past, present and foreseeable future. Leaders need eyes to see, even in darkness.

Thank you, Tom Peters, for your leadership throughout the years. There is no shame in any man's game in determing and adjusting what needs to be at any particular time in his(story.) History begins one moment at a time. What are we doing now?

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 9, 2008 8:49 PM

NPR October 9: "When everyone is succeeding we all cry for more free market capitalism, but when everyone is failing we all cry for more socialism."

CNN Headline News October 7: "Now everyone is lauding the 'Swedish System' as a great example to follow. The problem with that is that if the government does not allow you to fail it also does not allow you to succeed."

Everything is a bargain right now--houses, stocks, bonds, durable goods, autos. The only true way to get out of the hole is for everyone to get out there and BUY. (I am--a home and a car.) America was not built on people feeling "safe." It was built on risk-reward and a sense of destiny and adventure. Retrenching and putting off home improvements, purchases, and projects is absolutely the wrong idea. The economy will not start humming again until everyone participates. It won't happen if we sit on the sidelines and wait for everyone else to get it going for us.

Posted by Red Island Rhodes at October 10, 2008 7:03 AM

Judith - well said.
The news is saying the big auto companies may go out of business with this crisis.
It reminded me of my grandfather who was one of the last union leaders for the British ship building industry on the river Clyde. The business moved to Japan, China, etc. and to airlines. Scotland has not built a ship since and has lost its place as a leading light for engineering.
Scotland also lost generations (my parents) who left to go to other nations due to lack of jobs.
The idea of stopping the flow away from american cars by controlling salaries through government decree does not go to the root - competition from other nations. How can our high standard of living hold up to other countries with cheaper workers and government taxes? The business leaders may be reducing their employee salaries but not their own because - like the ship builders of Scotland - they are in denial about their company's competitive position.
Tom Peters is needed urgently!

Posted by Jacoline Loewen at October 10, 2008 7:10 AM

Mike – snap!

I did my MA Management (Healthcare) 1996-98 as a mature student. I chose the MA route because me and numbers are not happy bedfellows if you will pardon that expression.

Governments are on a loser either way it seems to me. If they let the free market do its own thing and things get cocked up big time – like right now apparently - then people say the government should have acted sooner. On the other hand, when the sun is shining and all in the garden is rosy the government is told ‘sod off’ and keep your noses out.

It’s a bit like head you win tails you lose.

This reminds me of the typical stereotyped situation we find regularly here in the UK in health and social care. If a social worker removes a child from an ‘at risk family’ they are often ctriticised for being ‘big brother’ culture … Conversely …When a child is NOT removed and suffers terrible abuse – even death on some very sad but well publisised occasions - social workers are castigated because they ‘should have taken the child away’ …

The current situation is not the fault of one person, one agency or one culture – it is just a complete cock up caused fundamentally by greed and we are ALL guilty.

GK Chesterton said “I am” in reply to the question; ‘What is wrong with the world?

Mahatma Gandhi said – “You must be the change you wish to see in the world”

NEVER have those two statements been more relevant than in October 2008!

But the sun is shining here in Warwickshire (Shakespeare's County) in England and life is still wonderful. Thank you God.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 10, 2008 7:16 AM

In thinking of Ayn Rand I am reminded that we are all products of our environment. (Let me say outright that I am a big fan of Rand's towering intellect and literary capacity. How can anyone not be? Think Fountainhead. Think Atlas Shrugged.) Our past often shapes the here and now and our futures. Rand's past included some harrowing inequities associated with tyranny. This is obvious in her writing.

Rand’s philosophy of rugged individualism, laissez-faire capitalism and her fierce ideas of freedom can probably be associated with the tyranny of the Bolsheviks. Her absolute e unequivocal support of free markets is probably due to her past. OK. That was her reality which came to bear on some great thoughts and actions. But why must we take the whole the past and forever associate it with the here and now?

The wise thing seems to be to make adjustments along the way. People and systems are imperfect. We can go to the extreme in one way or another for great lengths of time to the detriment of many. Ego and protectionism probably play unyielding roles here. We can go on ad infinitum doing things that are detrimental for fear of change, unwillingness to back down, or admit wrong. We all understand this on very personal levels. What were those seven deadly sins again: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride? Balance is needed; regulation is needed too of the personal and professional kind, of the individual and collective.

There is no problem with Rand’s grand philosophy, considering the particular time in history. The surprising thing, however, is our inability to see what a thing has become anytime in history and make needed adjustments along the way. All systems are the outgrowth of natural inclinations in need of regulations and constant adjustments. All systems come from us, our histories, our impulses, our environments. The market is us. Society is us. Communion is us.

The Wealth of Nations of the natural self-driven impulses of man. These impulses can be seen in every system, Capitalism, Socialism or Communism. The question is how should we continue in ways that are equitable for all while not hampering freedom? There's nothing new here. What perhaps needs to be new is how we look at changing times in with the backdrop of history and forward thinking of the whole—which is now much more global.

The Wealth of Nations was literally built on the backs of others, whatever the system. (Think: Persia, Russia, England, Rome, America.) The question becomes what will get us to understand the golden rule of loving our neighbors, those who are near us, as ourselves? (And with technology and globalism our neighbors are increasingly nearer.) No system seems to have embraced this rule consistently. This rule requires personal consistent checks and balances. En masse it seems that we are not ready to do this.

In reading this comment now, it may be quite apparent that I can't self-regulate my lengthy comments. Perhaps if I comment less the length of my comments will appear lessened? I'll try this. My first comment, if you noticed, was brief. Perhaps I will make no others. Keep your fingers crossed for me, will ya?

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 10, 2008 9:01 AM

Good summary Judith – so Pete Seeger was right all along.

“When will we ever learn?”

Where the heck is John O’Leary when I need him? – Im sure John will confirm if I have the right artist :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 10, 2008 9:17 AM

Mark JF: LOL! Maybe that kind of math is what caused the crash..?

Posted by Greg at October 10, 2008 9:27 AM

filling in for JO..yep, its Pete Seeger...pretty sure the Eagles never covered it...:)

and I have been thinking about a Tim Hardin song..."...if I listen long enough to you, I'd find a way to believe that its all true, ..still I look to find a reason to believe"

Posted by Mike Neiss at October 10, 2008 10:57 AM

Cheers Mike .... Mr O’Leary will be impressed with your knowledge I’m sure …. And how can we ever forget the immortal Lennon /McCartney classic … 'Money Can't Buy Me Love'

The Eagles - You started it :-) - recent ‘Long Road Out of Eden’ album contains a typical Don Henley cynical riff ‘Business as Usual’ ... that’s my motto.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 10, 2008 1:03 PM

If we're off on a musical theme, I think the nub of the problem is Dire Straits: "Money For Nothing."

Posted by Mark JF at October 10, 2008 2:46 PM

'Yesterday ... all my troubles seemed so far away' :-)

That is my final contribution in the interests of seriousness!

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 10, 2008 2:50 PM

The way I see it, for the past 25 years, the United States has been becoming less and less of a country. All that matters is money and products. We have no values. Shopping and patriotism are co-equals. We rationalize exporting manufacturing jobs to other countries with the mantra 'market forces'.
Instead of guiding companies like GM toward building cars that have high milage standards, we blurt out 'market forces' and then fight wars
over oil and allow the GM's to fall apart because 'no on wants to work in factories anyway'
We gush over ipods and thier 'great design', but ignore the scientists (who are not usually motivated by greed) who made the dicoveries that allow the 'great designs' to be realized.
As a nation, we do nothing. No moonshots. Instead of astronauts, we our heros are people like Donald Trump.
Saying greed is good is a bit like saying 'boys will be boys' when men in white collar jobs treated women as sex objects at work a generation ago. Being able to make all the money you want is equated with freedom. In world War II, was greed what men were thinking about when the ran out on the beach on D-Day?
We need to think of ourselves as a country again. We need to hold off on the 'brand you' idea for a while and do some thinking about the
brand of the nation. What do we want want the united states to be known for? Fast food?
I saw a guy on TV today defending the free market.He talked about our innovation and so forth, but then he started talking about how great our universities are. A bit ironic, since our universities are not a part of the free market.
Are we a country or just a big office park?

Posted by zed at October 10, 2008 3:13 PM

Zed – I relate to the things you are saying about the US because it is just like here in the UK. Yet one of my unfulfilled ambitions remains to visit your great country. The US - if judged by the many people I’ve met through Blogging - has much to be proud of. You have earned the right to the reputation of folks with a great sense of optimism. I pray the US does not lose that. I would say it’s your greatest strength.

Ironically perhaps, as each day passes in this apparent crisis, I am actually becoming more rather than less optimistic. Optimism rules! Why? - Because as you suggest we have now been forced to re-assess what the hell we have been doing for the last 25 years to get into this mess on both sides of the pond and way beyond.

For a start lets never publish a league table of the richest people in the world – why the hell is that interesting to anyone? And why do we need to know it? Instead let’s publish a league table of the most caring and humble people on the planet

Interesting that you mention the great heroes in world war two – those folks had something to fight for. Perhaps we need to reflect like you have done so well and ‘fight’ back. It's right to voice your concerns Zed - well done - your comments make sense to me.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 10, 2008 4:06 PM

Thank you very much, zed. I always enjoy your comments. Since we come into the world alone and shall leave alone, the idea that there will not be a brand you seems implausible. The we encompasses me. There can be no we without me.

We are forever re-creating ourselves; we are forever adapting and adjusting to internals and externals. I have sought to expand the notion of branding beyond marketing, from something that is put on to something that forever becomes -- the being brand. It is development inwardly that expands outwardly--kinda like your scientists.

The being brand embraces the fundamentals you spoke of, instead of merely marketing you. The being brand asks questions of who we are individually and where we are collectively. It requires an internal and external view of yourself and others; it requires constant thought and action. It's evolutionary and generational. We were given much. What will we leave?

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 10, 2008 5:45 PM

"the world is flat"...nationalism, as you point out, is a force that cannot be disregarded. But there are also logistical reasons that make the world less flat than Friedman seems to think it is. A lot of companies who made their geographical production decisions based on the assumption of low ocean freight rates were slammed pretty hard when these rates got a lot higher.

It could be said that the flatness of the world is inversely proportional to the price per ton of bunker fuel.

Posted by david foster at October 10, 2008 8:48 PM

The big elephant in the room during this discussion about nationalism is China. On the one hand, their growth will be impacted by a recession and perhaps by businesses in-sourcing some activities back to or closer to home markets, e.g. Eastern Europe is getting more popular for Western European companies. However, as one country that has got a few dollars in the bank and has been buying foreign debt, I'd say they're sitting tight and figuring out how to advance their national interest very aggressively over the next decade - which of course positions it for a period of great domination over the course of the century.

Posted by Mark JF at October 11, 2008 2:10 AM

I have not made much comment on this topic - mainly because I think I am woefully under qualified to do so - frankly I don't really understand the economics behind all this. Nor do I really know if central gov interference is good, bad or indifferent.

This all sounds pretty complicated - all I know is that every big company I see and deal with has simply stopped. Completely stopped

No buying anything (no travel, consultants, contractors, hiring, projects etc).

There is so much noise in the news and on boards like this about the stock market, the banks, G7 etc.

That does not bother me - what truely frightens me is the complete and utter silence in the commercial world.

Posted by PaulH at October 11, 2008 7:19 AM

Great observation Paul as always. I too am completely under-qualified to talk about the technical side of this and maybe that is the problem. We ordinary folks have been bamboozled into silence by complexity theory and supposed ‘experts’ telling us bad news - 24/7 for the last two weeks. Those same ‘experts’ have been telling us all how wonderful our economy has been for the last 20 years.

Your opinion is just as special as theirs Paul and we ordinary folks need more than ever to make noise above the experts.

The simple truth is we’ve all been too greedy, including me and now the chickens are coming home to roost and we will just have to suffer the consequences of our own actions - nothing ‘expert’ about that summary. Let's have a bit of looking in mirrors I say.

Maybe the reason for the ‘silence’ is perhaps because everyone is frightened to take any risk which is quite understandable. Maybe this eerie silence Paul is what it will be like when the end of the word is nigh … only joking ….

Come on folks … I am not saying lets have a party (though that sounds like a good idea as well – John O’Leary can bring his band)

This is not the end of the world …

Zed’s fabulous comment about the men on the beaches on D Day in World War Two puts this temporary lack of pocket money for a year or two into some perspective for me.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 11, 2008 9:50 AM

The only problem with your analysis, Mark, is that China imports mainly to the United States. If they required an instant cash in on their T-bills that wouldn't be financially secure for their own economy. A pulling of rank of sorts requires a kind of economic autonomy which China does not have. Economics, as we see, are so interdependent these days that the collapse of a market or the very fear of collapse affects global markets simultaneously. (We know this, as it's borne out daily.) The "complete and utter silence in the commercial world," as PaulH writes of, makes this point obvious.

In fact, PaulH's point is the point beyond banks that dealt primarily with paper and not products. The biggest problem with this housing crisis is that there are so many traunches (pools of debt differentiated by the maturity of the rate of return) that have no distinguishable value. If there is no known value, and in many cases the mortgage holder is not known because they have been securitized again and again, how can maturity be established?

Securitize these mortgages millions of times and it explains to a large degree where we are now. The homeowners are not without guilt too. Bankers banked on homeowners going along with the plan. Looks like the likes of Richard Fuld of Lehmann Brothers did well in such banking. They banked on the American dream of homeownership and the theory of keeping up with the Joneses and did well to the tune of nearly 500 MILLION DOLLARS. I am so grossed out by Fuld! (I listened to the Washington hearings.) Are we sure he shouldn't be in jail and his hundreds of millions returned to stockholders who invested life savings with a purportedly sound bell weather financial institution founded in 1850?

With these traunches value is not known, yet we have a presidential candidate whose inconsistent ideas include a plan that buys up this debt nationwide at current value which essentially rewards the institutions which got us into this mess. But can Senator McCain and advisers answer the multiple billon dollar question of value? We could be buying paper that has essentially no value. With this plan, the taxpayers will ultimately be the loser.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 11, 2008 9:55 AM

This was brought home even closer to me when I recently spoke to an ex-girlfriend, an investment banker, whom 15 years ago I encouraged to go to Yale School of Management and pursue a Wall Street career. (Fortunately she doesn't remember that.) She's gonna hang it all up and sell real estate.

Posted by John O'Leary at October 11, 2008 10:55 AM

Tom- don't worry about the lack of focus, the marking time, the depression and the 'significantly debilitating disorientation'.

The world is in flux and there is nothing to focus on. This is change, once again, and the improvements will come from unexpected directions and in the implementation of goods and services we have yet to imagine.

We are in the doldrums now, but you will feel the subtle touch of the breeze on your cheek and instinctively know how to set your sails. That is your talent and you exercise it regardless of your emotional tempurature.

In the meantime, take Andrew's advice and enjoy the little things. They are just as meaningful as the big things and a solid point from which to push off when that time comes.

Posted by Lois Gory at October 11, 2008 3:33 PM

Nice post Tom. Here are a few things that I DO believe:

1/ Compared to the current financial tsunami, Enron & Worldcom were a mere warm-up exercise.

2/ There is no god-given gift of a AAA rating. The US has to earn it like everyone else.

3/ The rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer in the states.

4/ Greed is NOT good.

5/ Investing out of borrowed money could make you climb up the ladder a lil’ faster BUT when you fall down – it would be like an avalanche.

6/ De-regulation is Dangerous.

7/ Warren Buffet is NOT going to be the next Treasury Secy – I am certain he has better things to do in life than dive into the political mud-fights of Washington.

Posted by Sriram Kannan at October 13, 2008 4:49 AM

Buffett will undoubtedly not be the next Treasury Secretary. I agree. He has far too much to do. But his financial wisdom and old-time ethical values needed in such a time are most certainly behind Barack Obama. I chuckled with the Buffett suggestion as Treasury Secretary made during the recent presidential debate--yet another hail Mary, another far-fetched desperate move from a candidate sinking in the polls whose inciting words could not bring together a team of thoughtful Americans to run a campaign let alone one to run the country or pick a Treasury Secretary.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 13, 2008 8:10 AM

Entertaining post, as always, but I have to take exception to a few points. First, while Adam Smith, Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko believed "Greed is good," kindly do not lump Charles Darwin in there with them. "Survival of the fittest" was coined by social Darwinists and although the term appears in Darwin's writings it is meant as a metaphor and he preferred the terminologly of "natural selection." Any life form that simply procreates is successful enough in Darwinian terms. Greed does not enter into it and we know of many examples of altruism in nature. With Darwin's 200th birthday on the horizon, it is good to keep his accomplishments in the natural world, where they belong, and not once more drag his ideas into human social relations.

Secondly, cutting costs to the bone will not work for companies in trouble. You will save money by shutting off all the lights but not save the company. GM can reduce its cost base all it likes but unless it has new products that people want it is only half the answer.

Thirdly, the idea that "governments never get it right" suggests that somehow everybody else does: the Dow Jones Industrial Average companies that were listed in 1896 would still be on that list; there would be no divorces; there would be no environmental disasters and so forth. A government simply reflects its people. Regulation and industrial policy has worked brilliantly in some environments (Singapore comes to mind) and less so in others (the Soviet Union).

And I am one of those worried about GE too!

Posted by Sprocketboy at October 21, 2008 11:44 AM