I am in D.C. at CPAC (co-sponsored by Pajamas Media) and just got finished being a guest on the "Washington Tea Party" panel hosted by Michelle Malkin, Kellyanne Conway, Mary Anne Marsh and Jeri Thompson. I talked about taxpayers going "John Galt" and the psychology of fear in response to the financial crisis. The audience was terrific and supportive and there was a great turn-out. Fred Thompson came on to talk about the stimulus and other issues.
You can watch the show here--just click on the segment with my name.
We're all losers now
CNBC conducted a poll asking people if they thought they would be a winner or loser with Obama's current proposed budget. The result? Last time I looked, 72% of the respondents (out of 15198) thought they would be losers. I would say it will be closer to 100% before this is all over.
Okay, this is scary....
In reading about Obama's new $634 billion health fund, I came across this:
I am not sure what the details are but just from reading the above, how is punishing hospitals or clinics who re-admit sick patients by paying them less going to provide good care? It's like the insurance programs that dock doctor's pay the more patients they see--and reward them for seeing fewer. Many just see fewer, regardless of whether the patient is better or not. But maybe I am naive and good care isn't the point. Maybe the point is to make a certain portion of the American population including the president feel good that all Americans have insurance, even if patients are left sitting outside the hospital door.
Perhaps I have this wrong, maybe there is more to this "new approach" than I have heard about. Maybe....
The budget figures also represent significant shifts in how the United States will pay for medical care.
For example, experts have identified hospital readmissions -- especially for elderly patients -- as a sign of poor care and unnecessary expense. About 18 percent of Medicare patients are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of an original visit. The new approach would establish flat fees for the first hospitalization and 30 days of follow-up, sometimes done by separate facilities. Hospitals or clinics with high readmission rates could be paid less.
I am not sure what the details are but just from reading the above, how is punishing hospitals or clinics who re-admit sick patients by paying them less going to provide good care? It's like the insurance programs that dock doctor's pay the more patients they see--and reward them for seeing fewer. Many just see fewer, regardless of whether the patient is better or not. But maybe I am naive and good care isn't the point. Maybe the point is to make a certain portion of the American population including the president feel good that all Americans have insurance, even if patients are left sitting outside the hospital door.
Perhaps I have this wrong, maybe there is more to this "new approach" than I have heard about. Maybe....
Dr.Helen on Mens News Daily
You can now also read my blog at Mens News Daily along with the work of Glenn Sacks, Dr. Stephen Baskerville, David Usher and Marc H. Rudov.
Is the Kindle 2 a "cultural shift?"
I recently ordered a Kindle 2
for Glenn and have been reading up on the device. I found an interesting video and article on Yahoo finance about the Kindle that focuses on the wider implications of the Kindle on sales and reading in America.
The interviewer on the video wonders if there will be a cultural shift in how reading is experienced with Kindle readers--but the expert who is on states that the goal of the Kindle is to replicate rather than change the reading experience. It sounds like it is simply a faster and more efficient way to read rather than going out and purchasing books. Kindle 2 has the potential to have an impact on book sales, according to the expert. I also heard on the video that there are only about 500,000 Kindles in existence which can have an impact on book sales as the Kindle purchasers are voracious readers who might trade downloads for actual books. Kindle accounts for only 10% of books in existence but 5% of the public buys 95% of the books. And of those 5%, many are Kindle owners.
I wish the Kindle 2 would show up from Amazon--I am dying to try it out. Did I mention I ordered it for Glenn?
for Glenn and have been reading up on the device. I found an interesting video and article on Yahoo finance about the Kindle that focuses on the wider implications of the Kindle on sales and reading in America. The interviewer on the video wonders if there will be a cultural shift in how reading is experienced with Kindle readers--but the expert who is on states that the goal of the Kindle is to replicate rather than change the reading experience. It sounds like it is simply a faster and more efficient way to read rather than going out and purchasing books. Kindle 2 has the potential to have an impact on book sales, according to the expert. I also heard on the video that there are only about 500,000 Kindles in existence which can have an impact on book sales as the Kindle purchasers are voracious readers who might trade downloads for actual books. Kindle accounts for only 10% of books in existence but 5% of the public buys 95% of the books. And of those 5%, many are Kindle owners.
I wish the Kindle 2 would show up from Amazon--I am dying to try it out. Did I mention I ordered it for Glenn?
John Hawkins at RWN interviews Bernard Goldberg about his new book, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.
"Dude-in-Chief: It just isn�t any of your business."
Dennis Kneale at CNBC comments on Obama's speech tonight:
I'm not sure that this Kneale guy was listening carefully enough when "the Message Man" was running his campaign. I heard the fear and fingerwagging then too. It wasn't like Obama was tryng to hide his message of retribution and crisis mongering then. It's just that no one wanted to hear it; they were too busy trying to get the first African American President in office to "make history." Nothing else mattered.
Remember the excited, butterflies-in-the-tummy feeling we had the first time we got to watch the newly elected President Obama address the nation?
One month later a queasy sense of dread emerges whenever he takes the lectern. As our new president prepares to address both houses of Congress at 9 p.m. eastern, the markets and investors brace for his next damaging soundbite.
"Every time the guy speaks, the Dow starts falling," complains one venture capitalist, Ross Manel of ReStart Group in Addison, Texas.
Bam was the Message Man during his incredible campaign for the presidency, besotting millions with his reassuring call for hope and change. Since taking office he has plied an entirely different�and wrongheaded�message, one of fear and fingerwagging, of crisis-mongering and retribution.
This has been damaging to Citigroup, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and their ilk. We need these firms to help us find our way out of this financial abyss, yet the President decries a compensation system he doesn�t understand. He carps at Merrill Lynch�s now-ousted chief, John Thain, for spending the equivalent of ten minutes of revenue to redecorate his office.
Dude-in-Chief: It just isn�t any of your business.
I'm not sure that this Kneale guy was listening carefully enough when "the Message Man" was running his campaign. I heard the fear and fingerwagging then too. It wasn't like Obama was tryng to hide his message of retribution and crisis mongering then. It's just that no one wanted to hear it; they were too busy trying to get the first African American President in office to "make history." Nothing else mattered.
Do social websites harm children's brains?
Some experts think so. According to the Daily Mail:
What do you think, is MySpace and Facebook harming kid's brains?
Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned.
Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred.
The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day...
'My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment...'
Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood: How the Modern World is Damaging Our Children and What We Can Do About It,said: 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia.
'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'
What do you think, is MySpace and Facebook harming kid's brains?
Is Obama really America's new shrink?
Shrinkedwrapped discusses some issues he has with a Newsweek article about Obama entitled, "America's New Shrink:"
If Obama is America's "new shrink," you would think he would know that.
Update: Neo-Neocon has more on the Newsweek article.
Talk (thought) and action are decoupled. We need to trust him as he tells us how to behave without offering us any chance to look within the details of the package we are supposed to embrace. Many people who are in trouble are eager to surrender their autonomy and be bailed out. For them, Obama may well be an adequate therapist. However, for the most productive members of society, people who did not succeed in life by surrendering their autonomy to others, such "therapy" is more than a little insulting.
If Obama is America's "new shrink," you would think he would know that.
Update: Neo-Neocon has more on the Newsweek article.
"The more irresponsibly you behave, the more government works for you."
I have to agree with David Harsanyi who said this in his column today in the Denver Post. He also makes some other good points:
My question is, what do we tell our kids about how to get ahead in this new economy? I don't think telling our kids to scrimp, save and work hard only to turn their earnings over to others is prudent at this point. We have to teach our kids how to make it in the new system of rewards for failure and penalties for success. Or maybe just explain that success is failure now, that up is down, that wrong is right. That seems to be the prevailing "wisdom" with our new government overlords.
Who knew that playing by the rules comes with a government warranty? After all, I may play by the rules and engage in bizarrely self-destructive behavior. You may not. You may have played by the rules � invested in the stock market, a home, a business, a career � and found yourself stuck with a financial dud.
As every 2-year-old knows, consequences are the incentive to avoid risky behavior. So why are we rewarding failure and abolishing consequences? Many of the homeowners who government is bailing out took unnecessarily chancy loans that helped fuel the financial jam we're in.
My question is, what do we tell our kids about how to get ahead in this new economy? I don't think telling our kids to scrimp, save and work hard only to turn their earnings over to others is prudent at this point. We have to teach our kids how to make it in the new system of rewards for failure and penalties for success. Or maybe just explain that success is failure now, that up is down, that wrong is right. That seems to be the prevailing "wisdom" with our new government overlords.
"The spending bill he just passed is just progressing the Democratic agenda rather than addressing the economic issues in the country."
Just when I was starting to think the youth of this country were pretty much brainwashed by the media, I read this article (via Drudge) on the Dobson high school advanced placement students who listened to Obama speak at their school and realized that there is hope:
The advanced placement students may be smarter than average but it does show that many young people in this country can see through Obama's rhetoric.
The students in the class were hopeful things will work out but questioned whether Obama's plan would actually work to dig the country out of its economic woes. They also expected a longer speech.
Senior Syna Daudfar took some notes during the speech and was among the most vocally opposed to Obama's words.
At one point, when he talked about the costs of his stimulus plan, senior Maaike Albach and Daudfar looked at each other and said, "uh-oh."
"Overall I think it's a good idea, but he's not addressing the issues of the economic crisis," said Daudfar, a John McCain supporter who added he leans more toward being a moderate conservative. "The spending bill he just passed is just progressing the Democratic agenda rather than addressing the economic issues in the country."
Daudfar thinks Obama's plan is backward and deals with the "less important stuff" first. "Bailing out businesses" and "providing better regulatory systems for giving out money to businesses" should have been first, he said.
"If businesses can't afford to hire people, then people won't be able to work and pay off their mortgages," he said. "It's kind of like putting money into a funnel."
Albach, who is also a Republican, said Obama's plan sounds good but questioned how Obama can want to rely on "people's responsibility" when that is "what got us in this economic crisis in the first place."
"This puts us more into debt," said Albach, 18. "It's a horrible situation we're in."
Senior Brandon Miller wore a shirt with the words, "Hitler gave great speeches, too" above a picture of Obama.
The advanced placement students may be smarter than average but it does show that many young people in this country can see through Obama's rhetoric.
Climbing the ladder and then pulling it up
John Hawkins interviews economics Professor Walter Williams on his new book, Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism: Controversial Essays.
One point of Williams I found poignant:
It seems to me that Bill Gates has played right into the hand of the politicians dissing rich people. He has publicly criticized the very capitalism that helped him get where he is now so that others may not benefit, like he did. He climbed the ladder and now wants to pull it up behind him. Have you noticed how many people who become billionaires do that?
One point of Williams I found poignant:...There is so much demagoguery against the rich and in that column I was asking the reader: Bill Gates, the richest person on the face of the earth -- what can Bill Gates make you do? That is, during the 70s and 80s, the era of busing, could he have made you send your kid to a school that you did not want him to go to? Can Bill Gates deny you the right to dig holes on your property or put up a little shed on your property? He cannot do any of those things, but a lowly town clerk can...destroy your life just by denying you a permit to add an addition to your house. Bill Gates can't stop you from doing that. I think that politicians and those that want to control our lives get us to focus away from the power that government has over our lives and cast our attention to rich people.
It seems to me that Bill Gates has played right into the hand of the politicians dissing rich people. He has publicly criticized the very capitalism that helped him get where he is now so that others may not benefit, like he did. He climbed the ladder and now wants to pull it up behind him. Have you noticed how many people who become billionaires do that?
PJTV: Your Reader Emails
Amy Alkon and I answer your reader emails in our segment today for PJTV. Questions include: what do you do if a woman tries to "scam" you for money?, advice on overreacting if an ex-husband hangs around your girlfriend, and how can men express themselves without sounding like a wimp?
You can watch here (free with no registration).
You can watch here (free with no registration).
"Conversation is second only to sex, a lot less hassle, and it really matters."
So says author Catherine Blyth in her new book, The Art of Conversation: A Guided Tour of a Neglected Pleasure.
I spent the morning reading this cute little book and came away with some interesting information about why modern life is bad for conversation. Despite saying she doesn't hate technology, the author doesn't seem happy with it, stating:
In some ways, I agree--that to miss out on intimate conversations with actual people is not a good thing and can lead to feelings of isolation and despair for some. But small talk is not for everyone and sometimes it can lead an introvert to feel uneasy, bored or just alienated. However, Blyth says it's important to overcome shyness and gives tips such "the more engaged we are, the less nervous we feel" to those of us with little aptitude for small talk.
Overall, the book is quite good at teaching how to engage in good conversation--from a romantic talk with a partner (in a chapter on pillow talk) to how to wage a word war with those who insult you. It's a good read.
I spent the morning reading this cute little book and came away with some interesting information about why modern life is bad for conversation. Despite saying she doesn't hate technology, the author doesn't seem happy with it, stating:Compared to face-to-face, Internet communication is two dimensional....As distractions multiply, fewer receive our full attention, and nuances are neglected. We don't look at the man selling us coffee, never mind shoot the breeze; we're too busy fiddling with our iPod. I've witnessed wedding guests with more qualifications than they have chromosomes text-messaging during the vows.
Developments, yes, but progress? ...The nuances are no less valuable to us than they were to our forefathers, nor are the joys. Abandon them, and we miss out.
In some ways, I agree--that to miss out on intimate conversations with actual people is not a good thing and can lead to feelings of isolation and despair for some. But small talk is not for everyone and sometimes it can lead an introvert to feel uneasy, bored or just alienated. However, Blyth says it's important to overcome shyness and gives tips such "the more engaged we are, the less nervous we feel" to those of us with little aptitude for small talk.
Overall, the book is quite good at teaching how to engage in good conversation--from a romantic talk with a partner (in a chapter on pillow talk) to how to wage a word war with those who insult you. It's a good read.
Corporate Social Responsibility � nice, but does it earn you any money?
The question �should corporations actively invest in socially responsible stuff, or should they simply focus on making money?� continues to linger and re-emerge on the business agenda (especially, it seems, around the time that business-minds receive the call to once more swarm to Davos).
People are then quick to shout �but they are not two different things; behaving in a socially responsible way will, in the long run, also make you better off financially!� but, in spite of the latest tally of 225 academic studies trying to provide hard evidence of the existence of that relationship, proof of that statement is unfortunately actually pretty hard to find�
And I say �unfortunately� because it would of course be nice if the socially responsible companies would also get financially rewarded for their honorable endeavors. But it is hard to provide solid evidence for that. For example, although we do know from research that socially responsible companies are usually the better-performers, the tricky thing is that, as we say, the causality often seems to run the other way around; once firms are beginning to make a healthy profit, they start acting in socially responsible ways. If losses pile up, the responsible stuff is the first to go out of the door. Hence, socially responsible behavior does not make you a better performer; good financial performance leads firms to behave in more responsible ways. It seems it is a bit of a luxury product that we only indulge in if we feel we can afford it.
However, on the bright side, there is certainly no evidence that firms acting in socially responsible ways perform more poorly as a result! So, if it doesn�t cost you anything, why not do it?! Yep, you will have to spend a bit more money, not using suppliers that employ children to produce their stuff, recycling your toxics although you could have had it legally dumped somewhere else, and invest in some services for your local community and the family of your employees although you could have told them to bugger off and take care of themselves. However, these niceties may also appeal to your customers, to green investors, will make you more attractive as an employer, and so on. And apparently these costs and benefits seem to largely average out so at least there seems no reason not to be a good guy!
However, it would still be nice if the socially responsible types were actually better off would�t it�
Professors Paul Godfrey, Craig Merrill, and Jared Hansen, from Brigham Young University and the University of North Carolina, came up with a clever insight why the socially responsible types may be better off after all. They didn�t just look at the social and financial performance of all sorts of companies but they decided to specifically focus on companies that got into trouble because some negative event had happened to them. This could be the initiation of a lawsuit against the firm (e.g. by a customer), the announcement of regulatory action (e.g. fines, penalties) by a government entity, and so on. Then they measured what happened to the share price of the company as result of the event. And the interesting thing was that how much you were punished by the stock market for the negative news depended very much on how much of a socially responsible company you were.
Firms that scored low on a social responsibility index saw their share price plummet if they had to announce a negative event. Firms with very good social track records did not see their share price go down that much. Paul, Craig, and Jared concluded that, apparently, your socially responsible reputation acts as some sort of an insurance; when something bad happens to you (in the form of a serious customer complaint or a government fine) investors conclude that you probably made a genuine mistake, and that you will definitely do better next time, and that there is nothing structurally wrong with you or to worry about. However, when you are much more of a social villain, the stock market washes its hands of you, drops its financial support, and makes your share price plummet.
Thus, good guys are better off after all. And the dollars you spent on being socially responsible do pay themselves back and turn into profit, especially when you are in a rot.
People are then quick to shout �but they are not two different things; behaving in a socially responsible way will, in the long run, also make you better off financially!� but, in spite of the latest tally of 225 academic studies trying to provide hard evidence of the existence of that relationship, proof of that statement is unfortunately actually pretty hard to find�
And I say �unfortunately� because it would of course be nice if the socially responsible companies would also get financially rewarded for their honorable endeavors. But it is hard to provide solid evidence for that. For example, although we do know from research that socially responsible companies are usually the better-performers, the tricky thing is that, as we say, the causality often seems to run the other way around; once firms are beginning to make a healthy profit, they start acting in socially responsible ways. If losses pile up, the responsible stuff is the first to go out of the door. Hence, socially responsible behavior does not make you a better performer; good financial performance leads firms to behave in more responsible ways. It seems it is a bit of a luxury product that we only indulge in if we feel we can afford it.
However, on the bright side, there is certainly no evidence that firms acting in socially responsible ways perform more poorly as a result! So, if it doesn�t cost you anything, why not do it?! Yep, you will have to spend a bit more money, not using suppliers that employ children to produce their stuff, recycling your toxics although you could have had it legally dumped somewhere else, and invest in some services for your local community and the family of your employees although you could have told them to bugger off and take care of themselves. However, these niceties may also appeal to your customers, to green investors, will make you more attractive as an employer, and so on. And apparently these costs and benefits seem to largely average out so at least there seems no reason not to be a good guy!
However, it would still be nice if the socially responsible types were actually better off would�t it�
Professors Paul Godfrey, Craig Merrill, and Jared Hansen, from Brigham Young University and the University of North Carolina, came up with a clever insight why the socially responsible types may be better off after all. They didn�t just look at the social and financial performance of all sorts of companies but they decided to specifically focus on companies that got into trouble because some negative event had happened to them. This could be the initiation of a lawsuit against the firm (e.g. by a customer), the announcement of regulatory action (e.g. fines, penalties) by a government entity, and so on. Then they measured what happened to the share price of the company as result of the event. And the interesting thing was that how much you were punished by the stock market for the negative news depended very much on how much of a socially responsible company you were.
Firms that scored low on a social responsibility index saw their share price plummet if they had to announce a negative event. Firms with very good social track records did not see their share price go down that much. Paul, Craig, and Jared concluded that, apparently, your socially responsible reputation acts as some sort of an insurance; when something bad happens to you (in the form of a serious customer complaint or a government fine) investors conclude that you probably made a genuine mistake, and that you will definitely do better next time, and that there is nothing structurally wrong with you or to worry about. However, when you are much more of a social villain, the stock market washes its hands of you, drops its financial support, and makes your share price plummet.
Thus, good guys are better off after all. And the dollars you spent on being socially responsible do pay themselves back and turn into profit, especially when you are in a rot.
"A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies."
Bradley R. Schiller, author of The Economy Today
has an interesting piece in the WSJ entitled, "Obama's Rhetoric is the Real 'Catastrophe.'" Mr. Schiller compares this recession with the Great Depression and finds that our economic woes don't come close to the 1930s. He states:
But would better policies pay off the supporters who voted for him?
has an interesting piece in the WSJ entitled, "Obama's Rhetoric is the Real 'Catastrophe.'" Mr. Schiller compares this recession with the Great Depression and finds that our economic woes don't come close to the 1930s. He states:Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies.
But would better policies pay off the supporters who voted for him?
Valentine's Special with Amy Alkon
Amy Alkon joins me again on PJTV for a Valentine's Day segment to discuss why she calls the day "our national day of insincerity," if Valentine's Day should include steak and bj's for men and those annoying jewelry commercials.
You can watch here.
Ask Dr.Helen Column
My PJM column is up:
The column is an extension of the post I wrote the other day about men being "addicted to success."
You can read it here.
As if it's not bad enough to be laid off, men often get criticized for being upset and depressed by it.
The column is an extension of the post I wrote the other day about men being "addicted to success."
You can read it here.
PJTV has a health care forum going on live that I have been watching. There is some terrific discussion among the panelists about government control of doctors, how Obama's plan will not truly allow you to keep your coverage, and how markets can and do work in healthcare. It is available for free and without registration.
Who to turn to in a downturn? Insights from top performers in meagre times
Of course I get asked quite a lot, lately, is there any research on firm strategies in a downturn? And I have to say, the answer is (unfortunately) pretty much �no�.
There is a lot of research in the field of strategy on companies that are in trouble. There is also quite a lot of stuff on companies that operate in industries that are in decline, for instance because their business model is antiquated or their technology has been surpassed. But there is nothing, to the best of my knowledge, on what corporate strategy to follow if the whole planet is in decline�
Someone also asked me, the other day, do you know of any companies that do particularly well in a downturn? And actually, I realised, that�s not a bad place to start. I mean, perhaps we can learn something from these businesses; in terms of insights that other companies can also apply in their attempts to weather the storm. So let me give it a try. I am going to � quite cowardly � not present these deliberations in the form of insights or findings but in the form of questions. Questions you can ask yourself, as a company, to try to think of ways to improve your chances of survival whilst the world is in a downturn.
Be Morrisons (not Waitrose)
The first, fairly obvious, type of business that does relatively well in a downturn are the ones that offer products or services at comparatively low costs. Their price-quality ratio is low, relative to their direct competitors. For example, supermarkets like Morrisons, which compete on price, are currently showing much better numbers than a more upmarket quality provider like Waitrose. These companies always provided that type of price-quality ratio but now more and more customers put higher weight on the price aspect of the ratio, which makes Morrisons flourish.
It seems quite obvious but, nevertheless, it is worth thinking about. Is there anything you can do to offer your (potential) customers lower cost options (probably at the expense of some quality)? I am often a bit surprised by how reluctant businesses are to give up margin when times are tough. It seems many firms think they can�t afford to lower their margins because that�s the remaining source of income while customers are deserting them. However, fewer customers may desert you if you do lower your margins! You may even win a few. Moreover, many customers are willing to sacrifice quality for price, IF you give them the choice.
Be a shoe repair shop
But, as said, that�s the obvious one. One step further are the types of businesses that help companies extend the life of their current resources. Think of car part dealers or shoe repair shops. They actually grow during times of decline (as they are doing now)! People and companies are having their cars repaired rather than invest in a new one. Can you, as a business, think of a product or service that you can offer to help your clients get more out of their old shoes? Can you offer upgrades of existing technologies? Can you offer marketing services that extend the lifecycle of your client�s product?
Moreover, do you have clients that are like shoe repair shops and car part dealers. Or could you make them your clients and offer them something they might be interested in? After all, they can afford it, and probably could use some help handling their exceptional growth.
Be a business school
Finally, can�t you be more like a business school? Seriously. During the last (mini)crisis in 2001, for example, applications to London Business School�s full time MBA programme doubled. What better time to do an MBA then during a crisis? People figured that the opportunity cost of their time was now relatively low; it is not like you�re going to get a huge pay rise or bonus during the crisis years (unless you�re a City investment banker of course�).
Moreover, by the time that they graduate, about one and a half years later, the crisis may have largely blown over and they are in a superior position to catch the first wave. Hence, be more like London Business School; clearly that can never be bad advice.
There is a lot of research in the field of strategy on companies that are in trouble. There is also quite a lot of stuff on companies that operate in industries that are in decline, for instance because their business model is antiquated or their technology has been surpassed. But there is nothing, to the best of my knowledge, on what corporate strategy to follow if the whole planet is in decline�
Someone also asked me, the other day, do you know of any companies that do particularly well in a downturn? And actually, I realised, that�s not a bad place to start. I mean, perhaps we can learn something from these businesses; in terms of insights that other companies can also apply in their attempts to weather the storm. So let me give it a try. I am going to � quite cowardly � not present these deliberations in the form of insights or findings but in the form of questions. Questions you can ask yourself, as a company, to try to think of ways to improve your chances of survival whilst the world is in a downturn.
Be Morrisons (not Waitrose)
The first, fairly obvious, type of business that does relatively well in a downturn are the ones that offer products or services at comparatively low costs. Their price-quality ratio is low, relative to their direct competitors. For example, supermarkets like Morrisons, which compete on price, are currently showing much better numbers than a more upmarket quality provider like Waitrose. These companies always provided that type of price-quality ratio but now more and more customers put higher weight on the price aspect of the ratio, which makes Morrisons flourish.
It seems quite obvious but, nevertheless, it is worth thinking about. Is there anything you can do to offer your (potential) customers lower cost options (probably at the expense of some quality)? I am often a bit surprised by how reluctant businesses are to give up margin when times are tough. It seems many firms think they can�t afford to lower their margins because that�s the remaining source of income while customers are deserting them. However, fewer customers may desert you if you do lower your margins! You may even win a few. Moreover, many customers are willing to sacrifice quality for price, IF you give them the choice.
Be a shoe repair shop
But, as said, that�s the obvious one. One step further are the types of businesses that help companies extend the life of their current resources. Think of car part dealers or shoe repair shops. They actually grow during times of decline (as they are doing now)! People and companies are having their cars repaired rather than invest in a new one. Can you, as a business, think of a product or service that you can offer to help your clients get more out of their old shoes? Can you offer upgrades of existing technologies? Can you offer marketing services that extend the lifecycle of your client�s product?
Moreover, do you have clients that are like shoe repair shops and car part dealers. Or could you make them your clients and offer them something they might be interested in? After all, they can afford it, and probably could use some help handling their exceptional growth.
Be a business school
Finally, can�t you be more like a business school? Seriously. During the last (mini)crisis in 2001, for example, applications to London Business School�s full time MBA programme doubled. What better time to do an MBA then during a crisis? People figured that the opportunity cost of their time was now relatively low; it is not like you�re going to get a huge pay rise or bonus during the crisis years (unless you�re a City investment banker of course�).
Moreover, by the time that they graduate, about one and a half years later, the crisis may have largely blown over and they are in a superior position to catch the first wave. Hence, be more like London Business School; clearly that can never be bad advice.
John Hawkins interviews Roger Simon on his new book, Blacklisting Myself: Memoir of a Hollywood Apostate in the Age of Terror.
I actually read Roger's book recently and it was quite an intriguing story.
I actually read Roger's book recently and it was quite an intriguing story.
Are men who lose their jobs just "addicted to success?"
Stuart Schneiderman: Reverse sexism in the Wall Street Journal:
You know, it's no wonder men are reluctant to go to psychologists. I read recently that more men are going to treatment since they are losing their jobs at higher rates than women but I have to wonder if they are really getting the help they need or just being blamed for being "addicted to success."
Psychotherapists may be short on practical experience, but they are supposed to be masters of empathy. If you have been traumatized, they will be at-the-ready to feel your pain, to offer you comfort and consolation.
Unless you happen to be a man who is out of work, whose thirty-year career has just vanished, who is lost and adrift, suffering both a loss of income and a blow to his identity......
In today's Wall Street Journal Kevin Helliker writes that the sad sacks who have lost their careers, their income, their social status, and their identities are suffering because they were "addicted to success" and were over-identifying with their work. Link here.
This is guilt tripping at its best. Dripping with contempt Helliker analyzes their anguish: "The deepening recession is exacting punishment for a psychological vice that masquerades as a virtue for many working people: the unmitigated identification of self with occupation, accomplishment, and professional status"...
Now that you have seen the way psychologists want their male patients to process trauma, imagine these empathy-mongers facing a woman who had been sexually harrassed. Would they tell her that she was suffering because she had over-identified with her sexual being? Would they declare that she is suffering because she had not spent enough time with her family? Or would they declare that her anguish is simply evoking unprocessed childhood traumas?
You know, it's no wonder men are reluctant to go to psychologists. I read recently that more men are going to treatment since they are losing their jobs at higher rates than women but I have to wonder if they are really getting the help they need or just being blamed for being "addicted to success."
Multivitamins don't seem to help prevent disease:
I always felt sick after taking multivitamins and never much did. At least now, I don't have to feel bad about it.
The largest study ever of multivitamin use in older women found the pills did nothing to prevent common cancers or heart disease. The eight-year study in 161,808 postmenopausal women echoes recent disappointing vitamin studies in men.
Millions of Americans spend billions of dollars on vitamins to boost their health. Research has focused on cancer and heart disease in particular because of evidence that diets full of vitamin-rich foods may protect against those illnesses. But that evidence doesn't necessarily mean pills are a good substitute.
I always felt sick after taking multivitamins and never much did. At least now, I don't have to feel bad about it.
Should men boycott Valentine's Day?
Valentine's Day is coming up next week and I found an old post on Men's News Daily entitled, "Boycott Valentines Day!" The post was written by Marc H. Rudov, author of The Man's No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth
and Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables. Wow, what a title! Rudov states:
I never knew Valentine's Day had such meaning! I just try to go out and find a nice gift that my husband will like and I think he tries to do the same. But some men apparently feel put on trial and buy out of obligation rather than desire. Rudov has a graph here showing that 46% of men feel obligated to buy a gift and spend more money while only 6.3 % of women feel obligated to buy a gift and spend less money. Is this true? Certainly seems plausible.
Do you enjoy buying Valentine's gifts for your significant other or do you feel obligated?
and Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables. Wow, what a title! Rudov states:Are men worthless? Only if they never demand fairness and reciprocity from women � and many men don�t. Valentine�s Day, and all of its pathetic rituals, represents the failure of men to stand up to women � who, ironically, don�t respect these eunuchs and don�t sexually crave them, either.
Visualize the annual V-Day ritual: women clucking around their office water coolers and late-morning Pilates classes in anticipation of receiving Vermont Teddy Bears or long-stem roses, while men are wringing their hands, dreading this day, resenting the pressure, wondering what, if anything, would please their wives and girlfriends. Why such anxiety? No man wants to end up in the proverbial doghouse without sex.
What a pathetic picture: women using sex as a weapon; men living in fear. The evidence of �romance heaven� is clear: alimony and child-support cash registers are ringing nonstop, the marriage rate is falling, infidelity is rampant, the out-of-wedlock birthrate is skyrocketing, and children � society�s future parents � are more dysfunctional and immature than ever.
I never knew Valentine's Day had such meaning! I just try to go out and find a nice gift that my husband will like and I think he tries to do the same. But some men apparently feel put on trial and buy out of obligation rather than desire. Rudov has a graph here showing that 46% of men feel obligated to buy a gift and spend more money while only 6.3 % of women feel obligated to buy a gift and spend less money. Is this true? Certainly seems plausible.
Do you enjoy buying Valentine's gifts for your significant other or do you feel obligated?
Forbes: Will the recession end gold-digging? (via Hot Air):
The author of the Forbes article suggests that women seek artists, academics, coaches and teachers instead of men who have "made income their life's goal." I recommend choosing someone you actually connect with and get along with on a number of levels, not just by his career choice. For choosing a man because of his career is about as deep as a man choosing a woman because she has a good ass. Neither one is the best way to keep a relationship going.
It looks like the economic downturn is producing a dating downturn too. At least this is true in financial centers like New York, where an unhealthily intimate bond between mating and money has persisted down the decades, from Edith Wharton through Candace Bushnell.
Maybe, finally, this recession will cut that bond, or at any rate do it some damage. ...
Just as that friend didn't need the money but felt her tab should be covered anyway, a male New York friend of middling income, an academic, told me that he gave up on online dating because it just got too expensive. On every first date, he offered to pay, as he felt was expected of him; usually, he was taken up on his offer. That adds up quickly.
The author of the Forbes article suggests that women seek artists, academics, coaches and teachers instead of men who have "made income their life's goal." I recommend choosing someone you actually connect with and get along with on a number of levels, not just by his career choice. For choosing a man because of his career is about as deep as a man choosing a woman because she has a good ass. Neither one is the best way to keep a relationship going.
Go red for men!
Since today is National "Go Red" for women day, cardiologist and blogger Wes Fisher has an idea for how to include men:
I am glad that women are finally acknowleging heart disease, especially having had a heart attack myself. But honestly, the hype and "empowerment" mantra that goes with these types of programs for women really gets on my nerves.
And now, ladies and gentleman, completely free of commercial endorsement, I'd like to announce the Go Red for Men national campaign to raise heart disease awareness in men with a new logo, available to all, and completely free of any charge or requirement to purchase a thing.
I am glad that women are finally acknowleging heart disease, especially having had a heart attack myself. But honestly, the hype and "empowerment" mantra that goes with these types of programs for women really gets on my nerves.
Who's really selfish?
David Harsanyi has a few good questions in response to Obama's continued harping on the selfishness of CEOs:
Sounds like selfishness is a trait that isn't limited to the business world.
Then again, what could possibly be more reckless than spending $1 trillion you don't have on a plan that you have no evidence will work?
What could be more irresponsible than doubling the generational debt for your partisan pet projects in a time of crisis?
And what could be more selfish than stifling debate by deploying fear to induce voters into supporting it all?
Sounds like selfishness is a trait that isn't limited to the business world.
John Hawkins at Right Wing News has a review up on Doug Feith's book War and Decision, now out in paperback.
Questions Needed
I have an upcoming PJTV show with Advice Goddess, Amy Alkon, coming up for Valentine�s Day - to be aired next week, where we will be discussing relationship issues and problems.
If you have a question concerning your relationship (or lack of one) or any other pressing concern about love, sex or marriage, please leave it in the comments or if you want more privacy, email me at askdrhelen at hotmail.com We will read some of them on the air and answer them during a segment. Thanks!
If you have a question concerning your relationship (or lack of one) or any other pressing concern about love, sex or marriage, please leave it in the comments or if you want more privacy, email me at askdrhelen at hotmail.com We will read some of them on the air and answer them during a segment. Thanks!
And I thought check-cashing places charged high fees...
Glenn and I subscribe to Forbes
which I was reading this morning and caught an article on Tim Geithner. The article was good, but the more interesting tidbit I found was one about how debt-collection agencies are one of the winners of the stimulus package (in a highlighted box within the same article). Get a load of this:
Yeah, right, lack of communication. Anyway, why should the stimulus package use tax payers' money to subsidize a group of sharks like Supportkids charging outrageous fees for shaking down "deadbeat dads"? And what about deadbeat-moms of which there are many?
I propose that all the men out there who are not collecting child support from these women sign up with this company. Apparently, Supportskids is quite successful as they state:
My guess is that dads don't try and collect from women who don't pay. But if they do, I hope they're smart enough not to pay a 34% commission.
which I was reading this morning and caught an article on Tim Geithner. The article was good, but the more interesting tidbit I found was one about how debt-collection agencies are one of the winners of the stimulus package (in a highlighted box within the same article). Get a load of this:Debt-collection agencies. They thrive on others' misfortunes, of course. They'll really love the $1 billion headed for states to help them collect child support. Nearly every state outsources deadbeat-dad services to companies like Supportkids, an Austin, Tex. firm that was recently sued by the state of Virginia for alledgedly interfering with the enforcement of child support obligations by taking 34% of the debt it collects as a fee. (The company says the suit is "the result of a lack of comunication with the state" and hopes it will be resolved before going to trial.)
Yeah, right, lack of communication. Anyway, why should the stimulus package use tax payers' money to subsidize a group of sharks like Supportkids charging outrageous fees for shaking down "deadbeat dads"? And what about deadbeat-moms of which there are many?
I propose that all the men out there who are not collecting child support from these women sign up with this company. Apparently, Supportskids is quite successful as they state:
Supportkids is the leader in non-traditional child support enforcement, providing an alternative to government agencies. With over 16 years in business, our total collections exceed $400 million. We collect over to $3.9 million every month for families all across the nation, many of whom went years without child support payments.
My guess is that dads don't try and collect from women who don't pay. But if they do, I hope they're smart enough not to pay a 34% commission.
Soft stuff (such as caring for the community and the environment), shareholder value orientation, and take-over protection mechanisms
Caring for the community and the environment, shareholder value orientation, and take-over protection mechanisms?! What do they have to do with one another?
Well, quite a bit it appears. Let me explain.
First of all, do we like it that firms can adopt take-over protection mechanisms (such as poison pill constructions)? �No we don�t!�, do shareholders proclaim in chorus. Because the threat of a potential take-over is a great way to make sure that CEOs don�t do anything that does not maximize the value for shareholders. Remove that possibility and these bloody CEOs will do all sorts of silly things that are not in our interest.
And I am afraid that is at least half true� And one of these silly things is attending to issues such as caring for the natural environment and the community. We � the wider public � may like it if corporations do that kind of stuff but it is hardly clear that shareholders do; after all, caring for such soft stuff comes at the cost of the hard stuff: cash.
Aleksandra Kacperczyck, from the University of Michigan, examined this issue in a clever way. She examined 878 public firms in Delaware between 1991 and 2002. The interesting thing about Delaware is that in the mid 1990s, due to a series of court decisions, hostile take-overs suddenly became a lot more difficult. And what Aleksandra found is that, after that fact, Delaware companies started to pay a lot more attention to catering to the community and to the natural environment. All of a sudden, it was safe for companies to do such stuff, without the threat hanging over them that they could get �punished� for it by means of some hostile take-over by another company that thought it could make more money by getting rid of all that expensive soft stuff.
Did shareholders like it? Well, they didn�t applaud the court decisions (to say the least) and the fact that now corporations could divert valuable cash to such silly things, but they had to grind their teeth and grudgingly accept it.
But were they right; that it was going to cost them money? Well, not exactly.
Aleksandra also measured what happened to the long-term shareholder value of the corporations that started to engage in the fluffy �caring for the environment and community" kinda stuff. Shareholder value actually went up! The long term market-to-book ratio of these firms started to rise as a result of these fluffy actions! The shareholders, in spite of their doubts and grudges, were better off.
A classic win-win situation appeared; having been freed from the threat of hostile take-overs enabled the firms in Delaware to do nice things for the community and the environment, which actually paid off in terms of hard cash in the long run. But there was one catch�
In a brainwave, Aleksandra decided to also look at what happened to the levels of executive compensation (in the form of salary, bonuses, and other annual remuneration perks) of the companies that found themselves shielded from the threat of hostile takeover; CEO remuneration went up� Apparently, now immune to takeover threats, top executives not only started attending more freely to the interest of the wider community but also to their own private interests. They let others share in the wealth, but didn�t forget themselves either�
Well, quite a bit it appears. Let me explain.
First of all, do we like it that firms can adopt take-over protection mechanisms (such as poison pill constructions)? �No we don�t!�, do shareholders proclaim in chorus. Because the threat of a potential take-over is a great way to make sure that CEOs don�t do anything that does not maximize the value for shareholders. Remove that possibility and these bloody CEOs will do all sorts of silly things that are not in our interest.
And I am afraid that is at least half true� And one of these silly things is attending to issues such as caring for the natural environment and the community. We � the wider public � may like it if corporations do that kind of stuff but it is hardly clear that shareholders do; after all, caring for such soft stuff comes at the cost of the hard stuff: cash.
Aleksandra Kacperczyck, from the University of Michigan, examined this issue in a clever way. She examined 878 public firms in Delaware between 1991 and 2002. The interesting thing about Delaware is that in the mid 1990s, due to a series of court decisions, hostile take-overs suddenly became a lot more difficult. And what Aleksandra found is that, after that fact, Delaware companies started to pay a lot more attention to catering to the community and to the natural environment. All of a sudden, it was safe for companies to do such stuff, without the threat hanging over them that they could get �punished� for it by means of some hostile take-over by another company that thought it could make more money by getting rid of all that expensive soft stuff.
Did shareholders like it? Well, they didn�t applaud the court decisions (to say the least) and the fact that now corporations could divert valuable cash to such silly things, but they had to grind their teeth and grudgingly accept it.
But were they right; that it was going to cost them money? Well, not exactly.
Aleksandra also measured what happened to the long-term shareholder value of the corporations that started to engage in the fluffy �caring for the environment and community" kinda stuff. Shareholder value actually went up! The long term market-to-book ratio of these firms started to rise as a result of these fluffy actions! The shareholders, in spite of their doubts and grudges, were better off.
A classic win-win situation appeared; having been freed from the threat of hostile take-overs enabled the firms in Delaware to do nice things for the community and the environment, which actually paid off in terms of hard cash in the long run. But there was one catch�
In a brainwave, Aleksandra decided to also look at what happened to the levels of executive compensation (in the form of salary, bonuses, and other annual remuneration perks) of the companies that found themselves shielded from the threat of hostile takeover; CEO remuneration went up� Apparently, now immune to takeover threats, top executives not only started attending more freely to the interest of the wider community but also to their own private interests. They let others share in the wealth, but didn�t forget themselves either�
What ever happened to ringing the dinner bell?
Reader Matt emails a story about a Memphis woman who shot her husband in the head as he was doing doughnut circles in his truck:
My question may be naive here but should you really shoot off a gun to get your husband's attention for dinner? What happened to ringing a dinner bell?
A Millington woman who killed her husband with a .22-caliber rifle while he made doughnut circles in his pickup truck was sentenced today to three years of probation.
As part of a negotiated sentence, Linda Abbott, 40, agreed not to ask Criminal Court Judge John Colton Jr. for diversion, which could have erased the voluntary manslaughter conviction returned by a jury in November. In return, she will do no jail time if she complies with probation requirements....
Authorities initially believed that Abbott died in a violent crash when his truck hit a piece of farm machinery and burst into flames.
When a .22-caliber bullet was found in his head during an autopsy, however, Linda Abbott admitted firing one rifle shot in the air and a second shot that she said was an accidental discharge.
Authorities said the shot traveled some 150 feet across a field behind the house, struck Gary Abbott in the head and caused the truck to crash.
She told a jury the shooting was an accident, that she was trying to get his attention to come to dinner and that she had no reason to intentionally shoot him.
My question may be naive here but should you really shoot off a gun to get your husband's attention for dinner? What happened to ringing a dinner bell?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)