If one believes Steven Ballmer of Microsoft (here), Obama must want US jobs moved overseas.
Key quote: "It makes U.S. jobs more expensive [...] We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."
Seems counter-intuitive for Obama to want to create US jobs, and then promote policies that reduce US jobs.
Or maybe Obama prefers government jobs.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
The new MBA morality
When I read something like this -- that 20% of Harvard MBA students are signing a new "Promise to Be Ethical in an Era of Immorality" -- it simply makes me suspicious.
First, MBA students protesting that they'll be all concerned about "the common good" -- oh, and that doesn't mean they can't take big-salaried jobs -- makes me wonder if they have any concept of how the world of business works.
There are six things that must be in place -- by the government -- for the free market to work:
First, MBA students protesting that they'll be all concerned about "the common good" -- oh, and that doesn't mean they can't take big-salaried jobs -- makes me wonder if they have any concept of how the world of business works.
There are six things that must be in place -- by the government -- for the free market to work:
- System of property rights with enforcement
- System of contract law with enforcement
- Ban on coercion and fraud, with enforcement
- Prohibit trade in dangerous (i.e. poisonous, malfunctioning) products
- Prohibit collusion and monopolistic practices by employers
- Protect workers from unsafe working conditions
All of these are necessary. All of them come from government.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Oregon Governor would rather raise taxes than talk to Republicans
What a surreal exchange. At the City Club of Portland today I asked our Governor how it is that we're short of money, yet the state government will grow 8%, and the Democrat-controlled House has passed 20 bills that raise spending 7.5% over the previous budget.
And I asked him whether he was going to look at the Republican's alternative that suggests ways to fully fund education and public safety without raising taxes. He summarily dismissed the Republican budget, yet couldn't offer any details as to why he was dismissing it other than to call it names.
I wonder if he even read it. He came across as partisan -- as if he'd rather take a "not invented here" mind set, ignore anything that comes from the Republicans simply because he dislikes them, and if that means he enacts job-killing tax increases during a recession, he's okay with that.
And finally, he says he's going to create a team of efficiency experts to help him find ways to reduce government costs... starting in July of 2009. Where was that in January 2003 when he first took office? And why wait until July of this year?
This is a shameful performance.
And I asked him whether he was going to look at the Republican's alternative that suggests ways to fully fund education and public safety without raising taxes. He summarily dismissed the Republican budget, yet couldn't offer any details as to why he was dismissing it other than to call it names.
I wonder if he even read it. He came across as partisan -- as if he'd rather take a "not invented here" mind set, ignore anything that comes from the Republicans simply because he dislikes them, and if that means he enacts job-killing tax increases during a recession, he's okay with that.
And finally, he says he's going to create a team of efficiency experts to help him find ways to reduce government costs... starting in July of 2009. Where was that in January 2003 when he first took office? And why wait until July of this year?
This is a shameful performance.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Profound Dishonesty at the Oregonian
Here's a stunning example of a newspaper's staff using their positions to advance their own ideology. Compare the photos of the same event, first the Oregonian's, and next the group's own pictures.
The Oregonian's photos make it look like a few dozen people showed up -- after all, if it had been bigger, they'd have shown it, right?
In reality some 7,000 people crowded into Pioneer Square for this rally.
Regardless of your own agenda or opinion about the viewpoint of those rallying, you have to admit this is sheer bias. Nothing else explains the poor selection of photos. And certainly if it had been a pro-choice rally, a pro-Obama rally, or an anti-American rally, the crowd size would have been emphasized not understated.
Is it any wonder the Oregonian is not trusted?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Asking for a Testimonial
There are times when your customer is so happy, they seem to be looking for extra ways to help you. When that happens, ask them for a written testimonial. Do it in email or in a printed letter.
When I get their response, I'll rewrite their answer a bit and ask for their approval of the rewrite. Other times I'll write a draft testimonial based on the verbal praise they've already given me. I always make it clear in such cases that I want it to only say things they agree with and believe enthusiastically.
Here's a letter I sent recently. I was responding to some very strong praise I'd gotten from my client in email. Note that I simply ask for a testimonial, and offer an outline -- actually, two outlines -- for structuring the response. (This is enormously helpful to the person responding and increases both the likelihood of a positive answer and improves the quality of their response.)
When I get their response, I'll rewrite their answer a bit and ask for their approval of the rewrite. Other times I'll write a draft testimonial based on the verbal praise they've already given me. I always make it clear in such cases that I want it to only say things they agree with and believe enthusiastically.
Here's a letter I sent recently. I was responding to some very strong praise I'd gotten from my client in email. Note that I simply ask for a testimonial, and offer an outline -- actually, two outlines -- for structuring the response. (This is enormously helpful to the person responding and increases both the likelihood of a positive answer and improves the quality of their response.)
Since you're being so sweet, let me ask you for a testimonial. The structure of a testimonial is often this (adapted from Kent Blumberg):That's all it took. You can do it too. And you should.
Who are you (i.e. in what way can the reader identify with you)?
Here's a different outline (from Veronika Noize):
- Why did you decide to use us?
- What were your expectations, and how well did we meet them?
- What benefits did you get from working with us? (Please be as specific as you can.)
- Who should consider using us?
Thank you kindly.
-Tom
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
After Action Review - Oregon GOP
I recently hosted a gathering of Republican campaign managers, volunteers, and candidates to talk about our experiences in the November 2008 election.
In particular, I wanted to learn what everyone else had learned during the campaign, so we could all do a better job in the future.
I have always had good results when doing this sort of thing in the private sector, so it was no surprise that this one yielded good lessons as well.
In particular, I wanted to learn what everyone else had learned during the campaign, so we could all do a better job in the future.
I have always had good results when doing this sort of thing in the private sector, so it was no surprise that this one yielded good lessons as well.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Tom in the News
I'm getting quoted lately -- not sure why:
Forest Grove News Times
Best lines:
PolitickerOR
Best line:
“Right now, we’re losers,” Cox said. “We haven’t lost, we’re just having a bad couple of years. We behaved ourselves into a hole, and we need to behave ourselves out of it.”
Forest Grove News Times
Best lines:
“I think it is a repudiation of whatever plan we thought we had before this and it’s a clear indication that we have to rebuild and rethink and take very seriously the obligation that we have now as the minority party in the state,” Cox said.
Cox hopes that the Republicans, now solidly in the minority in Salem, will focus on putting pressure on Democrats regarding tax issues.
“If you want to turn a Democrat into a vulnerable Democrat get him to vote for a bunch of tax increases in a down economy,” Cox said. “If that’s their strategy, don’t let me interrupt them.”
PolitickerOR
Best line:
“Right now, we’re losers,” Cox said. “We haven’t lost, we’re just having a bad couple of years. We behaved ourselves into a hole, and we need to behave ourselves out of it.”
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
WSJ Roundup: New Directions for the GOP
The ever valuable Wall Street Journal provides a set of articles suggesting ways forward for the GOP, starting with this one from Paul Ryan. Each article contains an index to all the other articles.
So, which of them are right? What is the path forward for Oregon?
Your comments welcome.
What Does the GOP Do Next?
- Danny Vargas: Diversity is Destiny
- Paul Ryan: Take Some Political Risks
- Henry Olsen: What Would Reagan Do?
- Peter Robinson: Put California in Play
- Richard Land: Stay Faithful to Core Values
- Michael Steele: Listen. Adapt. Be Positive.
Your comments welcome.
Friday, November 07, 2008
City Club Post-Election Analysis
[The following was blogged during a 07-Nov-2008 City Club of Portland program "City Club Post-Election Analysis" -- all typos and errors are mine. The comments attributed to the participants are as best I could capture them at the time, and in some cases I wrote what I thought they meant, not necessarily the exact words they said. -Tom]
Dan Lavey says, the Oregon Republican Party is dead.
The party divisions are on cultural lines, not economic lines as much any more.
The obsessive Sizemore effort to put initiatives up has served to permanently organize the opposition. Each successive election has served to get Democrats ever more organized. From the Bus Project onward, these have served to help their candidates.
Democrats are recruiting better people.
All the GOP has left is ideology, not ideas. That's bad for Oregon because the only remaining debate is between the left and the far left. The political process has become much more polarized. That's driven in part by our campaign finance rules, which in allowing all your money to come from a dozen large donors, breed lazy candidates.
If Obama governs as he ran, he could be very successful.
Tim Hibbits --
The Obama margin will be probably 9 million votes. Oregon is still counting. Why can hillbillies in Kentucky get their votes counted 100% the next day, and Oregon takes two weeks?
The polls were largely right. The belief in hidden GOP support is proved wrong.
Rove has been a long term catastrophe for the party.
There was a Willy Week article two years ago suggesting that Republicans would take over Oregon in a few years. It was clearly wrong, and Hibbits refuted it at the time in Brainstorm Magazine.
The GOP's move from boardrooms to church pews has not helped. Statewide in Oregon, the Dem-GOP record is 24-3. The Washington numbers are 39-3.
Obama will carry Multnomah County by 200,000 votes. He will carry the rest of the state by 100,000. He got 60% of Washington County, the former GOP stronghold. He did well in many counties formerly strong for the GOP.
The voters voted less in realignment than in a throw the bums out fashion. There is no "permanent majority" in US politics, however if Democrats govern well they could have a good ride.
Meanwhile GOP leaders are coming to the conclusion that they aren't conservative enough, even though it's been 50 years since a hard-right candidate won in Oregon.
Mark Wiener --
would love to see the GOP move further right. He would caution Democrats on that.
Now the hard work begins. Education and how we pay for it. Our piece of global warming. How we raise money for public purposes. These changes need to be done smartly and with a lot of inclusion of voters. Dems will have right around 36 in the House, close to being able to raise taxes.
Dems should move carefully. There's an opportunity to make systemic change. It should be done in a way that's inclusive. If you leave the public behind you won't be successful.
Dan Lavey --
Reagan was successful where Bush failed. Reagan always kept the public with him, and Bush didn't do anything like that. It's more than giving a great speech. You have to adjust the content of the cake, not tweak the icing.
Republicans -- let the Dems govern, and work on regaining the majority. Don't delude yourself that you're governing. Dems need to produce. Give them their shot. Pick a few fights that go to the strength of the GOP brand and that people like about the GOP. Don't pick fights on children's health care that divide your own team and unite your opponents.
Tim Hibbits --
Sorry if someone felt bad about my comments about Kentucky. I grew up in southern Ohio and was proud to consider myself a hillbilly. I could literally see Kentucky from my house.
The new Oregon House Dems are in not-very-blue districts. A lurch left by Democrats would put those seats at risk. To stay in the majority the Dems need to avoid policies that drive voters away from them.
Dan Lavey --
The agendas of your party's interest groups is not always aligned with the interests of your party. Watch out regarding primaries that select unelectable candidates.
Questions from members
Marge Kafoury: Dan please elaborate on the Sizemore factor. Voters keep seeing the same defeated initiatives come back. How can Oregon get off this merry-go-round?
Dan Lavey: the backers need to stop funding losing initiatives. I don't understand how someone can fund a consistent and repeated failure. The answer isn't to choke off the initiative process. I think it's helping -- dramatically -- the interests of the liberal groups who have become permanently organized against them.
Wiener: and it's also expensive. The strategy may be to keep liberals on the defensive. And Dan is right. Loren Parks likes to give money because he enjoys it. But why does (some guy from) Jeld Wen fund these things? This is really a Sizemore money maker. Do the donors understand what their money goes to? Do they see how Sizemore spends it? Admittedly the opposition money is spent on people like me, so I may be cutting my own throat.
(Discussion on choking off or reforming the initiative system. Various slaps at Sizemore.)
Q2: wasteful spending and borrowing... will the American people make the necessary sacrifices for the common good?
Hibbits: I do believe the next president will have to ask for some sort of national sacrifice. We are a debtor nation. Obama will have to lay out that there are problems and we are all going to have to sacrifice. The Bush admin was unwilling to say that. Reagan was able to say that tough days today can lead to good days tomorrow.
Lavey: I think leadership finds the sweet spot between therapy and discipline. You can be an Eat Your Peas president like Carter and make everyone feel bad. Bush could have rallied the country after 9/11 -- esp. on energy -- and failed to do so. There is consensus for change.
Wiener: we are at a teachable moment. We want leadership that is honest yet not crabbed. Mondale's "I'm gonna raise your taxes" lacked the purpose of that sacrifice. Tell people, here is what you will get for your sacrifice. Let's hope the opportunity is not squandered.
Q3, Chris Smith: was there any way to avoid both 61 and 57?
Wiener: absolutely not. Without 57 on the ballot, 61 would have passed. Without the rational alternative of 57, 61 would have passed.
Q4: I did a lot of phoning and heard spontaneous complaints about negative advertising.
Wiener: Ask Jefferson -- it is here to stay. It works. The irrelevant nasty stuff does not work. Accurate yet negative ads are relevant and need to be aired.
Hibbits: negative contrast is not bad. McCain tried to scare people. Obama was more fair, that McCain voted w/ Bush 90% of the time.
Wiener: McCain resorted to actual Red Baiting, if you can imagine.
Q5: were you surprised that in tough economic times that people voted in favor of bond measures like PCC?
Lavey: Yes, I was surprised. The zoo passed, PCC passed, parks, public safety.
Wiener: Liz Kaufman has said that in tough times you have to have a tough conversation with the voters about what we want as a community. What do we want to buy? What is important to us as a community? I was not shocked by the result. Honest conversations are good. Demagoguing is bad.
Dan Lavey says, the Oregon Republican Party is dead.
The party divisions are on cultural lines, not economic lines as much any more.
The obsessive Sizemore effort to put initiatives up has served to permanently organize the opposition. Each successive election has served to get Democrats ever more organized. From the Bus Project onward, these have served to help their candidates.
Democrats are recruiting better people.
All the GOP has left is ideology, not ideas. That's bad for Oregon because the only remaining debate is between the left and the far left. The political process has become much more polarized. That's driven in part by our campaign finance rules, which in allowing all your money to come from a dozen large donors, breed lazy candidates.
If Obama governs as he ran, he could be very successful.
Tim Hibbits --
The Obama margin will be probably 9 million votes. Oregon is still counting. Why can hillbillies in Kentucky get their votes counted 100% the next day, and Oregon takes two weeks?
The polls were largely right. The belief in hidden GOP support is proved wrong.
Rove has been a long term catastrophe for the party.
There was a Willy Week article two years ago suggesting that Republicans would take over Oregon in a few years. It was clearly wrong, and Hibbits refuted it at the time in Brainstorm Magazine.
The GOP's move from boardrooms to church pews has not helped. Statewide in Oregon, the Dem-GOP record is 24-3. The Washington numbers are 39-3.
Obama will carry Multnomah County by 200,000 votes. He will carry the rest of the state by 100,000. He got 60% of Washington County, the former GOP stronghold. He did well in many counties formerly strong for the GOP.
The voters voted less in realignment than in a throw the bums out fashion. There is no "permanent majority" in US politics, however if Democrats govern well they could have a good ride.
Meanwhile GOP leaders are coming to the conclusion that they aren't conservative enough, even though it's been 50 years since a hard-right candidate won in Oregon.
Mark Wiener --
would love to see the GOP move further right. He would caution Democrats on that.
Now the hard work begins. Education and how we pay for it. Our piece of global warming. How we raise money for public purposes. These changes need to be done smartly and with a lot of inclusion of voters. Dems will have right around 36 in the House, close to being able to raise taxes.
Dems should move carefully. There's an opportunity to make systemic change. It should be done in a way that's inclusive. If you leave the public behind you won't be successful.
Dan Lavey --
Reagan was successful where Bush failed. Reagan always kept the public with him, and Bush didn't do anything like that. It's more than giving a great speech. You have to adjust the content of the cake, not tweak the icing.
Republicans -- let the Dems govern, and work on regaining the majority. Don't delude yourself that you're governing. Dems need to produce. Give them their shot. Pick a few fights that go to the strength of the GOP brand and that people like about the GOP. Don't pick fights on children's health care that divide your own team and unite your opponents.
Tim Hibbits --
Sorry if someone felt bad about my comments about Kentucky. I grew up in southern Ohio and was proud to consider myself a hillbilly. I could literally see Kentucky from my house.
The new Oregon House Dems are in not-very-blue districts. A lurch left by Democrats would put those seats at risk. To stay in the majority the Dems need to avoid policies that drive voters away from them.
Dan Lavey --
The agendas of your party's interest groups is not always aligned with the interests of your party. Watch out regarding primaries that select unelectable candidates.
Questions from members
Marge Kafoury: Dan please elaborate on the Sizemore factor. Voters keep seeing the same defeated initiatives come back. How can Oregon get off this merry-go-round?
Dan Lavey: the backers need to stop funding losing initiatives. I don't understand how someone can fund a consistent and repeated failure. The answer isn't to choke off the initiative process. I think it's helping -- dramatically -- the interests of the liberal groups who have become permanently organized against them.
Wiener: and it's also expensive. The strategy may be to keep liberals on the defensive. And Dan is right. Loren Parks likes to give money because he enjoys it. But why does (some guy from) Jeld Wen fund these things? This is really a Sizemore money maker. Do the donors understand what their money goes to? Do they see how Sizemore spends it? Admittedly the opposition money is spent on people like me, so I may be cutting my own throat.
(Discussion on choking off or reforming the initiative system. Various slaps at Sizemore.)
Q2: wasteful spending and borrowing... will the American people make the necessary sacrifices for the common good?
Hibbits: I do believe the next president will have to ask for some sort of national sacrifice. We are a debtor nation. Obama will have to lay out that there are problems and we are all going to have to sacrifice. The Bush admin was unwilling to say that. Reagan was able to say that tough days today can lead to good days tomorrow.
Lavey: I think leadership finds the sweet spot between therapy and discipline. You can be an Eat Your Peas president like Carter and make everyone feel bad. Bush could have rallied the country after 9/11 -- esp. on energy -- and failed to do so. There is consensus for change.
Wiener: we are at a teachable moment. We want leadership that is honest yet not crabbed. Mondale's "I'm gonna raise your taxes" lacked the purpose of that sacrifice. Tell people, here is what you will get for your sacrifice. Let's hope the opportunity is not squandered.
Q3, Chris Smith: was there any way to avoid both 61 and 57?
Wiener: absolutely not. Without 57 on the ballot, 61 would have passed. Without the rational alternative of 57, 61 would have passed.
Q4: I did a lot of phoning and heard spontaneous complaints about negative advertising.
Wiener: Ask Jefferson -- it is here to stay. It works. The irrelevant nasty stuff does not work. Accurate yet negative ads are relevant and need to be aired.
Hibbits: negative contrast is not bad. McCain tried to scare people. Obama was more fair, that McCain voted w/ Bush 90% of the time.
Wiener: McCain resorted to actual Red Baiting, if you can imagine.
Q5: were you surprised that in tough economic times that people voted in favor of bond measures like PCC?
Lavey: Yes, I was surprised. The zoo passed, PCC passed, parks, public safety.
Wiener: Liz Kaufman has said that in tough times you have to have a tough conversation with the voters about what we want as a community. What do we want to buy? What is important to us as a community? I was not shocked by the result. Honest conversations are good. Demagoguing is bad.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Why monopolies are bad
The reason monopoly is bad in the eyes of libertarians, is because it is inherently coercive -- we as consumers don't have other options, so even if the monopolist is a "good" one, he's still holding all the cards, and we have no choice but to either buy his stuff at his price, or go pound sand.
Competition empowers consumers by giving us choices and thus power, pitting the businesses against each other to our benefit.
Businesses hate that, so they constantly look for ways to "control" competition -- usually using government mandated cartel practices, subverting government oversight agencies, or by illegal price fixing, illegal anti-competitive agreements, etc.
A free market works when it channels greed into socially positive outcomes. Greed doesn't like being channeled and will happily corrupt the government in order to free itself from the hard boundaries of the free market.
Competition empowers consumers by giving us choices and thus power, pitting the businesses against each other to our benefit.
Businesses hate that, so they constantly look for ways to "control" competition -- usually using government mandated cartel practices, subverting government oversight agencies, or by illegal price fixing, illegal anti-competitive agreements, etc.
A free market works when it channels greed into socially positive outcomes. Greed doesn't like being channeled and will happily corrupt the government in order to free itself from the hard boundaries of the free market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
