The Right Kind of Bailout. Finally heard about One Today !

I am not sure whether you are tired of hearing the word bailout, but I sure am !

Airline Industry, The Banking Industry, The Auto Industry and even countries now !

However, today as I heard Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley on Marketplace on NPR, for the first time I really felt , he talked about a bailout, that made sense, hopefully someone is listening:

The argument was simple : Robert Reich's Quote "Financial capital moves instantly around the globe to wherever it can earn the best return. Human capital -- the skills and insights of our people -- is the one resource that's uniquely American, on which our future living standards uniquely depend." UnQuote

For full commentary visit : http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/03/10/pm-reich-commentary/

My understanding in simple terms: We should not let the budget short falls of state and local government impact our school and universities, so we should bail them out to ensure education at all levels is affordable. This kind of bailout will create the human capital needed for a sustainable economy in the long run.

My Take: I whole heartedly agree with Robert Reich. His commentary reminded me of my first blog : Wake Up - If you did not already know you should, which was all about our ability drive value. I truly, can say today I heard about a bailout that made sense and hence decided to blog it.

Thanks
Nagesh

The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a reflection of or opinions of any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for.

Follow up Post on "Economists/Intellectuals - Are we hurting our children?"

Recently, I posted an blog entry titled : "Economists/Intellectuals - Are we hurting our children?"

The post argued how programs like - "Cash for Clunkers", "Hiring more Govt Services Staff using borrowed (Stimulus) money leads to inter-generational transfers i.e. in simple terms - burdening our children with debt of our consumption. Interestingly today I read the following articles on Yahoo! Finance

1. Cash for Clunkers under budget with 690,000 sales
2. "Artificially Sweetened" Market Could Face "Seismic Readjustment," Harrison Says
3. It's Hard to Worry About a Deficit 10 Years Out

Correlating the articles - In US, We just bought a many "Corolla’s and other Small Cars", most of them are not even Innovative (potentially clunkers themselves). The subsidy of $3 Billion therefore will only benefit the manufacturer and buyer at the cost of the some "current or future" tax payer and can in no terms be qualified as something that will benefit the future generation, on the other hand Article 2 clearly equates that a lot of current debt accumulation will have to be repaid by our Kids - inherently lowering the standard of living for them and finally the last article argues how each one us or a future taxpayer will pay for this in the form of higher taxes.

I always believed and still do; that my parents strived for better living for me - and I want my kids to think the same of me when they grow up. I am not sure they will, given our generations lack of fiscal control and amount of debt we are piling on to them. Hopefully I am proven wrong.

Your feedback or comments on this post are welcome.

Thanks

Nagesh

The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a "reflection of" or "opinions of" any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for.

Cloud Computing - Why should Enterprises Care?

Recently, I wrote a blog entry analyzing the results and what they mean - in most cases I concluded that most executives were more confidant on controlling costs than they were on growth. Links to the post: http://kunamneni.blogspot.com/2009/07/ramblings-on-economy-is-it-all-good-now.html.

This brings attention to why are the executives not confidant on growth. Innovation is key to growth, and every executive is talking about it however their immediate actions are related to cost cutting. There may be many reasons; one reason that is probably obvious is that they are not confidant bringing their investments in Innovation fast enough to the market or another reason could be that they try too few ideas and cannot reliably predict the impact on revenue due to high risk that failure of any single idea may cause deviation that will not be accepted by the markets

This then truly raises the question, is the company’s innovation process scalable and whether the costs of scaling innovation process is truly linear to number of Ideas being pursued. Should every organization not take a closer look at their “Process of Innovation” as their future may very well depend on efficiency of the “Innovation Engine”. In simple terms - if a company typically tries 5 - 10 ideas at any time, then it is probably time to ask the question - how can the company scale this 10 fold - without increasing costs linearly, decreasing quality of product and at the same time improving time to market (bringing ideas to market faster).

So what is the answer from my vantage point:- (My take)

If we assume that today’s enterprises rely heavily on technology and analytics to foster innovation; then cloud computing has the potential to provide solution to scaling of the Enterprises "Innovation processes".

Cloud computing promises to lower Innovation costs by

1. Eliminating Upfront Investment Costs by allowing “Pay for Use” and thereby avoiding the lengthy, costly and cumbersome CAPEX processes.


2. Eliminating the need to plan complex deployment processes, by inducing highly efficient scaling and provisioning processes


3. Standardizing the Management Framework to enable complete visibility to all business processes.

In summary, if the future growth of your enterprise is based on engine of rapid innovation, then it is time to analyze the innovation process and how to scale it to try new ideas in a highly efficient manner.

Thank you your for taking the time to read. Your opinions and comments are welcome.

Thanks

Nagesh
The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a "reflection of" or "opinions of" any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for

Economists/Intellectuals - Are we hurting our children?

I took my economics class from Prof. Michael Brandl at the McCombs School of Business. Many a time in the he mentioned. (may not be the same words but this my interpretation of the essence).

"Not all government borrowing is the same. It depends on how the proceeds from the borrowing are spent. If the government borrows today and spends the money in a way that benefits the next generation, then that spending makes it easier for the next generation to repay the debt that has been created. But, if the government borrows today simple to increase current consumption, then the current generation is passing the bill for their spending onto the next generation. That is called a negative intergenerational transfer.".

To be honest, It did not fully sink into me the seriousness of the subject, until I started hearing and questioning myself on how the Stimulus money is going to be spent.

Today's news on "Cash for Clunkers" that the house rushes to approve 2B additional dollars really put me over the edge. I am really happy for the consumers who are taking advantage of the program to buy new vehicles. However, when buying the car, I am wondering if even one of them thought for moment - who is going to pay for the $4,500 that Gov't has convieniently agreed to pay these auto makers?

I guess, each one said or figured: "Not Me"; If it is not the guy who is buying the car, not the person who is actually selling the car, then who is? - Simple answer - That some body else is none other than our children or the collective us.

To a certain extent, shame on the "collective us" - the politicians who want to be populist, the citizens who just want to pass the buck or play ignorant, and the companies who lobby for incentives that benefits them at the cost to society.

So next time when you hear - We are going get the economy going by re-paving a road or putting more government officers on the streets - Question yourself - aren't these like paying for the maintenance your car, or paying for security system to protect your home; then why is it that we are borrowing money to pay for these, shouldn't they be paid for by current income ? To me this is classic Negative Intergenerational Transfer.

Going forward, when you hear an announcement about stimulus/borrowing - Think Again, Question it, Validate that it leads to a future benefit - if not we are just cheating ourselves and passing the pain to our children.

Thanks
Nagesh
The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a "reflection of" or "opinions of" any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for

Ramblings on Economy - Is it all good now ?

Link to Previous Post : My Views on Business and Technology: Ramblings on Economy - Is it all good now ?

Continuing ramblings on economy from yesterday, it is more of the same today

Exxon quarterly profit tumbles 66 percent, shares fall - (Recession - lower demand)

Motorola posts unexpected 2Q profit and says rest of year will see improvement - However on lower sales (missed revenue target), heavy cost cutting (over 8000 layoffs)

Colgate-Palmolive profit tops expectations - Again on Lower Sales and better cost management; Sales lower by 5.5%, volume of goods sold down by 1.5% - Lower consumption

Sony, Sharp post losses, Nintendo loses steam - Folks are not even buying a WII - that hurts

Eastman Kodak moves to 2Q loss as sales slide - Not sure this has anything to do with economy; this iconic company probably has lots of other issues, Still 29% lower sales - ouch

Kellogg profit rises 13 percent in 2Q - Reaping the benefits of downturn - I guess all of us have eat, it is better to eat at home than go out for breakfast. This is a direct result of consumers cutting spending.

Goodyear posts 2Q loss of $221 million, sales drop - Sales 25% lower

When you read more, it is apparent that most companies are giving good guidance on profit expectation for next quarter, however not much on sales guidance. This also makes me believe the companies are still focused on reducing costs aggressively to meet profit expectation and kind of shows the lack of confidence on projecting sales or growth. I feel this feeling of mine is again substantiated by report this morning that - New jobless claims raised more than expected.

As I said in the previous post - if we truly are waiting for stability in housing and homeowners, I feel this this trend has to change. At some point, we have start seeing growth from companies that actually produce goods and services that drive and consume labor.

Thanks

Nagesh

The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a "reflection of" or "opinions of" any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for

Ramblings on Economy - Is it all good now ?

This earnings season, I started paying attention to what was being said while companies are releasing their earlier. My curiosity was directed to understanding whether we are headed in the direction where an average citizen can actually come back after a hard day of work and not fear if he going to have a job next day.

My motivation behind this was basically simple - pretty much the pundits have tied recovery in housing sector to recovery of economy and in my opinion the recovery of housing is based on whether we can safely bet the home owners will pay for mortages without defaulting, which then relies on the simple fact that homeowner responsible for mortage will stay gainfully employed and the unemployed homeowners have a reason to believe that jobs are getting created and are on the way;

Find below some Headlines Unfiltered, on which I am going base my opinions

Drugmaker Pfizer's 2Q profit plunges 19 percent
Boeing profit climbs in 2Q on strong defense sales
Delta reports $257 million 2Q loss (double digit revenue drop)
PepsiCo 2Q profit falls 2 pct on sales drop
Wells Fargo profit rises; credit losses up
Morgan Stanley posts 2Q loss of more than $1.2B
Dominos 2Q profit plummets 22 percent
Glaxo profits up 11 percent on emerging markets
Altria Group 2Q profit rises, boosts forecast (Lower Expenses offset dip in sales)
Eli Lilly 2Q profit rises 21 percent
Apple 3Q beats forecasts despite recession
Yahoo 2Q profit rises 8 pct despite weak ad sales
AK Steel posts $47M loss for 2Q as demand falls
Coca-Cola 2nd-quarter profit rises 43 percent (rapid overseas growth offsets falling domestic demand)
Caterpillar 2Q profit falls 66 pct on weak demand
DuPont 2Q profit plunges on sales drop, charges
Lockheed Martin 2Q profit down 17 percent
United Technologies 2Q profit falls 24 percent
Texas Instruments 2Q profit falls 56 percent
Bank of America posts 2Q profit, surpasses Street
Google's slowing 2Q ad sales overshadow earnings
Sony Ericsson posts another loss in 2Q
Electrolux 2Q profit jumps six-fold
Nokia posts 66 pct fall in Q2 profits, shares drop
JPMorgan earns whopping $2.7 billion
Goldman Sachs' Q2 Smashes Forecasts On Trading Revenue

Analysis:

1. Companies in Financial Sector (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America etc. ) -made a killing ( Lots of Money ) : I am not sure I can call this extortion from the poor tax payer using government support, but sure seems like one. Thanks to government, In the guise of helping the economy, they are actually helping the bank executives look like hero's. So this should really not count in the +ves for the average consumer/homeowner


2. All brick and mortar companies who actually produce some thing useful - Dupont, Caterpillar, AK Steel, Texas Instruments, Delta Airlines, Dominos (pizza) etc. (sample of a wide cross-section of great companies across multiple industries) show dismal performance - revenues are down, profits are down. The implications to the economy -> we are having a tough time. Thanks to pretty smart people at wall street, the managed to set such low expectation that the these dismal earning's look good). However for the average consumer/homeowner the results probably mean that they are not looking to add any new work force and are probably still looking to cut costs.


3. The notable exceptions to the trend of lower sales and lower earnings in the brick and mortar space are Coca-Cola, Glaxo and Apple. Apple currently has really cool products, whereas Coca-Cola and Glaxo did very well due to focus on emerging markets not domestic markets. This really does not count as trend, as Apple is truly an exception to the trend and Management at Coca-Cola and Glaxo really focussed on where they could sell. (My recent post on this subject: Consumer Spending: Are we looking at the right consumer)
4. Some companies like yahoo!, Altria and IBM post better profits on lower sales, that is primarily due to cost cutting; which again does not look good from an employment perspective.
5. Finally, Google also showed stress on revenue (ad sales) - A darling of wall street also showing some cracks.

My Take
Net Net, looking at these results, I am not sure I see the average consumer/homeowner being confidant of paying the mortgage or being comfortable with their financial future as companies that need to thrive without any Government Support and produce real goods are really struggling, where as those that seem to support from government (unfairly??) seem to be raking in the dow (money). Finally, today's report on durable goods, which are down again by 2.5% clearly show the average consumer/homeowner's reluctance to spend and backs my belief.

One thing I have not done and will probably look into later this week is to correlate the earning's data to typical business cycles. That may shed some more light in why the market/analysts are considering every bit of news - good or bad as +ve. For now, My take is that we are really not out of the woods yet. May be the next earnings season will show results that we can all look into and feel comfortable that -- it is all good now !

Thank you reading, appreciate your feedback and comments. Additionally, if you do understand typical business cycles, would appreciate your thoughts on correlation of current economic data to typical business cycles.

Thanks

Nagesh

The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a "reflection of" or "Opinions of" any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for

My Views on Business and Technology: Equating Outsourcing to Losing Jobs - Is that Right?

My Views on Business and Technology: Equating Outsourcing to Losing Jobs - Is that Right?

Some additional Reference Posts that I read after I published the previous post, and felt they help us understand and refine perceptions further on the above post

1. How the Mighty Fall and How to Stay on Top - Jim Collins in Business Week. Book Review
2. The 2009 Global Outsourcing, Special AdSection - Fortune 500 Magazine (May, 2009)
3. HUGE PROBLEMS AHEAD by Sandy Leeds
4. Trying to Curb the Wrong Compensation by Sandy Leeds

Thanks
Nagesh
The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a reflection of or opinions of any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for

Equating Outsourcing to Losing Jobs - Is that Right?

This recent article in yahoo finance/business week goes to the extent of equating "Outsourcing" to Losing Jobs for American's http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107048/Where-Your-Job-Could-Be-Outsourced and some addtional comments by Administration regarding encouraging protectionism really got me concerned and thinking.

I do not get the connection between the statements, articles and the outcomes being discussed, so figured it is a topic that I wanted to research and take an a position on my blog

My First Stop : Definition of Outsourcing in wikipedia

"Outsourcing is subcontracting a process, such as product design or manufacturing, to a third-party company.[1] The decision to outsource is often made in the interest of lowering cost or making better use of time and energy costs, redirecting or conserving energy directed at the competencies of a particular business, or to make more efficient use of land, labor, capital, (information) technology and resources[citation needed]. Outsourcing became part of the business lexicon during the 1980s. It is essentially a division of labour."

Analysis of definition clearly shows no mention of moving jobs to other countries just for moving jobs or because some one loves Bangalore, India or Buenos Aires, Argentina vs. creating the same function New York, US. It however is very clear that outsourcing is driven by business to

• redirect energies to core competencies
• make more efficient use of land, labor, capital, technology and resources

These drivers make perfect sense to me - not sure why all of a sudden there is so much negativity about outsourcing. The fact is - what is non-core to one business is core to some else's business. If every business is focussed on improving its core then we should get closer the ideal Macro Economic goals of "Profit Maximization".

Theoretically, this sounds good but then why is it that off late, outsourcing is getting more defined as moving jobs to countries India, China, Russia, Brazil, Poland from US or Europe, referred also as "offshoring"

My Take#

1. We are failing to recognize the rate of change has accelerated dramatically. Which implies, As we have moved from farming to manufacturing to service to now knowledge based economy, the time it takes innovations to disperse across the globally connected economies is faster then ever before. This puts pressure on rate of innovation expected from the underlying economy to sustain growth and prosperity. if you still are unconvinced see this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY


2. Assuming Quality of life in US and other modern western economies is at least 3x better then third world countries. If that is true of Bangalore, India and New York, Businesses should expect value of at least 3x more for having the same job function in New York vs. having it performed in Bangalore, India. (Note - I am saying value not just labor cost ... ). If not businesses will be overpaying which is not good and not sustainable in the long run.

So what am i really saying ... we have some basic choices which we can make

1. Choice 1: Unlike the past, where innovation led to jobs that led to jobs that lasted 20 years, 10 year or 5 years now thanks to technology they cannot lock-in the productivity gains for those long periods. So we have to innovate / change continuously that creates value. Implication -> Encourage entrepreneurship more than ever before and do not raise barriers


2. Choice 2: We have start getting used to lower standards of living - (loss of jobs or reduction in salaries), reduce spending or sacrifice benefits we have become used to taking for granted so that business do not find value in moving jobs off-shore. Implication -> Lot smaller economy that will need to support the growing population.


3. Choice 3: Raise barriers for business to be global using government controls or extend subsidies to businesses by borrowing. Implication -> This is not sustainable as business are like water, they will eventually find a better home or dry up (belly up) when the government cannot sustain the subsidies or controls.

So far – Businesses seem to be focused more on Choice 2 and Government on Choice 3 rather than collectively focusing Choice 1. This is a scary trend, we should figure out a way for businesses, citizens and government to focus on Choice 1. We know this can be done. To prove it, we need to look no further into history then leaders like Henry Ford, who increased wages (sharing profits) at the same time setting goals (innovation) to reduce the price of car so that all employees (increase sales) can afford a car - improving quality of life of everyone.

Thanks

Nagesh

The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a reflection of or opinions of any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for.

Swine Flu - Is your Business at Risk?

Listening to Dr. Brandl today on Effect of swine flu on economy, I felt it is time for corporations to ask whether their Disaster Recovery plans truly consider all aspects Business Continuity i.e People, Processes and Technology.

My Take # This pandemic which now has spread from single nation (Mexico) to over 11 Nations in days if not hours should serve as a rude awakening to corporations to take a closer look at their Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Plans, as today's businesses use Global Resources in a Globally Connected Economy and their current Disaster Recovery plans could primarily be based on specific what-if scenarios and do not necessarily consider a Globally Spreading Pandemic.

Thanks
Nagesh
The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a reflection of or opinions of any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for.

Economic Crisis - Have we even defined the problem right?

Link to Previous Post: My Views on Business and Technology: Economic Crisis - Have we even defined the problem right?

Though after writing this article, I got a little lesson on commercial paper market drying up at the 4th McCombs Alumni Conference, it however did not convince me fully.

Today, as I read thru the articles on "Wells Fargo's" Windfall earnings, I felt these prove my belief on the topic of Credit Worthiness - Banks are lending and there is credit available for those who are credit worthy; however, I guess they are lending to who they deem are "Credit Worthy". So if anyone is not getting credit - may be like Mahatma Gandhi Said - It is time to look in the mirror.

Some Links
http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/106893/Wells-Cashes-in-on-Mortgage-Boom
http://tampabay.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2009/04/06/daily56.html?ana=yfcpc


Thanks
Nagesh
The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a reflection of or opinions of any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for.

Economic Crisis - Have we even defined the problem right?

My Basic Education was in Mechanical / Industrial Engineering with some focus in Operations Research. I still remember the first thing my Professor said way back. 95% of the solving the problem is about "Defining the problem right" remaining 5% is about "applying the right algorithm".

Off late, as I have been questioning whether we have even defined the problem right?

Looks like the root cause economic problem is defined as "Lack of Lending" or "Lack of Credit Flowing"?

So the solutions to the problem range from Re-capitalization to Closing Banks. The current govt solutions are trying to meet in the middle with plans like public-private partnership etc etc as noted in Prof. Brandl's Blog today - http://blogs.mccombs.utexas.edu/brandl/2009/03/25/geithner/

So I took the liberty to comment on the blog entry, the essence of which is as follows

1. If we truly believe there are good well run banks in the mix - then why are they not lending and why are we focussing on the so called large insolvent banks? With interest rates close to 0% the good ones should be able to borrow and lend infinetly? ( Net - Net - It should really not matter if the insolvent ones do not !)
2. Lend to whom ? The american consumer is so much in debt. When was the last time any bank lent to the person who has maxed out his borrowing capability or does not have a job? Would you, if you were running a bank lend to a consumer profile who is already saddled with debt he cannot pay?
3. Assuming, we are successful in re-capitalizing the banks. The banks will naturally try to find the most credit worthy and profitable consumer profile to lend to. Are we really sure that, THAT consumer profile is really the American Consumer ? If not, Question who this consumer is and will money start flowing to that consumer?

As I think thru this subject, I really, would like some economists to illustrate which credit worthy institution / individual is not able to borrow ? and if there is such an example, I would like to further understand why the so called well run banks are not lending to them ? That may shed light on what the real problem is?

So what is My Take: My Gut tells me that the real problem, America now faces is not availability of credit, it is credit worthiness of American Consumer. So the solutions should make American Consumer Strong and Credit Worthy Again.

In the short run this may be best acheived by letting the American Consumer - The individual who is acutally working 8 hrs a day and makes a salary around the national average keep more of his money and " by American Consumer I do not mean American Businesses or citizens who make say more than 2x of national average". The mid-term solutions lie in executing national projects like upgrading National Infrastructure - Highway Systems, Air traffic Control Systems, Power Grids etc and The longer-term solutions lie investing into education, re-training, and providing funding future technologies - Energy Independence, Regulatory Frameworks, Tax-Code re-write etc.

Finally, we cannot ignore the psychology of markets, we have to recognize that as long as every one, which includes banks feel that there will be a better opportunity (option) in future they will stay out which will make things worse. John Maynard Keynes recognized this way back, so long as government in this case keeps the hope that more help is one the way to the banks, it will stall the recovery.

Thank you for reading. Your feedback is appreciated.

Thanks

Nagesh

The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a reflection of or opinions of any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for.

Follow up to My Post "Wake Up - If you did not already know you should"

Recently, I had written blog post titled, "Wake up - If you did not already know you should". A key point in my view about expectation of "Credit Flowing" as soon as Banks had enough capital is that it is not a valid expectation as "Flow of credit should be tied to credit worthiness" and not somebody's ability to lend or that somebody feels he is entitled to credit.

"Part I: Geithner's Plan "Extremely Dangerous," Economist Galbraith Says" was the Tech Ticker interview with Prof. James Galbraith, The University of Texas at Austin on Yahoo! Finance today. I was surprised at how clearly he articulated that lending by banks will not resume unless the loans are provided to credit worthy purposes and that the American Consumer is saddled with debt and cannot take on any more debt.

Net-net, given what I heard and read today, my convictions around my post have become stronger. I strongly recommend every one reading this blog to listen to Prof. Galbraith interview and come to their own perceptions of the right medicine for the economic mess. I was humbled by some to the simple solutions suggested by him.

Happy reading and forming opinions

Thanks

Nagesh

The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a reflection of or opinions of any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for.

IT Hardware (Servers, Mainframes, Storage) - who is the future buyer ?

HP bought EDS Last Year. CISCO has come out with clear intentions to be a datacenter player with their new server line. Yesterday's announcement of IBM's plan to acquire SUN raise a very fundamental question : WHO IS THE BUYER OF IT HARDWARE?


Historically, Software has been specifically designed for a particular OS/hardware platform. Has this paradigm finally shifted. Has software matured far enough that it is either truly synonymous or ubiquotous to underlying platform.?


Historically, Enterprises have always liked to own software and hardware. IT hardware and Software have always been treated as Assets of value. Has this paradigm finally shifted. Can Enterprises finally accept there is no true asset value beyond their use, hense can be procured as an operational commodity?


Historically, Enterprises believed software has to custom built or bought for specific/differentiating use. Has this paradigm finally shifted. Can Enterprises finally accept that software is just tooling, what they consume is services and processes that are either specific/differentiating to them?

If you have answered or even leaning towards answering "Yes" to the questions, then we both are on the same page? However we may not really really agree what it means to future of IT Services -

So here is My Take: If your business in not related to providing "Technology Services", the only hardware your business will procure will only be Edge or End-User Devices that lets your enterprise stay connected. The last to adopt would be the mega-enterprises, who will eventually adopt due to asymetric global demands and changing business objectives.

Thanks for reading. Let me know what your opinions are.

Nagesh

The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a reflection of or opinions of any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for.

Wake Up - If you did not already know you should

What is at stake today is our ability to drive value in the long-run, and the long-run is not far away - It is here. Please watch and read the following blog posts

• “Did you know” by Karl Fisch, Scott McLeod, and Jeff Bronman. Watch it, you will be surprised. The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY
• Macro-Economic Updates by Professor Brandl’s from McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin. The link is http://blogs.mccombs.utexas.edu/brandl/

If these posts are not providing a wake up call - I am not sure what will!

My View:

1. Stop talking about tax breaks (I am sure by now most people do not mind paying a little more for a greater good. At least, I am) and start trying to figure out how to invest into our Future (education being one of them) that will allow us and our kids (our future) to be competitive. So Rather than taking a stance of rejecting money due to political affiliations, figure out a way to invest that will produce long-term benefits.
2. Stop talking about bail-outs (they are necessary so lets get beyond that) and ordering banks to lend (there is no entitlement here, carelessness in lending is what got us here in the first place), so rather than having an entitlement behavior, lets provide a reason for institutions to lend; Announcing projects, is one way - which becomes the basis for credit worthiness and reason for someone to lend. If not, just lending will get us back to current situation faster than we can imagine. New business (Projects) will provide the “Hope” needed to move forward.
3. "Hope" does not emerge if the justification for every move is based on “Catastrophe Avoided”. This will only scare people further, So Let the next bail-out be framed in-terms of meeting Business needs (insurance/lending - what ever they may be) rather than another “Dooms Day” Avoided. That will help show “Light at the end of the Tunnel” rather the darkness everyone sees on every bail-out measure announced.
   

Thanks
Nagesh

The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a reflection of or opinions of any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for.