read this: A New Political Agenda for Business?

BDx13 - 5-29-2008 at 10:44 AM

the bulleted list at the top is a painful summary of events...

A New Political Agenda for Business?
by Bill George
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Business Week
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/105156/A-New-Po...

This election, business leaders should offer Washington a set of plans that will restore the country's economic strength and global standing

The likely nominations of Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama all but ensure major changes in Washington in the next four years. With the 2008 Presidential election intensifying, business leaders need to engage more vigorously in the national debate. It is time to be proactive in shaping the debate, not just in lobbying for our self-interests.

The consequences of the 2000 and 2004 elections suggest business leaders should be careful what we wish for. All too often, seemingly obvious choices have long-term outcomes that have not been adequately considered:

• In 2000 we wished for tax cuts—and got large deficits and widening income disparities.

• We wished for less regulation—and got the subprime crisis and mammoth losses on Wall Street that forced firms to raise capital from sovereign wealth funds.

• We wished for a weaker U.S. dollar so we could export more—and got rapidly escalating oil and corn prices as foreign governments preferred holding commodities over dollars.

• We supported invading Iraq—and found our country trapped in a war we don't know how to end and a price tag of $2 trillion-$3 trillion.

• We wished to keep our free-enterprise health-care system and wound up with out-of-control health-care costs that make our companies less competitive—and still we have 45 million uninsured citizens.

• We abandoned the Kyoto Treaty instead of renegotiating it—and lost vital time as climate change became a growing global issue.

As a result, trust in the President and the Congress, as well as in business leaders, has fallen to the lowest levels of our lifetime, according to Gallup poll numbers. That should be a source of grave concern.

From Both Sides, an Authentic Leader

In every election, candidates promise a great many things to many constituencies in order to get elected. The danger in this election is that politicians may respond in imprudent ways to voters' deep and obvious dissatisfaction, devising hasty solutions that result in unintended consequences. This has happened frequently before, such as the $1 million limit on taxable compensation, Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, and the defeat of free-trade bills.

The good news is that both parties are poised to nominate authentic leaders for President. These two candidates seem prepared to engage in an intense debate about what's best for the U.S. for the next decade, instead of focusing on minor issues, false charges, and gimmicks.

The next President needs to face the realities of our current situation and level with the American people by describing the problems as they really are. Then we need Presidential leadership to engage all of us in concerted actions to get the U.S. back on track. Business leaders should participate vigorously in this debate, going beyond our self-interests to focus on what is best for the country. We cannot sustain business success unless the U.S. is strong and our economy is healthy.

A Long List of Priorities

Business leaders should offer the new Administration and Congress a thoughtful platform of policies and programs that will restore America's economic strength and our standing in the global community. This requires us to address the broader issues that will ensure competitive companies, healthy markets, and equitable rules of engagement.

Specifically, we should advocate for:

• A fiscally responsible federal budget that strengthens our long-term competitive position in the world economy.

• Free-trade agreements that enable U.S. companies to compete around the world while ensuring our employees have secure futures.

More from Yahoo! Finance:

• Good Reasons to Take a Vacation Right Now

• Companies Help Employees Deal With Fuel Costs

• The Secrets of Unlikely Millionaires
Visit the Careers Center
• A focus on innovative products and services to strengthen exports and provide domestic jobs.

• An education and training system that enables all citizens to have productive jobs providing livable incomes.

• An energy policy that reduces consumption, improves efficiency, and increases the proportion of supply from North America while creating breakthroughs in renewable resources.

• An efficient and competitive health-care system that covers all citizens.

• A foreign policy in which the U.S. collaborates with other countries to restore world peace and strengthens our military without repeated military incursions.

A tall order? It is indeed. This agenda must be challenging because the problems are so great. We may not get there in the next four years but, to quote author Stephen Covey, we need to "begin with the end in mind," so that we know we are heading in the right direction and making progress in getting there.

That's the only way we can restore the confidence of the American people in business and political leaders. And it is the best way to ensure America and its business community are strong and vibrant.

George, professor of management practice at Harvard Business School, is the author of two best-selling books, True North and Authentic Leadership. He writes his "True North" column every other week at BusinessWeek.com.

Copyrighted, Business Week. All rights reserved.

defstarsteve - 5-29-2008 at 01:39 PM

um....
that means elect none of the current candidates and get Bloomberg right...

BDx13 - 5-29-2008 at 03:28 PM

i was a fan of bloomberg's mayoral skills.

defstarsteve - 5-29-2008 at 04:12 PM

I have no problem with the man
but a country is not a business
I hope we are not headed to big business being upfront about running things, they have been doing behind the scenes for years and look at where it has gotten us....

the people of this country are not employees and if we hire a ceo to run the thing we will be considered employees even more so then we are now...

ceo---presidet
congress- board of directors
middle management---- state and local officals
slave workers--- all the rest of us....

how I can I quit or get fired, go to jail?

instead of life liberty and the pursit
it will be work harder and produce more for the company...
which is very close to a communist mindset

we are fucked
have fun while you can and don't worry it'll hopefully end quick and be painless

Siczine.com - 5-29-2008 at 11:01 PM

"In every election, candidates promise a great many things to many constituencies in order to get elected..."

Huh?

defstarsteve - 5-30-2008 at 12:52 AM

make as many promises as you can to as many people as you can
and then follow thru on none of it
and blame it on the other party

DaveMoral - 5-31-2008 at 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by defstarsteve
I have no problem with the man
but a country is not a business
I hope we are not headed to big business being upfront about running things, they have been doing behind the scenes for years and look at where it has gotten us....

the people of this country are not employees and if we hire a ceo to run the thing we will be considered employees even more so then we are now...

ceo---presidet
congress- board of directors
middle management---- state and local officals
slave workers--- all the rest of us....

how I can I quit or get fired, go to jail?

instead of life liberty and the pursit
it will be work harder and produce more for the company...
which is very close to a communist mindset

we are fucked
have fun while you can and don't worry it'll hopefully end quick and be painless

Slave workers is dead right Steve. Not just slave workers... but slave workers that have to pay for the right to be slaver workers.

How fucked up is that?

Curiously, it's close to the communist mindset... but there wouldn't be state property because it wouldn't be communism, just capitalism run completely amok.

random - 5-31-2008 at 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMoral
but there wouldn't be state property because it wouldn't be communism, just capitalism run completely amok.

There's not quite as much of a difference as you think. One, keep in mind that Soviet communism saw plenty of "unofficial" private property, given that they created black markets for most things to get away from official state allocations. Beyond that, ask yourself if it really makes a difference in practice if everything is owned by that state or just owned (or at least operated as if it were owned) by the people who run the state... in practice, it's the same shit... but on paper, it's a little more palatable to people when the ownership by the state is in a less-than-official capacity.

Siczine.com - 5-31-2008 at 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by defstarsteve
make as many promises as you can to as many people as you can
and then follow thru on none of it
and blame it on the other party

I got the meaning but the wording of it was retarded.

JawnDiablo - 5-31-2008 at 05:41 PM

i work more to pay for gas to drive nack to work.
it's a viscious cycle.
glad civics are good on the gas.