Telling It Like It Is

THE ENTERPRISE--IS ATLAS SHRUGGING YET?

THE ENTERPRISE--IS ATLAS SHRUGGING YET?

I WAS GOING TO DO A FORECAST THIS WEEK, BUT DECIDED TO WAIT...
Just below is link to a survey -- of what you think.  It is very brief--just 6 questions.  You should be able to finish it in a minute or two, depending on how long you think about your answers.  Please complete the survey.  http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=K4yuvyGM7BzpPMYSeejjSA_3d_3d

Once I have that  input and finish reading the resources that are piled up on my desk, I will give you my "read" on where the economy is headed, the outlook for business, and maybe even some guesses (the best anyone can do) about how the equity markets will react. (Because no one really knows that answer.)

Preview:  I am still very worried about the government's excessive spending which can lead to huge budget deficits and a dramatic weakening of the US dollar.  The only alternative to balance the budgets and offset this flagrant spending will be to raise taxes--one way or another--and more likely sooner than later. 

AN ADVISORY BOARD = BIG BENEFITS FOR SMALL COMPANIES
Something I wrote is posted on American Express Open Forum (Blog) right now:   "An Advisory Board - Best Source of Guidance for Your Business" was posted recently on American Express Open Forum, a widely read and highly regarded blog that covers a wide range of topics for business owners.  Here's a link to it.
http://blogs.openforum.com/2009/04/24/advisory-board-guidance-for-business/#comments

I hope you will find it useful, especially if you have any involvement with small or even medium-sized (under $100MM) companies.  Feel free to refer others to it.  I tried to answer the most often asked (or wondered) questions, as simply as I could.  This is just the beginning, and there are many more, good articles on this topic available on the Internet.  Everybody needs help, and "shoulder to lean on," and someone who will tell them what they need to hear--or know.

CHINA SEEMS TO BE REBOUNDING
One of my valued sources recently shared a FT piece that cites how China is making its way through the global financial crisis.  In two words, "pretty well."  The Chinese "stimulus" was really a stimulus, and it seems to be working.   China is planning to develop a broad medical care insurance policy, which could reduce the very high Chinese savings rate, and fuel more consumption by the Chinese people.  The People's Bank of China is loosening the reins on banking and lending, which should also fuel growth.  Some of the anti-export  economic penalties have been lifted too.  Now forecasters predict that China's growth for 2009 could approach 8% or more (up from the 6% range that was feared to be "too low."  2010 expectations are even higher at 10-11% up from 9 percent.  If this happens, China will pass Japan as the second largest economy.  However, unless USA consumption levels off and begins to rise, China's biggest customer will not help in this growth.

I KEEP HOPING (AND FEARING?)
That Barack Obama is clever, and that I just don't understand the whole picture.  Perhaps he figures, first, let Congress do the dirty work (that gives him a lot of deniability).  Next, cozy up to the Europeans as the first step to hooking them into cooperating.  Third, actually talk with (and shake hands with) some of the real "enemies" like Chavez to see just how bad they are.  You know the old saying, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer..."  As far as who's projecting his future budget deficits, we should all get some of those hallucinogens.  At least we'd feel better while we go broke.  Who knows.  Maybe he's "dumb like a fox."  I still can't stomach his "wealth redistribution" nonsense, and I often wonder "whose side he's on," but I'm waiting and hoping. But,  as they say in boxing "Protect yourself at all times." 

WERE THE TEA PARTIES THE FIRST SIGN OF "ATLAS SHRUGGING?"
Of America's revolt against the policies of wealth redistribution and tax & spend big government?  That might be the case--at least it feels like it right now.  The Republican party is still fractured and leaderless.  That's not good.  A third party has seldom (in our nation's history) been able to do much but get one of the other parties' candidate elected (in this case the "opposition").  But when this many Americans come out for an "event" like this, there is a loud and clear message for any future candidates:  PAY ATTENTION!

AUTO COMPANIES--STILL IN CONFUSION
Whoever buys the Hummer brand (especially if it is the Chinese) will have a gold mine if they can just find someone to make it for them, or cut a deal with GM to guarantee a supply for EXPORT.  Hummers are so popular in the less developed parts of the world, where their perceived ruggedness and go anywhere capability are valued.  Now, if the new owner actually makes them capable and suitable for that, and sells the (machine-gun mount and bullet proofing option package) it could be a gold mine.  Chrysler (exept for a couple of good vehicles) has been "dead" for some time, all a bankruptcy filing will do it proclaim it officially and get on with services.  Fiat is shopping hard to see what pieces it can pick up at a bargain price--from either GM or Chrysler.

THE WEEK MAGAZINE--A GREAT SOURCE OF INFO FOR BUSY PEOPLE
Many of you have read my repeated favorable reviews of The WEEK Magazine.  I find it to be one of the most useful and efficient sources of news and information in todays' info-overloaded times.  Perhaps it is more like a "weekly newspaper" to me, in many respects.  If you don't get it, check it out.  You can get four free issues by just going here and asking for them:  https://secure.palmcoastd.com/pcd/eSv?iMagId=061DG&i4Ky=IDD3

The most recent issue contained a great feature on Ayn Rand and her legendary book, ATLAS SHRUGGED.  With permission from The WEEK, I am reproducing it here for readers of THE ENTERPRISE.

==========================================
AYN RAND: CAPITALISM’S ENDURING CRUSADER
The WEEK Magazine: News & Opinion
Friday, April 24, 2009
 
Novelist Ayn Rand worshipped the free market and considered money to be “the root of all good.” So why, when capitalism is supposedly in crisis, is she enjoying a major revival?
 
How big is Rand’s comeback?
She’s more popular than ever. Rand has always had a strong following in the U.S., but her magnum opus, the 1,088-page Atlas Shrugged, has enjoyed a huge surge in sales since the start of the financial crisis. It sold 200,000 copies in the U.S. in 2008 and so far this year, the book is selling at its fastest rate since it was first published, in 1957. Sales have spiked whenever the federal government has intervened in the economy—during the subprime crisis, last October’s bank bailouts, and with the passage of President Obama’s economic stimulus package. In January, the book reached No. 33 on Amazon’s best-seller list, briefly surpassing Obama’s The Audacity of Hope, and is now at No. 20. There’s a Hollywood movie in the works, possibly starring Angelina Jolie as Rand.
 
What is Atlas Shrugged about?
The evils of government control. Rand’s fourth novel describes a dystopian United States in which industrialists and the rest of America’s “producers”—oppressed by government regulation—are persuaded by the novel’s hero, charismatic inventor John Galt, to forsake the world of mediocrities, parasites, and “second-handers” (i.e., the altruistic) and go on strike. (See below.) The strikers, or “Atlases,” retreat to a mountain hideaway, where they build an independent, unregulated economy. The strike stops the “motor of the world”—factories close, skyscrapers crumble, people riot, pirates roam the seas. The litter-strewn streets become hunting grounds for beggars and criminals. In the end, the socialists who have provoked this catastrophe beg Galt to take over the economy.
 
To whom does the book appeal?
People who are more scared of governments than of bankers. Many conservatives and libertarians see the federal response to the current economic crisis as the beginning of a government takeover of private enterprise. Obama’s economic strategy “is right out of Atlas Shrugged,” writes Stephen Moore in The Wall Street Journal. “The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you.” More fanatical free-marketers even predict a Rand-style revolution, in which those tired of making sacrifices for their fellow citizens decide to “go Galt,” by refusing to work or pay taxes. On Capitol Hill, Republican Rep. John Campbell of California has been handing out copies of the novel to his interns.
 
Who was Ayn Rand?
Born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum in 1905 in St Petersburg, Russia, she was the daughter of an entrepreneur whose business was seized by the Bolsheviks. In 1925 she fled to America, changed her name to Rand, and began working for Cecil B. DeMille in Hollywood, before moving to New York to become a writer. She wrote two short novels before gaining popularity in 1943 with The Fountainhead, the story of an architect driven by the “second-handers” to blow up his own building. But it was Atlas Shrugged that made her a national institution and gave the world a new philosophy, known as Objectivism.
 
What is Objectivism?
Rand described it as “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” The only social system consistent with this morality, Rand insisted, is pure, unfettered capitalism, and the only function of government is the protection of individual rights. Rand attracted a group of disciples, known, with self-conscious irony, as the Collective, which included former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. It wasn’t just her ideas that inspired the group, it was Rand’s charisma. At the height of her popularity in the 1950s and early 1960s, Rand cut a highly exotic figure with her bobbed hair, Russian accent, dollar-sign brooches, and long cigarettes, smoked through a holder. She saw smoking as a Promethean symbol of creativity and regarded health warnings as a socialist conspiracy. When she died of lung cancer, in 1982, a 6-foot-high floral dollar sign was erected by her open coffin.
 
Did Objectivism outlast its founder?
A 1991 survey by the Library of Congress described Atlas Shrugged as the second most influential book in the U.S., after the Bible. Several universities have founded centers for the study of her views. Ronald Reagan was a fan; so were sports stars such as Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert. But of all her prominent admirers, it was Alan Greenspan who was the most devoted. He even invited Rand to his swearing-in to President Gerald Ford’s Council of Economic Advisors, in 1974. His 18-year reign as chairman of the Fed, during which he presided over the unprecedented growth and deregulation of the U.S. economy, was arguably the apogee of Objectivism. But after the financial industry imploded last year, Greenspan admitted there was a “flaw” in  free-market ideology. This admission hasn’t gone down well with Rand disciples. Says Yaron Brook, head of the Ayn Rand Institute: “I believe Greenspan sold his soul to the devil.”
 
John Galt in his own words:  The hero of Atlas Shrugged outlines Objectivism in a 60-page speech. These excerpts provide a sense of the character’s—and the author’s—intensity:
“While you were dragging to your sacrificial altars the men of justice, of independence, of reason, of wealth, of self-esteem, I beat you to it, I reached them first. I told them the nature of the game you were playing and the nature of that moral code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp. I showed them the way to live by another morality—mine. It is mine that they chose to follow.”
“All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider ‘need’ a claim. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind …”
“The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”==========================================

THAT'S IT FOR NOW

Spring has sprung, around central Ohio anyway.  Will the economy be far behind?  MAYBE--and MAYBE NOT.  Will President Obama stiffen his resolve about our foreign policy and rein in the Congressional Democrats?  MAYBE--and MAYBE NOT.  Will he keep his cool, aloof manner even when his decisions seem to bounce around here and there?  SURE--BECAUSE IT WORKS FOR HIM--NOW, ANYWAY.   Can we trust him?  ONLY TIME WILL TELL.   (HE OFTEN SCARES ME AND I'M FEARLESS.) He certainly is tackling a lot of things that he wants to change.  I still disagree with more of his initiatives and directions than I agree with...but it's not over yet. 

CONGRESS--UGH--TEA PARTY TIME

While we are talking about "over," how about the wonderful actions of Congress.  Too bad they only have ten fingers each, if they had more, they could point them at more people to blame for their own ineptness and transgressions.  2010 cannot come fast enough for me.  We need to "clean house" in Washington (Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Dodd, Frank, Murtha, and on and on, and that is the first chance we get.  Let's not miss it.  We must find and  support new, better candidates.  Start now--Nov. 2010 is only 18 months away.

BEFORE YOU FINISH, IF YOU DIDN'T ALREADY, PLEASE GO BACK AND TAKE THE SURVEY.

BEST, JOHN

THE ENTERPRISE--NOTHING IS QUITE WHAT IT SEEMS

THE ENTERPRISE--NOTHING IS QUITE WHAT IT SEEMS

PIRACY IS A CRIME--RETRIBUTION MUST BE SWIFT AND EQUAL TO THE CRIME
I wrote the majority of this before snipers took out the pirates holding Captain Phillips hostage and set him free.  Finally, someone figured out the simple facts of how to deal with rogues.  Translation:  It's time to put armed, skilled security agents on ships sailing anywhere near Somalia and encourage them to blast these pirates out of the water with RPGs or spray them with automatic weapons fire.  It won't take many such responses to dampen their enthusiasm for what have been "easy targets."  Misguided international maritime laws and bleeding heart nations who want to coddle these criminals are the bane of our society. Sometimes, it is necessary to "fight fire, with fire."  That's just hard, common sense.  One big ransom payment will pay for a few "protection forces" on every ship moving around out there. (Last I heard, Blackwater should have some excess manpower since its role in Iraq is over.)

NOW YOU CAN READ "THE REST OF THE STORY"
This was received from a military widow who is still "connected" to reliable sources.  If this doesn't worry you as an American, IT SHOULD!

The Truth Finally Comes Out.  No wonder it took so long.
Subject: The real story of Obama's Decision Making with the hostages.
 (From a very reliable source)
Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:
1.  BHO [Obama] wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2.  Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE [Rules Of Engagement] that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3.  The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4.  When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions.  As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5.  BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
6.  Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage.  4 hours later, 3 dead raggies
7.  BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour.  As usual with him, it's BS [You know what that stands for].

So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-.  Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account:
"Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken!"

"The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger."

"The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution” would be acceptable."

"After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided he’d had enough. Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.  Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe."

"There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage. Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put to rest questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness."

"Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.  What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles — and a U.S. Navy warship."

ED. NOTE:  I  added explanatory notes for a couple of acronyms and the underscoring for emphasis.
I GUESS OUR COURAGEOUS COMMANDER IN CHIEF COULDN'T MAKE THE HARD DECISIONS--AGAIN--A ROOKIE MISTAKE.

FORGOTTEN SOCIAL SECURITY? 
A recession reduces the revenue for all things government since it reduces income, earnings and taxes paid by both individuals and companies.  Social Security was chugging along with a healthy favorable "balance" (although there really is no "Social Security" fund per se--it's all just numbers on paper/in computers somewhere in DC).  That "balance" has now evaporated.  This means that in addition to all his multi-trillion big-government programs, President Obama and his Democratically mismanaged Congress will get a chance to touch what has been called "the Third Rail (electrified) of politics."  Do I expect them to do anything wise with it?  Not a chance.  First step will be to remove the cap on contributions entirely thus "taxing the rich" still further (what else would you expect?).  Expect that to happen before 2010 elections.  Why?  It is the least risk way to "fix things," and it is a "populist" move--far more voter will gain from the security of knowing Social Security is amply funded than those who will pay still further taxes on what they have worked hard to earn.  "To err is human; to really screw up, you have to be totally misguided," —which our government's leadership IS right now.

LEARN FROM SPORTS--APPLY IT TO BUSINESS
Check out the dominance of the recent NCAA Men's and Women's champs.  North Carolina and Connecticut.  These programs won based on three principles that work just as well in business as in sports. 
1) Get the best talent.  Recruiting is critical.
2) Get them to play well together.  Use a "scheme" (strategy and tactics) that is suited to the talent.
3) Don't let up on a competitor when you have them down.  Finish them off.  And always set the bar higher than where you are, because competitors are improving, so to stay the best, you must improve more, faster.
Key element:  You must have a good coach and a strong team leader--who, in basketball, is usually the point guard.  They both had both.  What wins in sports, wins in business too.  Pay attention to it and learn from it.

A POLITICAL PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE (IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS)

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
A lot.  "Money Laundering" is a crime.  Our RICO statutes prohibit it.  Somehow it seems that the government is doing something akin to money laundering, but extracting a fee in the form of taxes as the money passes through.  Of course the private sector can never do what the government does with Social Security.  It is the world's largest Ponzi scheme.  Pay off old debtors with the money contributed by new ones.  If you think I am kidding, think about it. Bernie Madoff had nothing on the Social security Administration.  He just promised much higher (too high, in retrospect) returns, and the markets collapsed out from under him.  Just like our economy.

STAY ALERT FOR THE "CARD CHECK BILL"
It may be dormant for now, but it will reappear in some "amended form."  The Amended form will be designed to get a "foot in the door," and then pry to door open later, as further amendments to other legislation.  That's how Washington works.  And while I am on the topic of union membership, isn't it interesting that only 8% of private sector employees belong to unions but about half of the government employees are unionized.  When you consider that unions came into being to protect workers and their rights from abusive and unfair employers--what does that say about government vs. private sector as employers?  Who needs protection from whom, more?  Scary, huh?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS--NOT WHAT THEY SEEM TO BE
After reading George Friedman of Stratfor's analysis of Obama's swing through Europe, I was less alarmed at his "results" from our so-called European allies.  He got little or nothing in the way of "concessions" from the French (who don't like the USA) or from the Germans (who also don't like the USA).  (Oh, yes, the Russians don't like us either.)  The problems the Germans have is that they are dependent on Russia for much of their natural gas needs.  That means they will lean toward Russia and against the USA for the time being.  Figuring that he couldn't get much of anything, apparently Obama decided to make this a "goodwill tour," in hopes of repairing relations damaged by his predecessor--who (while ridiculed and reviled) was a much tougher bargainer than he got credit for. 

TURKEY IS A BIG PLAYER
Obama's last important stop was Turkey, who wants in the European Union and other related organizations (NATO).  Turkey holds an important place in the picture as the "gateway" for Middle Eastern natural gas into Europe--and Germany.  Turkey is also a close neighbor of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Georgia--all places that have ongoing issues.  There's lots more intrigue to this than I can cover here.  Suffice it to say that things are not always what they seem to be--and us poor "citizens" seldom get the straight story from either our government or the liberal mainstream media.  It pays to do extra homework--especially if you have business dealings with anyone in this region.

" THIS IS A STICK-UP!  GIVE ME YOUR MONEY--ALL OF IT!"

WHEN WILL AMERICANS "WISE UP" ABOUT WHO IS LEADING CONGRESS?
Nancy Pelosi said this while proposing a further tax on investments made to fund retirement by millions of "real" Americans:
"We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'."    If this isn't a stick-up, it sure feels like it.

"STAGGERING STUPIDITY"--REDUX
I have a different comment:  "The staggering stupidity of Congressional leaders is surpassed only by that of those who continue to vote them into office."   Those 12 million illegal immigrants should be in one of three places:  1) On the path to gaining legal citizenship; 2) Temporarily in jail because they are "illegally here,"   3) Being deported back to where they came from, via the cheapest transportation method available.  TO ALL AMERICANS:  When will you wake up, and oppose these fools--before it is too late and they have ruined our country for our generation and our children's generation--or longer.  Vote for their opponents in the next election.  Tell everyone you know to do the same. 

TAX TIME IS OVER FOR THIS YEAR
Now every government entity will feel the pain of lower revenues as tax payments drop due to lower employment, lower corporate profits, lower (or no) capital gains, and lots of capital losses to offset against any meager gains.  Municipal budgets will be stressed beyond belief from coast to coast and from DC to the smallest town and country government--and big profligate states will hurt the worst.  You read it here--watch for it to unfold.

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION--AGAIN
This was the battle cry of our forefathers against England and its monarchy.  The Obama monarchy abetted by his allies in the Democratically controlled Congress are running up debts which can ultimately only be repaid by massive tax increases. At the risk of being redundant to all the other sources of this kind of data, consider these bits of information:
President Obama's "Make Work Pay" tax cuts will result in almost 50% of Americans paying no income taxes at all, while earning about 25% of the total income, they pay about 1/2 of one percent of the taxes collected.
Ten percent of taxpayers, making an average  of just over $90,000/year pay over 70% of all taxes collected.  Ask anyone with a mortgage, one or two car payments, and one or two children in either college or private schools whether $90,000 is "rich."
President Obama talks about "FAIRNESS" and yet, he is creating the ultimate in unfairness.  Taking money from those who earn it by honest hard work and giving it to those who are too lazy, too unmotivated, or simply "dumb like a fox" and get more money for doing little or nothing.
The last time we had a ruling monarchy that levied taxes without having adequate representation to stand up for the rights of Americans, we had a revolution.  Unless things change (and they are very unlikely to do so), another revolution is brewing--as manifested by the thousands of "Tea Parties" being organized and the millions of tea bags landing in the White House's mail box.  HAVE YOU HEARD MUCH ABOUT THIS ON ANY OF THE LIBERAL, MAINSTREAM MEDIA?  I bet the answer is no.

A NEW PLATFORM:  AMERICA FOR AMERICANS
I'll say it again.  The government has essentially no income except for the taxes they levy on American citizens and businesses.  Pay attention to the statements of candidates as we move toward the 2010 elections.  Vote for those who believe and will stand up for the principle that "Government should work for the people and not vice versa."  Government Redistribution of Wealth is UNFAIRNESS--NOT "Fairness."  Keep repeating this message to everyone who will listen.  The "Tea Parties" are just the tip of the iceberg.  America is awakening.

SEND THIS EDITION OF THE ENTERPRISE VIA EMAIL TO EVERYONE ON YOUR MAILING LIST, (IF YOU'D LIKE) AND ADD YOUR OWN STATEMENT OF POSITION TO IT.  ESPECIALLY SEND IT TO THE YOUNGER VOTING AMERICANS ON YOUR LIST.

It was Margaret Mead who said,  "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."  
MAYBE OUR "DREAM" FOR AMERICA CAN COME TRUE, AFTER ALL. 
MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE AND THE BRAVE.

Best, John

NOTE: Anyone who'd like to sign up to receive THE ENTERPRISE directly each week, need only send me an email with your email address and you will be added to the mailing list.

THE ENTERPRISE--Lots of questions, but few answers!

THE ENTERPRISE--Lots of questions, but few answers!

The Silence (a novel by John Mariotti ©2002)—“A Teaser"—(what if????)
     Your office phone hasn't rung for some time, which is unusual.  You pick it up, and you hear a hissing sound.  You grab your cell phone, punch in a number, and get an "all-circuits-busy" sound for a few seconds and then silence.  Your computer monitor shows your home page, so you select a web site and get a "server not responding message".  You try another--same result.  That's odd!
           You email your assistant, call out the office door and ask, "Did if it come through?" The answer-"no".  You turn back to see a "server not responding" notice.  The TV screen behind your desk is filled with snow--the cable is out.  The radio doesn't work either--just static hiss.
           If you go down to the lobby ATM, it'll just spit your card back at you.  Bank transactions are dead.  At the airport, the lines are growing; people are restless and confused. No planes are landing or taking off--or even taxiing-and overhead monitors are full of snow.  Agents can't ticket passengers and kiosks can't issue boarding passes.  On Wall Street, trading has stopped amidst massive confusion. The ticker is dead.  The monitors are dead.  Everything's dead-silenced!
           From the White House to Congress, the Pentagon to Parliament, nothing related to electronic communications works.  It's completely silent.  The only things not silent are the car horns in the street outside.  It's a veritable cacophony of horns blaring.  This scenario is repeated across the country.  Nothing works. All electronic forms of communications have been "silenced".  But how?  And by whom?  And why?
            Read John Mariotti's novel, The Silence  to see how this could have happened and who was behind it all.

IS "THE SILENCE" PREMISE COMING TRUE?
Back in 2001-2002 I wrote a novel (something all writers must do) entitled THE SILENCE.  In it, my villains were Chinese with help from Pakistanis and some misguided Americans.  The goal was to "silence" all electronic communications and take control of other critical systems in the US and other parts of the world (UK).  This included the Air Traffic Control systems, global banking systems,Wall Street's trading systems and the electric utility power delivery grid, as well as many others.  The intrusion would be accomplished using Worms (viruses that can be implanted in millions of computers via the Internet/email), Trojan Horses (hidden software elements planted on computers as part of some legitimate download, and "Malware" which is automatically (or purposefully) installed on computers as part of some other process. 

Here we are in 2009, and finally in 2008,  the Bush Administration budgeted money to create a "Center" such as I described in the conclusion of my book.  And the USA's electric distribution grid is under attack right now,  Several other attacks have also been launched, and some of them averted (one a few years back took down 9 of the 13 servers that run the Internet in the USA).  Here's the problem:  Nobody knows which glitches and hacks have not been detected and remedied and which remain dormant,  like "zombies" awaiting a call or a signal.

I confirmed the realism of what I wrote in my fictional novel with retired military, CIA and FBI people--as well as with "computer experts."  I used no "mythical" technology--it was all real, known ways to intrude and gain control of computer systems.  In today's electronically converged world, nearly everything we use is "computer controlled."  If you think this is an interesting or frightening scenario, get a copy of THE SILENCE,  or go to my web site  http://www.shape-shifters.com/thesilence.shtml and read about it.  Here is an ordering  link, and a "Teaser" is the end of this edition to give you a taste of it. http://www.amazon.com/Silence-John-L-Mariotti/dp/0595744591/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239286105&sr=1-1

YES, I WAS INTENSE LAST WEEK-- AND I AM STILL UPSET
A friend "accused" me of showing a lot of intensity last week.  Another didn't like my (purposely) "incendiary photos."  I am upset about the direction of our country.  If you are paying attention, you should be too.  I we all "act nice" and "don't get upset," we'll get just what we deserve--and it won't be pretty.  So I invite those of you who are also upset to join me in letting your Senators and Representative know about it. I will try hard to find some positive progress amidst the profligate spending and mindless government growth.   Now, on to the world of business. 

REMEMBER THIS ONE IMPORTANT POINT:  ALL WEALTH IS NECESSARILY CREATED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR.  WITHOUT TAXES AND FEES LEVIED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON ITS CITIZENS AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISES, IT WOULD HAVE NO INCOME.  THUS ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING MUST ULTIMATELY BE  BORNE BY THE CITIZENS AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISES.  EVEN TAXES ON BUSINESSES MUST ULTIMATELY BE PAID BY THE CONSUMERS WHO BUY THE GOODS AND SERVICES THOSE BUSINESSES PROVIDE--OR BY THE SHAREHOLDERS WHOSE VALUE DECLINES IF THERE IS NO INCREASE IN REVENUE AND PROFIT TO COVER THE FEES AND TAXES. (TECHNICALLY FEES LEVIED ON FOREIGN ENTITIES COME FROM OTHER THAN US CITIZENS AND BUSINESSES, BUT RETALIATION FOR SUCH FEES IS USUALLY RAPID AND PROPORTIONATE.)  QUESTION:  HOW DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO "CREATE JOBS" WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT THAT COMPETE OR PAY MORE THAN PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS?  ISN'T THAT JUST WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION?

THE RIGHT QUALIFICATIONS TO FIX GM?
I really don't know the answer to that when it comes to Steven Rattner, the appointed auto company Mr. Fix-it.  I guess I don't think he is that exactly, but there are two parts to the problem, one of which he might be the right guy to address.  The finances of GM Chrysler are complex, deeply troubled, and Rattner's expertise may be just right for that part.  Or, given that his track record is mixed, he might be just another "financial mechanic." Of course he says "the job doesn't require the skills of a turnaround expert."  of course not.  What else would he say?  His influential political future is tied to his role in this, and God forbid any actual "turnaround expert" get involved.  Such people tend to introduce real world issues into the conversation.  Or perhaps GM is in this mess because it has been led by "financial types" for decades.  Only Bob Lutz (now retired) was the influence that caused GM cars to start looking better and working better.  Hmmmm?  IS A FINANCIAL "ENGINEER" THE RIGHT KIND OF "EXPERT" FOR THIS PROBLEM?

IS THE INSURANCE COMPANY REALLY BEHIND THAT ANNUITY OF YOURS?
As we get a few years on the old odometer of our body, we start thinking about financial security when there are no more paychecks coming.  One of the favorite devices for this is an annuity, and in particular, one popular version is a variable annuity.  This is unlike a regular annuity in that it offers "upside" of the investments chosen growing in value, tax deferred, over time plus a sort of safety net of a minimum value, even if those investments shrink.  Many offer options of taking the money out at a prescribed percentage rate after a certain age, and some offer minimum, simple interest guaranteed returns for a few years.  The central question is whether the money in them is really safe.  That, as I understand it, depends on whether it is mingled in with the assets of a big insurance company, or in a separate fund.  Even if kept separate, can the insurer who issued it earn good enough returns to keep the "fund" funded.  Just make sure to ask the right questions.  (A good financial advisor is recommended.  For those who don't have one, and need a reference to one, let me know.)  HOW SAFE AND SOUND ARE YOUR "ANNUITIES" AND THE COMPANIES THAT BACK THEM?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS HAVE ALWAYS CONFUSED ME
Let's see if I have this right.  We (the US) are pursuing new Nuclear Limitation "Treaties" which will involve us (the US) disposing of nuclear weapons at the same time that treaty members agree to do the same.  At the same time we are cutting military budgets so we can fund government controlled social programs.  Two thoughts come to mind:  What alternate universe are our leaders living in?  Certainly not the same one that sees an increasingly belligerent China, and nastier than ever Russia, a totally unsettled Pakistan, and new nuclear rogues in North Korea, and soon, in Iran.  So we will cut back on our military capability while this goes on?  Oh wait.  We will get them to sign treaties with us that they will do the same.  Right?  Are you kidding me.  When was the last time North Korea lived with any agreement it made.  Ditto Russia.  We can't even predict who will be in charge in Pakistan in the not too distant future, and it's certainly not going to back off with a nuclear India right next door.  China thumbs its nose at us in the naval encounter, shoots down a satellite or two (to show it can) and we think China will agree to much of anything we want?  I guess I am confused about how this is all good for us Americans.  ARE WE "TAKING A KNIFE TO A GUN FIGHT?"  OR WILL OTHERS FOLLOW OUR LEAD AND DISARM?  WILL WE BE SAFER OR LESS SAFE? LESS SAFE! 

Why was President Obama so conciliatory in his European swing and what was the Turkey trip all about?  
(Find out more on that in future editions--but it involves Germany, Russia, and the supply/delivery of natural gas.)

DEMOGRAPHICS ARE IMPORTANT-- BUSINESSES NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW
Peter Drucker said, "Demographics are destiny."  Translation:  In the absence of wars or widespread pestilence, once people are born they age according to normal processes and then die, moving through age ranges at predictable rates.  Various age groups have characteristics of consumption and behavior that are very important to businesses.  I learned to read such data because age-range population was a vitally important factor in the bike business.  I suggest that you think about that connection in every business you are involved with.  There almost always is one.  Figuring out what it is, that's the challenge.  But the payoffs can be big.  So can the mistakes.  DO YOU KNOW THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF YOUR CUSTOMERS?  DO YOU CAPITALIZE ON THAT KNOWLEDGE IN YOUR STRATEGIES AND TACTICS?

GLOBAL POPULATION TRENDS PRESENT A CONFLICTING PICTURE
I am also confused about whether there are too many of us human on earth, or soon, there will be too few in many of the major countries.  The "AlGorean" global warming zealots proclaim that the planet can't handle the projected 9 billion earth population forecast for not too many years hence.  Meanwhile, the aging populations and very low birth rates in nearly all developed countries and China will leave far too few "productive-age" people to support us "oldies."  Which is it?  Actually, it is BOTH.  The population explosion is in underdeveloped countries including many of the middle East, muslim countries and of course Africa.  In Africa the threat of disease and continued genocide work counter to a population explosion.  India's population continues to grow--faster than its infrastructure.  Russia won't have enough people to even secure its borders.  Seventy million Chinese men will not be able to find wives due to the one-child policy that discriminates against female babies.  And most notable of all, immigrants (mostly Muslim) could become the dominant voters in many countries--in Europe--in the not too distant future.  WOW!  That's an amazing bundle of issues.   WHICH DO WE HAVE, TOO FEW, OR TOO MANY PEOPLE, OR IS THE DISTRIBUTION JUST WRONG?

THE CENSUS IS COMING
Finally, the USA's population census will be conducted soon--and who knows how accurate it will be.  The two opposing views say, 1) "go door to door and count every person" to get it right, or 2) uses statistical sampling to "estimate" the more correct results from smaller, more accurate data-sets.  Opponents argue that statistical sampling is error prone, magnifies mistakes and can be "meddled with" to get the desired results, while those who disagree with door to door/questionnaire approach claim that it is full of error potential, and much more labor intensive for no better results.  I have no idea who's right.   DOES ANYONE OUT THERE HAVE AN OPINION WITH FACTUAL BACKUP?

THEN WE HAVE GLOBAL WARMING AND ENERGY POLICY
Are Hybrid cars really energy savers, net-net?  We know now that corn based ethanol was not.  Are electric cars really energy and environmentally good?  Where does the electricity to charge their batteries come from?  Coal-fired power plants?  New, nuclear power plants (not for 7-10 years)?  Offshore windmill farms?  And what are the environmental impacts of each such decision?  Do windmills offshore in massive quantities actually change the weather on our coastlines?   I learned a long time ago in college thermodynamics that all kinds of energy exchanges affect all kinds of energy efficiency outcomes.  Once more, when all the "politics" are set aside, what are the right answers?  DOES ANYONE OUT THERE HAVE ANY FINITE ANSWERS THAT WILL WITHSTAND SCRUTINY?

ONE ANSWER IS GROWING CLEAR--DIGITAL WINS OVER PAPER
In his decade old book "Being Digital," Nicholas Negroponte then of the MIT Media Lab, pointed out the growing trend to send information in "digits" instead of "atoms."  Newspapers are failing all over.  Being of the old school, I still like my morning paper.  When you think about it, consider the process: cutting down trees, pulverizing them, replanting new ones, then mixing those ground up trees with huge amounts of water, rolling that mixture into a sheet, letting it dry, rolling it up, then transporting those "ground up trees" miles and miles to places where they can be unrolled and printed with words/ink, to be folded, then transporting them again and delivering them to homes and offices, only to be thrown in the trash, which is collected and transporting that waste again to landfills where it is mixed with all sorts of trash and garbage to decompose eventually--we hope.... sounds like a ludicrous and wasteful way to spread the news.  Alternatively, type and digitize the words and load the digitized pictures into files that can be distributed very economically to as many places as desireable, instantly, to be read, and then saved or disposed of with not waste products.  Which way sounds mroe sensible to you?  (Remember the digital form did not exist when Gutenberg invented the printing press, etc.) ARE NEWSPAPERS DOOMED?

WEB SITES CRIPPLE THE CLASSIFIEDS & FURTHER WEAKEN NEWSPAPERS
One of the newspapers primary sources of revenue used to be the Classified Ads.  Not any more.  Ebay, CraigsList, AutoTrader.com, Realtor.com, and so many more Internet "classified" ads cost little, reach more, offer better selling features (photos) that the Classifieds in large newspapers.  As mass media de-massifies to reach the multi-segmented demographics and psychographics of today's global markets, the delivery methods must also enable targeting audiences.  Add the costs of labor, fuel, facility maintenance, etc., and conventional newspapers seem almost doomed.  A few papers may make it, due to size, scale and people like me who "cling to the past" (at times).
What appears to be a meaningful casualty of the demise of newspapers is the salaried "reporters" who often dug out the most interesting news.  Staff cutbacks have already reduced these to a great degree.  Blogs do not replace them, per se, even though the range, scope and reach of blogs is truly amazing.  Unfortunately, "quality assurance" which has been a failing at times for the largest of newspapers (NY Times) is virtually non-existent with blogs.  Unless readers know the credentials of the author whose material is posted to the blog, the information could range from profound discoveries to puerile drivel--and everywhere in between.  (Disclaimer: As evidenced by the content of THE ENTERPRISE which appears also on my blog, http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/    ARE BLOGS THE ANSWER? IF NOT, WHAT IS?

IMAGINE--E-INK "NEWSPAPERS" EVERYWHERE
Imagine tomorrow's daily newspaper.  A technology known as E-ink, allows electronic text to be "printed" on electronic paper, which is just a bit thicker than a thin magazine. (Not foldable, however--at least not yet.)  Imagine the replacement of the daily newspaper not being (only) your computer screen, iPhone® or Kindle® readers.  Imagine an E-ink paper delivered to your hotel door, which you slip into a recycling receptacle as you leave the hotel, the airport, or at home.  Ironically, this kind of idea was born decades ago when "soda pop" (soft drinks) came in returnable bottles--with a "deposit" associated with them.  Are we going "Back to the Future?"  IS THIS PROGRESS?

WHITHER THE DUST RAG?
One of the most successful products of recent years is P & G's Swiffer® which is a "high tech" substitute for the dust rag of old.  Another hugely successful product is "Baby Wipes," also a synthetic rag for cleaning, well, you know what.  As a society, between bottled water, plastic grocery bags, and "wipes" of all kinds we throw away an enormous amount of value in "energy" to product the raw materials (most are by products of oil refining).  Then there are the "fast food" containers, the soft drink cups and cans, and on, and on.  Somebody, somewhere needs to stop for just a few minutes and think about our disposable society.  We throw away containers and utensils that are functionally equal or better than what we used at home a half-century ago.  Where am I going with this?  I'm not sure.  It alarms me and concerns me.  Do we go back to the reusable era of days gone by?  But what of the cost of dishwashing, laundry, etc.  I don't know the answer--but I sure know some good questions.  If only I could find some experts to ask.  DOES ANYONE OUT THERE HAVE ANY ANSWERS ON THE BALANCE BETWEEN DISPOSABILITY AND REUSABILITY?

THERE YOU GO--LOTS OF QUESTIONS, FEW ANSWERS
Anybody want to step up and provide answers?  Opinions don't count for as much unless backed by facts.  Or perhaps there is an appropriation in the stimulus bill to study these things.  Everything else is in there, so why not finding the answers to these questions.  After all "the government is paying for it," (with your tax dollars, now or later/)

Best, John
===========================

===========================
BONUS:  Some GREAT READING from an old friend's company: (WHICH IS a quality company in its field)

Download APR_Spring09_News

THE ENTERPRISE--LUNACY?

THE ENTERPRISE--LUNACY?

LUNACY?  WHO DOES OBAMA REPRESENT?  NOT ME!
Does it bother anyone else that "our" President just stood in front of European crowds and ran down "our" country?  Is anyone else embarrassed that he couldn't find anything more symbolic of the USA to give Queen Elizabeth than an iPod?  Is he trying to remain the beloved candidate in Europe and avoiding confrontations on the enormous issued of our time.  Does it worry you that he is spending the money of us--the American taxpayers--and generations to come to support HIS pet programs.  No matter how important or worthy they are, the recent financial meltdown should tell everyone with half a brain that if you buy things you cannot afford, the day of reckoning comes--and it is not pleasant.  He's not dumb--he's smart--intellectually.  He figures that the more public opinion and favor he can build in his corner, the more power he had.  One small problem:  more and more people are starting to notice. (Help spread the message, please?)

SMOOTH OR GUTLESS?
I think the people of the US are starting to see that he can't really "walk on water," do the impossible, and that they "Change you can believe in" is change that will cost us all for decades to come.  I used to think the word to describe him was "smooth."  Now I think it's "smoother" and "GUTLESS."  China thumbs its nose at us.  North Korea tells us to go to hell.  His peaceful outreach to Iran is greeted with harsh recriminations.  Mexico tells us that their criminal elements are our fault, because Americans buy the contraband that crosses the border.  Some even cook up false claims about us furnishing the automatic weapons--we did not.  How does our President react?  With his bewitched smile and teleprompter aided eloquence.  He is still a superb actor--but is he a qualified President and Commander in Chief.  (Ever notice that almost everyone he finds for his staff has tax problems/)

LUNACY?  ACTORS POSING AS EXPERTS
I just saw an image of Martin Sheen, Richard Schiff and Bradley Whitfield--all actors on the old TV series The West Wing, I enjoyed the show, although its liberal leaning was grating at times, and I enjoyed these actors performances.  Here's the issue:  the image I saw on TV was these three advocating for the Employee Free Choice Act.  Here's a question for those who think they have something to offer in the way of expertise.  Would you choose an actor who played a heart surgeon to do your multiple bypass surgery?  Would you choose an actress who played a brain surgeon to remove your brain tumor.  HELL NO YOU WOULDN'T.  Not for one minute would you consider such lunacy.  Then why, pray tell, does anyone give these actors credit for the knowledge and understanding to weigh in on important legislation.  This is nonsense carried to the ultimate.  (And by the way, no matter how much I like Bruce Springsteen's music, his political opinions should carry no more weight than any other uneducated, ill-informed citizen.)

LUNACY? OF BLAME--THE CONCLUSION IS USUALLY "THROW OUT THE CEO"
And sometimes it is right.  And sometimes it is wrong.  I predicted that Rick Wagoner had to go and that Fritz Henderson was likely to succeed him.  But that was a pretty simole prediction given past events and current conditions.   Unfortunately, many CEOs suffer the fate of short tenure, but every time that happens, it raises the question of who chose that CEO, screened, interviewed and hired him/her?  Few important business processes are conducted with such widely variable and frequently unprofessional approaches. 

THERE IS A BETTER WAY--IT WON'T SOLVE EVERYTHING, BUT IT SURE WILL HELP
I had the good fortune to meet and spend some time with Nat Stoddard, the coauthor of the book The Right Leader: Selecting Executives Who Fit.  Nat, with Co-author Claire Wyckoff contribute a meaningful piece of knowledge about how to improve on this often flawed and always important decision making process.

The piece below is a short summary derived from The Right Leader: Selecting Executives Who Fit.  by Nat Stoddard with Claire Wyckoff.  If you want more of this "good stuff,"  get the book and check it out.

    In the midst of financial turmoil it's often easy to lose sight of what's truly important—namely those things within our reach that we can change to make our organizations function better. Between the daily barrage of media gloom and our own personal stakes in today's economic quagmire, it's easy for our attention to be drawn to issues over which we have little direct influence as opposed to remaining focused on important matters that we can actually affect.
    One such area where changes can—and, frankly, must be made—is in the manner in which we go about selecting our business leaders. The existing selection process is significantly flawed as evidenced by the data:
    o As far back as the last recession in 2001–2002, the turnover rate of CEOs (the group for whom data is most readily available) was already around 10%—twice the rate it had averaged during the previous decade
    o In 2005 it jumped to the 14–15% range, where it has been for the past four years.
    o Today, the tenure (time in the job) for sitting CEOs has dropped from nearly 10 years just a decade ago to less than 5 years at the outset of this recession.
    o Even more startling is that 64% of CEOs—nearly two-thirds—will never make their fourth anniversary in the job and a whopping 40% of them will be gone within 18 months of their appointment.
    Clearly, there are fundamental problems with the way in which we select leaders that belie such poor performance. If not addressed, today’s approach will only keep the revolving door at the top of U.S. corporations spinning. Based on research conducted by Crenshaw Associates, a New York consulting firm specializing in leadership transitions, what's missing is a clear-cut understanding of the company’s cultures through which the new leader must bring about desired results along with a purposeful examination of the extent to which the new leader will fit into it. A scientific approach to understanding culture and a closer look at how each candidate's character aligns with those cultures will yield greater success, less turnover, and greater leadership tenure for our post-recessionary leaders.
    It's time that we change the things we can to improve the ways we select tomorrow's leaders—leaders whose values align with those of the organization's cultures, not by chance but by design.

 

LUNACY? OF "TRIVIAL NOISE" OVER "QUALITY OF COMMUNICATION?"--REPLACING THE IMPORTANT WITH THE INANE
As I have learned the power of Facebook and Twitter I have been amazed at the flow of inane and useless communications they cause and carry.  The wise person who said, "think before you speak," also meant that about Tweets.  Facebook has useful purposes and so do most of the social networking sites.  Wasting time was one of my initial complaints that I still stand by.  I don't care who went to the store lately.  The other complaint is that leaving all photos, communiques and comments sitting on these sites raises huge security issues.  I simply do not believe that they won't yield to the desire--and need--to sell their databases, access, etc. as revenue needs accelerate.  As newspapers fold all across the country, learning to mine information from Internet sites grows in importance.  So does the ability to place information there.  However, when that info is buried like a needle in a virtual haystack of trivia--that does no one any good.  Somehow, I sense that this will not end well.  I just don't know what (bad) will happen.  I do know that if I wished ill to anyone, any entity or our country, this is a gold mine of information I could use for negative purposes.  That scares me.

SETTING PRIORITIES IS ALWAYS THE HARDEST TASK--AVOID LUNACY, APPLY LOGIC & COMMON SENSE
Every executive, most managers, and, in fact, most people I encounter would agree that setting priorities--in business and in life--is the hardest task they face. There are always more demands for time, more urgent things that need attention, and more truly important areas that go ignored, because there is never enough time.  Why?  Because time is perishable.  Once gone, you can never reclaim it.  There is no UNDO, no do-over, rewind, etc.  There may be no way to make more time.  There are ways to make sure you use the time you have on the things that are really important.  To keep this focused, I'll exclude the personal priority setting and time management and concentrate on teh work-related, business based priority problem.

1. Make an annual calendar.  Then mark on it all the days that are already partly or completely committed already.  You'll be amazed.  Every company, every executive should have a constantly updated annual calendar for their business--and for the sake of their organization.  Carve out time for essentials and carefully commit to large, time consuming events or meetings.  You'll see that 1/3 or more of your time is already committed before the year has even started.
2. Set aside time to think.  Thinking time can be alone--by scheduling meetings with yourself, at least quarterly.  You must go off site for these--and not stay at home or at the office where interruptions will interfere.  Find a quiet place--a budget hotel with Wi-Fi,  a bottom-less coffee pot and a large desk in the room was always a simple choice.  Tell no one but your assistant or a close confidant where you can be found.  My rules for who could interrupt me:  my wife, my boss, and one of my 10 biggest customers calling me directly.  Accumulate things you need to think about for weeks ahead.  Just throw them in a file folder, or note them on your laptop.  Take a note pad unless you want to make note on your laptop--but one big rule:  no checking email, no checking voicemail, no web browsing unless you need a piece of information.
3. Set aside time to communicate--two ways--tell & listen.  I used to have two staff meetings a month.  If you are in frequent contact with your direct reports, that's enough.  One was mostly from me to them, usually right after some corporate meeting where I could cover that material too.  The other was from them to me, and the agenda preparation was delegated.  If you have 6 direct reports, each one can take 2 months, and the others all feed their recommendations for topics, and the agenda manager consolidates them and weeds out duplicates and distractions.
4. Never compromise on quality or service to customers.  Quality is usually the largest cost savings area to work on anyway--fix quality glitches and savings are a nice byproduct.  Service--and speed--is the most difficult advantage for competitors to attack, unless you give poor  service or are slow responding--then you are in trouble.
5. Quantify the impact of a decision and use that information to help set priorities on what to work on.  For example, if the problem is an earnings shortfall that must be made up, the best areas for most (product) companies to focus on are: 1) Sales--it's always the biggest $; 2) Purchases --it's usually the second largest in most organizations (and the gross margin on cost reductions is 100%--it falls right to the bottom line) 3) SG&A expenses which are almost always the result of management policy decisions which can be altered, suspended, changed, etc. 4) Wages & Salaries--it's good to trim "fat" but remember, cutting people is easy until you find out what they were doing that no one is doing now--and if you have a severance plan, the savings are delayed.  5) Non-essentials which are often contract services or indirect material purchases.

These are just the top five.  There are many other tips in setting priorities.  One of the best I ever heard was "Make reversible decisions quickly and irreversible decisions slowly.  No go set some priorities and "work on the mountains, not the molehills."

AVOIDING LUNACY--GETTING YOUR PERSONAL PRIORITIES RIGHT

What Do You Really Need? by Matthew Kelly, author of The Dream Manager   
"In his writings from Walden Pond, Henry David Thoreau first used the phrase, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Everyone is familiar with this saying, but it seems very few read beyond this phrase... or read his writings at all. From this phrase Throreau moves into a discussion surrounding the question: What is necessary? The truth is, very little. When we examine what it is we really need we discover we need very little. If we then turn back to all we have, we discover that we live in the midst of abundance - even during these times of economic trial. This is a time to step back and recognize how little we actually need to thrive and survive, to be happy, and healthy, and holy. And, it is a time to be grateful for all that we have beyond what we actually need."
Thank you Matthew for reminding us about what is really important.

KIPLINGER FORECASTS IS A VERY GOOD RESOURCE
I urge you to put two periodicals on your subscription list:  Kiplinger Forecasts and The Week Magazine.  Of all the things I get, these are "pound for pound" the most useful and interesting.  Here is a snippet from Kiplinger's latest work:

LUNACY? OF DIGGING A HOLE SO DEEP, IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DIG OUR WAY OUT

The Cost of the Federal Budget Deficit
Tax hikes and higher interest rates plus inflation's bite top the list.
By Jerome Idaszak, March 30, 2009

The massive economic rescue plan carries with it an onerous price: a ballooning federal deficit that will equal 12.2% of the gross domestic product (GDP) this year, a post-World War II high. President Barack Obama has in his budget for fiscal year 2010 a deficit of $1.3 trillion and promises to halve that by 2013. But success is a long shot, requiring a lot to go just right. For the next decade or so, annual deficits much below $700 billion will be tough to come by, and some are bound to top $1 trillion.

The result will be a huge amount of debt to be repaid. Uncle Sam already owes an amount equal to 41% of GDP. By 2019, that could double as expenses for Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid increase as the huge bulge of baby boomers continues to retire. Interest on outstanding debt will claim a larger share of the budget, from 4.2% this year to about 11% by 2013. "It will be the fastest growing category of the budget," says budget watcher Stan Collender, managing director for Qorvis Communications.

The inevitable consequence will be higher taxes -- or less money to spend on everything else, from food safety to road building, education, health care, energy, the environment and even homeland security and defense. Washington policymakers will face a series of tough choices. And the ambitious White House plans for reforms in health care, education and energy policy may be out of reach. Obama will be forced to cut back or delay his plans.

In any case, Uncle Sam will have to borrow much more to foot the tab. Long-term Treasury rates will climb to attract the investors needed. As U.S. households increase their savings in a new, more austere economic climate, their 5% share of Treasuries will increase. In the early 1990s, before the allure of stocks and real estate surged and bond yields fell, households held about 20% of outstanding Treasuries. But even if that level were regained, and that's unlikely in the short run, it wouldn't be enough to fund the $4.2-trillion increase in borrowing by the Treasury in the next few years.

To coax foreigners to continue lending the U.S. money, interest rates will move several percentage points higher. There won't be any escape from inflation, either. All the cash that the Federal Reserve is pumping into the ailing economy will create excesses as consumer spending recovers and the slack in the economy is absorbed, a shift likely to begin in early 2011.

Count on the central bank to raise short-term rates. But by the time the rate hikes start to constrain price increases, inflation will be running at around a 4% annual rate. It's a situation of Obama making a painful trade-off, opting to dose the patient in order to head off disaster now despite the certain misery from side effects later. But as Diane Swonk, chief economist with Mesirow Financial in Chicago, says: "The cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing something. That's the crisis we're in."
© 2009 The Kiplinger Washington Editors

LUNACY DEFINED: 1 a: insanity; b: intermittent insanity (once believed to be related to phases of the moon); 2: wild foolishness : extravagant folly; 3: a foolish act;
The definition fits, doesn't it?  That the Employee Free Choice Act will "help employees" is LUNACY.  It will destroy jobs in huge quantities.  If all non-union US companies would join with FedEx and cancel all capital investment pending this vote, Congress might get the message.  Maybe.  For now, Sen. Arlen Spector's change of heart may have chilled the bill's prospects, but it is far from dead when only one Senate vote stands between it's passage and it's failure. When the lunatics take over the asylum, we are in trouble.  Does this bring anything to mind?  Form our own conclusions.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE BUSINESS FROM POLITICS--AND GETTING TO BE MORE SO--AND THAT'S NOT LUNACY--THAT'S FACT.
As the US government imposes itself more and more on businesses--in return for bailouts, loans, etc., or via regulations and other mandates, the job of management becomes exponentially harder.  Not only must it care for customers, create and deliver value in products or services, innovate, outpace competitors, and plan for where and how to grow profitably AND finance that growth.  Now management must watch for the intrusive hand of government which is becoming more and more pervasive.  Expect 2010 to usher in a whole new range of regulations--both financial and otherwise.

DO NOT TAKE THIS GOVERNMENT INTRUSION IN BUSINESS LIGHTLY. 
Vigilance and being well informed is the only defense.  Remember, you read it here.

Best, John