This whole thing has kind of crept up on me. It started out as a distant rumble and ultimately turned into a major seismic event. I ignored Twitter and Facebook and Plaxo (remember them?) as long as I could but, then, the overwhelming peer pressure to play the game made me get my head out of the sand.
I approached it very cautiously. I couldn’t understand why someone would feel compelled to tell everyone that he went to the grocery store or picked up the kids from a soccer game. And, what such trivia had to do with anything related to business. It was no longer possible to catch up with someone only once a year at an annual event (which satisfied me just fine). Now I was forced to be aware of what people I barely knew were doing all year long. Too much information.
But, who am I to buck the trend? I joined Facebook and LinkedIn and Twitter and Tumblr and immediately began to build my network. This is where my crisis began.
Each of them has a similar way of “friending” someone. They give you a choice between “colleague” and “friend” (except Facebook which uses more of a social model, hence everyone is considered a “friend”) and there’s the dilemma.
When I ask someone to join my network I have to decide how to classify him. I’m always afraid that I will insult someone by picking the wrong option. What if, for example, I want to invite a close business acquaintance? Do I pick colleague or friend? If I’ve known him for years I think of him as a friend but I’ve never seen him socially so I guess he’s a colleague. But, what will he think if I call him a colleague and he thinks of me as a friend? It’s happened to me on the receiving end, where someone called me a colleague and I was slightly taken aback because I thought we were closer than that.
I’ve actually had someone accept my invitation and change the classification from colleague to friend (which I considered a promotion). I dread the day when someone changes me from friend to colleague. The demotion would be devastating.
I’ve decided we need a better classification system. More friending options than we currently have. Here are some suggestions:
BUSINESS FRIEND (NON-BUSINESS) – Some of my best friends over the years have been through business. I value them as much as I do my social friends and they’d be insulted if I fail to acknowledge them when I make this important decision. But don’t take advantage of my decision and start trying to sell me something.
BUSINESS FRIEND (BUSINESS) – Okay if you try to sell me something occasionally. This classification can easily drop to COLLEAGUE I DO BUSINESS WITH if I get a sales call more than once a year.
BUSINESS FRIEND (WITH BENEFITS) – Someone I know through business who has tickets to things or a boat.
BUSINESS FRIEND (PROBATIONARY) – Someone who was previously a colleague but is moving up to business friend because he sent me a referral. If I get another he’ll shed the probationary label. Also used if he’s buying a boat or condo at the lake.
COLLEAGUE – Someone I met once at Business After Hours. I don’t remember what he looks like but I have his business card.
COLLEAGUE EVERYONE WANTS – Someone who I don’t know very well but who looks impressive to others.
COLLEAGUE WHO CALLS ME WHEN HE NEEDS SOMETHING – Someone who’s my best buddy when he wants me to raise bail money to get out of some silly jail fund raiser.
COLLEAGUE I WANT TO LINK TO JUST TO PACK MY NETWORK – Someone I invite to join me because it’s embarrassing to have too few people on my contact list.
COLLEAGUE I DON’T CARE FOR – This is a great way to know where people you don’t like are going to be so you can avoid them.
I think that our culture would benefit from much better understanding between social networking buddies. It creates honesty where today we have deceit.
Ashton Kutcher eat your heart out.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Definition of "Small"?
The cover story in this month’s Forbes magazine showcases “America’s Best Small Companies in 2010” in the United States. I find it very encouraging that one of the major business magazines has generously decided to give so much space to the little guy.
After all, 75% of the businesses in the United States employ fewer than 10 people. That means that the overwhelming number of businesses in the US (around 4.5 million companies) finally gets a hearing. Any politician will tell you that they form the backbone of American business. The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation said, in a 2009 report (“Where Will the Jobs Come From” November 2009), that “…firms between the ages of one and five create the most net new jobs, dwarfing the other age classes. These firms also create the highest average number of jobs: roughly four jobs per year.
They concluded that “Still, virtually all of the attention among policymakers and the media has focused on the waiting game by larger firms, currently reluctant to take back employees they dismissed, and unwilling so far to begin hiring new employees again. The analysis here, however, suggests this attention is misplaced. The overwhelming source of new jobs is new firms. The key implication for policymakers concerned about restarting America’s job engine, therefore, is to begin paying more attention to removing roadblocks to entrepreneurs who will lead us out of our current (well-founded) pessimism about jobs and sustain economic expansion over the longer run. This much-needed shift in focus cannot come soon enough.”
So, thank you Forbes for exposing this problem so prominently.
What’s that you say? What were Forbes’ criteria for identifying these small companies?
Let me look…hmmm. Hey wait a minute. Could it be?
They looked for companies that were publicly traded for at least 2 years, had a stock price over $5, and had gross revenues less than $1 billion. There must be some disconnect here. I thought we were talking about SMALL companies.
Are we all on the same planet? Apparently not. The policymakers and the media, to which the Kauffmann report referred, love to play the “small business” card at their convenience. They rely on the fact that what the public defines as “small” is never compared to what they define as “small”. By bringing small companies into the conversation, they kill two birds with one stone: they mislead the public into thinking they’re talking about Main Street and, they tout programs that do nothing for the real small businesses but take credit for thinking of the “little” guy.
In fact, the Small Business Administration’s definition of small is 500 employees or less and covers about 1.483 million out of 6 million employers or 25%. That leaves the balance of employees with over 500 employees:
1-9 employees 4.500 million
10-499 1.483
500+ .017
Yes folks, 17,000 companies in this country employ greater than 500 employees. So, when a magazine like Forbes wants to sell magazines, their target market is only interested in 1.5 million employers…the ones who do not create permanent jobs.
Here’s a comment the Forbes article received from a reader:
“If they were to write an article on small businesses with 20 or less employees, how many of those companies would be publicly traded? As an investor, why would I care about companies that are not publicly traded? Now, if they wrote an article about small companies (regardless of headcount) that would be going through an IPO, then I would definitely be interested in reading that article.” (Posted by jimgzz | 10/28/10 03:13 PM EDT)
Just like most of our brilliant financial gurus, this guy simply doesn’t get it. With most of the companies that provide jobs being totally ignored (if not ridiculed) he actually thinks that everything will just go along it’s merry way, just like old times. It’s shortsighted attitudes like his that started this mess in the first place.
But, encouragingly, here’s another comment:
“Forbes obviously has a completely different definition of a "small" company. According to the US Census Bureau, Two-thirds of all US businesses have less than 10 employees.
In fact each of the "Small" businesses featured fit in the top 0.5% of US businesses. How does this even closely reflect the real US economy? How about an article about the top 20 best US "true" small businesses under 20 employees. Then we will finally have an article that reflects and inspires the real US Small Business market.” (Posted by jbmetrics | 10/27/10 05:11 AM EDT)
Thank you “jbmetrics” whoever you are.
After all, 75% of the businesses in the United States employ fewer than 10 people. That means that the overwhelming number of businesses in the US (around 4.5 million companies) finally gets a hearing. Any politician will tell you that they form the backbone of American business. The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation said, in a 2009 report (“Where Will the Jobs Come From” November 2009), that “…firms between the ages of one and five create the most net new jobs, dwarfing the other age classes. These firms also create the highest average number of jobs: roughly four jobs per year.
They concluded that “Still, virtually all of the attention among policymakers and the media has focused on the waiting game by larger firms, currently reluctant to take back employees they dismissed, and unwilling so far to begin hiring new employees again. The analysis here, however, suggests this attention is misplaced. The overwhelming source of new jobs is new firms. The key implication for policymakers concerned about restarting America’s job engine, therefore, is to begin paying more attention to removing roadblocks to entrepreneurs who will lead us out of our current (well-founded) pessimism about jobs and sustain economic expansion over the longer run. This much-needed shift in focus cannot come soon enough.”
So, thank you Forbes for exposing this problem so prominently.
What’s that you say? What were Forbes’ criteria for identifying these small companies?
Let me look…hmmm. Hey wait a minute. Could it be?
They looked for companies that were publicly traded for at least 2 years, had a stock price over $5, and had gross revenues less than $1 billion. There must be some disconnect here. I thought we were talking about SMALL companies.
Are we all on the same planet? Apparently not. The policymakers and the media, to which the Kauffmann report referred, love to play the “small business” card at their convenience. They rely on the fact that what the public defines as “small” is never compared to what they define as “small”. By bringing small companies into the conversation, they kill two birds with one stone: they mislead the public into thinking they’re talking about Main Street and, they tout programs that do nothing for the real small businesses but take credit for thinking of the “little” guy.
In fact, the Small Business Administration’s definition of small is 500 employees or less and covers about 1.483 million out of 6 million employers or 25%. That leaves the balance of employees with over 500 employees:
1-9 employees 4.500 million
10-499 1.483
500+ .017
Yes folks, 17,000 companies in this country employ greater than 500 employees. So, when a magazine like Forbes wants to sell magazines, their target market is only interested in 1.5 million employers…the ones who do not create permanent jobs.
Here’s a comment the Forbes article received from a reader:
“If they were to write an article on small businesses with 20 or less employees, how many of those companies would be publicly traded? As an investor, why would I care about companies that are not publicly traded? Now, if they wrote an article about small companies (regardless of headcount) that would be going through an IPO, then I would definitely be interested in reading that article.” (Posted by jimgzz | 10/28/10 03:13 PM EDT)
Just like most of our brilliant financial gurus, this guy simply doesn’t get it. With most of the companies that provide jobs being totally ignored (if not ridiculed) he actually thinks that everything will just go along it’s merry way, just like old times. It’s shortsighted attitudes like his that started this mess in the first place.
But, encouragingly, here’s another comment:
“Forbes obviously has a completely different definition of a "small" company. According to the US Census Bureau, Two-thirds of all US businesses have less than 10 employees.
In fact each of the "Small" businesses featured fit in the top 0.5% of US businesses. How does this even closely reflect the real US economy? How about an article about the top 20 best US "true" small businesses under 20 employees. Then we will finally have an article that reflects and inspires the real US Small Business market.” (Posted by jbmetrics | 10/27/10 05:11 AM EDT)
Thank you “jbmetrics” whoever you are.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
It's the Job Market, Stupid!
ATTENTION CORPORATE AMERICA:
Profitability is not in the best interests of your shareholders! Jobs are!
Heresy, you say? Let’s look at the facts.
The world economy is in a shambles, the likes of which we have never seen before. Sure, we had the Depression in the 1930s, but this calamity is worse. The world is exponentially more complex than it was 70 years ago. Economies are so intertwined with one another that it is sometimes impossible to sort them out. But, there’s one issue that rises above all the confusion … the need for jobs.
We need jobs, and we need tens of thousands of them, and we need them now. There are only two entities in this country that are large enough, wealthy enough and with broad enough reach to create that many jobs quickly: the federal government and large corporations.
After having gone through TARP and mini-TARP, the Feds are so deep in the hole that we’re up in arms about the almost unbelievable deficit. At the same time, people are screaming for lower taxes and more responsible federal spending. It is quite clear that expecting any major programs from the Feds, without printing more money, is ridiculous.
So, that leaves the other player … Fortune’s 500. The standard CEO answer to something he doesn’t want to do is “it’s not in the best interests of our shareholders.” Substitute “depositors” for shareholders, and you can include the banks. The statement implies some sort of carefully managed fiduciary responsibility by corporate management, when, in fact, it’s really how they keep their jobs and earn their bonuses. It conjures up images of focus groups with shareholders to determine what decisions would be in their “best interests.” And I just arrived from Mars.
The only shareholders that really matter in the stock market are the institutional investors. If CEOs think they’re making the correct strategic decisions, consider this: Our largest corporations (and banks) are accumulating obscene amounts of cash. Hundreds of billions. In order to maintain profitability, these companies have slashed operating overhead (i.e. jobs). Banks are borrowing from the Fed for practically nothing and earning interest with that money in overseas markets. Corporations have pulled back to such an extent that many of them spend as much effort managing their finances as they do creating their product. Shades of Scrooge McDuck.
Our economic “pump” has stalled. It needs to be re-primed, and the only way to do that is with jobs. We need to get people back to work so money begins to re-circulate in the economy. Corporations should reopen shuttered factories and open new branches just to get people working. And what will they manufacture and sell? I don’t care. Use your imagination, get clever, use some Yankee ingenuity. Until we get people spending again, our economy will remain in gridlock. Shareholders want long-term stability, not short-term noise. We need to take a step back so we can take two forward. It is in the enlightened self-interest of corporate America to step forward and take the leadership role we will not allow the government to play (and rightfully so).
Where are all those Harvard MBAs when you need them?
Profitability is not in the best interests of your shareholders! Jobs are!
Heresy, you say? Let’s look at the facts.
The world economy is in a shambles, the likes of which we have never seen before. Sure, we had the Depression in the 1930s, but this calamity is worse. The world is exponentially more complex than it was 70 years ago. Economies are so intertwined with one another that it is sometimes impossible to sort them out. But, there’s one issue that rises above all the confusion … the need for jobs.
We need jobs, and we need tens of thousands of them, and we need them now. There are only two entities in this country that are large enough, wealthy enough and with broad enough reach to create that many jobs quickly: the federal government and large corporations.
After having gone through TARP and mini-TARP, the Feds are so deep in the hole that we’re up in arms about the almost unbelievable deficit. At the same time, people are screaming for lower taxes and more responsible federal spending. It is quite clear that expecting any major programs from the Feds, without printing more money, is ridiculous.
So, that leaves the other player … Fortune’s 500. The standard CEO answer to something he doesn’t want to do is “it’s not in the best interests of our shareholders.” Substitute “depositors” for shareholders, and you can include the banks. The statement implies some sort of carefully managed fiduciary responsibility by corporate management, when, in fact, it’s really how they keep their jobs and earn their bonuses. It conjures up images of focus groups with shareholders to determine what decisions would be in their “best interests.” And I just arrived from Mars.
The only shareholders that really matter in the stock market are the institutional investors. If CEOs think they’re making the correct strategic decisions, consider this: Our largest corporations (and banks) are accumulating obscene amounts of cash. Hundreds of billions. In order to maintain profitability, these companies have slashed operating overhead (i.e. jobs). Banks are borrowing from the Fed for practically nothing and earning interest with that money in overseas markets. Corporations have pulled back to such an extent that many of them spend as much effort managing their finances as they do creating their product. Shades of Scrooge McDuck.
Our economic “pump” has stalled. It needs to be re-primed, and the only way to do that is with jobs. We need to get people back to work so money begins to re-circulate in the economy. Corporations should reopen shuttered factories and open new branches just to get people working. And what will they manufacture and sell? I don’t care. Use your imagination, get clever, use some Yankee ingenuity. Until we get people spending again, our economy will remain in gridlock. Shareholders want long-term stability, not short-term noise. We need to take a step back so we can take two forward. It is in the enlightened self-interest of corporate America to step forward and take the leadership role we will not allow the government to play (and rightfully so).
Where are all those Harvard MBAs when you need them?
Monday, September 13, 2010
Welcome to the Humpty-Dumpty Era!
Wanna know why things don’t seem to be recovering?
“…all the king’s horses and all the king’s men cannot put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.”
Let’s characterize Humpty as the entire US economy. Right know we have anyone and everyone who want their money back trying to put things back the way they were. And it ain’t gonna happen. We need to find other ways to make a buck than the ways we’ve become used to.
Looking back at how we all made our livings, over say the last 20 years, may make us pine. But if we pick up a rock or two we find that the source of our good times should never have existed.
But wait…all the money that was loaned to borderline borrowers, all the money that was loaned to developers because there were so many borrowers demanding houses, all the money that developers reinvested in more ground to build more homes, all went somewhere. Money doesn’t just disappear.
And where did it go? It went into your pocket and mine. Sure, there are anecdotal stories about obscene accumulations by some individuals, but the trillions of dollars that were lost on unpaid mortgages, went into the pockets of every carpenter who built a house that would never have been built were it not for a subprime mortgage. And not just the carpenter, everyone of us who prospered during those good years. That’s where all the money went.
And, unless someone can figure out how to re-create that revenue engine HONESTLY, things will never go back to that “normal”. Which means things will never go back. Period.
From a micro-business perspective this presents an ironic opportunity. While those big companies are drowning in the inability to shed overhead quick enough to survive, we, who have always had to survive, are in better shape than the big guys. Psychologically, anyway.
Let’s characterize Humpty as our bigger competition. It’s almost like he made his bed and now he has to sleep in it. He plundered the same communities that are now a drag on down-sizing, National chains are in swift retreat.
Micro-businesses and communities need to mobilize. Re-building communities is the name of the game. Unfortunately, part of the reason we can do such a thing is that the big guys don’t see much profit in small communities anymore. You know, with the recession and all.
So let me throw out a challenge to local communities:
1) Through Rotary or Kiwanis or Lion’s or whatever you’ve got, get aggressive with convening all of your local businesses and real estate interests. Take inventory of who and what you are. Decide how you can rebuild your community. If YOU don’t do it it will never be done.
2) Find out how many people are unemployed/underemployed in your area. You need to get these people back to work buying in your community. There are always some who prefer to remain idle, but you may be surprised at the human resources available in your neighborhoods. Oh and by the way, if your community isn’t big enough join with another community and create a joint shopping plan.
3) Urge your economic developers at the county level to pay some attention to what you’re trying to do and give you a hand in making it a success, The entire economic strength of your region will have to come from the sum of the strength of the local communities.
Humpty the employer/competitor is gone. Humpty the American economy is in a million pieces. At some point all the kings horses and all the kings men will realize that their effort is futile.
Micro-business has always been admired for its flexibility and its ability to turn on a dime. Let’s start turning.
BTW: If you’d like some assistance with re-structuring your community, contact The Sacks Group. Our programs may be of some interest to you.
rjs
“…all the king’s horses and all the king’s men cannot put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.”
Let’s characterize Humpty as the entire US economy. Right know we have anyone and everyone who want their money back trying to put things back the way they were. And it ain’t gonna happen. We need to find other ways to make a buck than the ways we’ve become used to.
Looking back at how we all made our livings, over say the last 20 years, may make us pine. But if we pick up a rock or two we find that the source of our good times should never have existed.
But wait…all the money that was loaned to borderline borrowers, all the money that was loaned to developers because there were so many borrowers demanding houses, all the money that developers reinvested in more ground to build more homes, all went somewhere. Money doesn’t just disappear.
And where did it go? It went into your pocket and mine. Sure, there are anecdotal stories about obscene accumulations by some individuals, but the trillions of dollars that were lost on unpaid mortgages, went into the pockets of every carpenter who built a house that would never have been built were it not for a subprime mortgage. And not just the carpenter, everyone of us who prospered during those good years. That’s where all the money went.
And, unless someone can figure out how to re-create that revenue engine HONESTLY, things will never go back to that “normal”. Which means things will never go back. Period.
From a micro-business perspective this presents an ironic opportunity. While those big companies are drowning in the inability to shed overhead quick enough to survive, we, who have always had to survive, are in better shape than the big guys. Psychologically, anyway.
Let’s characterize Humpty as our bigger competition. It’s almost like he made his bed and now he has to sleep in it. He plundered the same communities that are now a drag on down-sizing, National chains are in swift retreat.
Micro-businesses and communities need to mobilize. Re-building communities is the name of the game. Unfortunately, part of the reason we can do such a thing is that the big guys don’t see much profit in small communities anymore. You know, with the recession and all.
So let me throw out a challenge to local communities:
1) Through Rotary or Kiwanis or Lion’s or whatever you’ve got, get aggressive with convening all of your local businesses and real estate interests. Take inventory of who and what you are. Decide how you can rebuild your community. If YOU don’t do it it will never be done.
2) Find out how many people are unemployed/underemployed in your area. You need to get these people back to work buying in your community. There are always some who prefer to remain idle, but you may be surprised at the human resources available in your neighborhoods. Oh and by the way, if your community isn’t big enough join with another community and create a joint shopping plan.
3) Urge your economic developers at the county level to pay some attention to what you’re trying to do and give you a hand in making it a success, The entire economic strength of your region will have to come from the sum of the strength of the local communities.
Humpty the employer/competitor is gone. Humpty the American economy is in a million pieces. At some point all the kings horses and all the kings men will realize that their effort is futile.
Micro-business has always been admired for its flexibility and its ability to turn on a dime. Let’s start turning.
BTW: If you’d like some assistance with re-structuring your community, contact The Sacks Group. Our programs may be of some interest to you.
rjs
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Plan
It seems everyone is getting “stimulated” but the little guy. The old “80/20” rule is at work again. Except this time it’s more like “100/20”…100% of the stimulus money went to 20% of the people. So, what else is new?
And, now that the train has left the station without us, the 20% are complaining about deficits and over-spending. After all, now that a trillion bucks has disappeared into the ether we better hunker down and begin to deal with reality. No more federal deficits to help the rest of us work through this mess.
I’ve got an idea. It’s simple and so easy you’ll wonder why no one ever thought of it before. Let me explain:
Imagine the Grand Canyon. Imagine that the 20% are on one side and the rest of us are on the other side. It is an apparently uncrossable chasm. On the 20% side are all the tools of capitalism: access to credit, access to capital, access to government programs, access to the banking system, the ability to create jobs.
On our side we have no access. It’s always been that way. But don’t understand it in terms of “haves and have-nots” because that’s not really the case. Part of the fallout from the financial debacle is that a measurable percentage of “haves” have been “transported” to our side of the canyon, finding themselves on the “wrong” side of the abyss for the first time in their lives. And they don’t like it one little bit.
They are coming up with all kinds of contraptions to try to get back across. All to no avail. Where are the Wright Brothers when we need them? And it’s not only the new little guys that would like to get across. The rest of us could use a crack at the credit and capital markets necessary to build businesses and create jobs. After all, according to the Kauffman Foundation, most permanent jobs are created by start-up and early stage businesses.
Since the beginning of capitalism there has been one insurmountable stumbling block that prevented ordinary people from joining the fraternity of successful business owners: the unavailability of investment and working capital. Or, so they say.
But, no small business ever failed because it ran out of money…small businesses fail because they run out of time. Capital in a start-up business is more like tuition than an investment. Money merely buys the time to go through the grinding learning curve until the money runs out. And it runs out 75% of the time.
Because of the odds against success, the folks on the other side of the canyon are happy to leave us be on our side. We’re far enough away so they can’t hear our petition. They’ve tried to listen in the past and lost money every time. Remember the “.com” era? They coined the phrase “burn rate” to describe how their investments were being consumed to produce nothing (except some very beautiful now empty buildings).
So, undaunted, the folks on our side persevere and scrape together businesses using whatever is available to them. With little capital, no small business experience and no leg up from the guys on the other side these “entrepreneurs” continue to fail year after year. And what do we hear from our friends across the way? “I told you so”!
THE PROPOSAL
I propose a radical new program to change the world we live in, through education.
I propose that the Small Business Administration create a new branch that deals only with “microbusiness” i.e. employers with fewer that 10 employees.
I propose that this branch use the state economic development departments and they, in turn, use local economic development programs and/or local Workforce Investment Boards to execute the programs developed.
I propose that a “licensing” or “certification” examination be developed that is linked to a pool of small business loans (either publicly or privately funded) the sole criteria for which is the achievement of a satisfactory grade on the exam.
I propose that an entirely new way of teaching potential small business owners be adopted to replace the ineffective methods we currently use.
I propose that the loans would be forgiven after the business owner achieves a targeted level of performance measured either by the number of jobs created or longevity of the business.
That’s it.
This program can be a temporary stimulus program for 24 months, with a review after that period of time to see if renewal makes sense.
Here’s what the program accomplishes:
· For the first time in history, people on our side of the canyon have a way to earn capital/credit by improving themselves through education. We do this with every other profession now. Doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, teachers even plumbers and contractors are all subject to licensing exams that certify them as acceptable to do business with the public. Why not certify small businesses?
· Little attention is paid to the damage small business failure does to local economies. Communities allow anyone to start a business, lease space, hire people, run up liabilities to local vendors and fail 75% of the time. Look around at the collateral damage in the form of empty strip centers, dog-eared signs, lost services and trashed expectations. Why not certify small businesses?
· Real estate developers (many of whom find themselves on our side of the canyon) and financial institutions (many of whom are well represented on our side) can require potential tenants to be certified before they can sign a lease for a proposed strip center or commercial development. Why not certify small businesses?
· There are roughly 500,000 small business failures each year wasting around $25 billion in lost equity…every year. Imagine if that lost money (derived primarily from home equity loans and deferred compensation plans) were used for a productive rather than a futile purpose? Why not certify small businesses?
· One of the problems of society (worldwide) is the distribution of wealth. Rightfully so, the folks on the other side of the canyon do not see an obligation to toss some our way. The Right says “no way” the Left says “open the treasury”. I say “create a qualifying exam”. If you pass it you earn certain privileges if you don’t pass it I say “sorry about your bad luck”. But, most importantly, if you pass it you get enough capital to start-up and create jobs and complement local economies and form a firm foundation for local business. Why not certify small businesses?
The Sacks Group, Inc. has already developed this program. We have designed the entire curriculum, timeline and exam. Our program has required courses, like any course of study that leads to certification. Our program puts participants through an array of different forms of education (from classroom to individual to on the job training). My book “The Twelve Commandments for Small Business”™ is the unique foundation for our course of study. My philosophies have helped businesses to be successful for 25 years. But we teach differently than any existing institution and our results prove the efficacy of our program.
Maybe if we all scream loud enough the 20% will begin to realize that we have their best interests at heart. Many of them started out on our side and got over there through education. But, they only accept education that fills a pre-existing space on their side. Why not create a program that would allow entrée to the world of business to the 80%…but only if they qualify.
rjs
And, now that the train has left the station without us, the 20% are complaining about deficits and over-spending. After all, now that a trillion bucks has disappeared into the ether we better hunker down and begin to deal with reality. No more federal deficits to help the rest of us work through this mess.
I’ve got an idea. It’s simple and so easy you’ll wonder why no one ever thought of it before. Let me explain:
Imagine the Grand Canyon. Imagine that the 20% are on one side and the rest of us are on the other side. It is an apparently uncrossable chasm. On the 20% side are all the tools of capitalism: access to credit, access to capital, access to government programs, access to the banking system, the ability to create jobs.
On our side we have no access. It’s always been that way. But don’t understand it in terms of “haves and have-nots” because that’s not really the case. Part of the fallout from the financial debacle is that a measurable percentage of “haves” have been “transported” to our side of the canyon, finding themselves on the “wrong” side of the abyss for the first time in their lives. And they don’t like it one little bit.
They are coming up with all kinds of contraptions to try to get back across. All to no avail. Where are the Wright Brothers when we need them? And it’s not only the new little guys that would like to get across. The rest of us could use a crack at the credit and capital markets necessary to build businesses and create jobs. After all, according to the Kauffman Foundation, most permanent jobs are created by start-up and early stage businesses.
Since the beginning of capitalism there has been one insurmountable stumbling block that prevented ordinary people from joining the fraternity of successful business owners: the unavailability of investment and working capital. Or, so they say.
But, no small business ever failed because it ran out of money…small businesses fail because they run out of time. Capital in a start-up business is more like tuition than an investment. Money merely buys the time to go through the grinding learning curve until the money runs out. And it runs out 75% of the time.
Because of the odds against success, the folks on the other side of the canyon are happy to leave us be on our side. We’re far enough away so they can’t hear our petition. They’ve tried to listen in the past and lost money every time. Remember the “.com” era? They coined the phrase “burn rate” to describe how their investments were being consumed to produce nothing (except some very beautiful now empty buildings).
So, undaunted, the folks on our side persevere and scrape together businesses using whatever is available to them. With little capital, no small business experience and no leg up from the guys on the other side these “entrepreneurs” continue to fail year after year. And what do we hear from our friends across the way? “I told you so”!
THE PROPOSAL
I propose a radical new program to change the world we live in, through education.
I propose that the Small Business Administration create a new branch that deals only with “microbusiness” i.e. employers with fewer that 10 employees.
I propose that this branch use the state economic development departments and they, in turn, use local economic development programs and/or local Workforce Investment Boards to execute the programs developed.
I propose that a “licensing” or “certification” examination be developed that is linked to a pool of small business loans (either publicly or privately funded) the sole criteria for which is the achievement of a satisfactory grade on the exam.
I propose that an entirely new way of teaching potential small business owners be adopted to replace the ineffective methods we currently use.
I propose that the loans would be forgiven after the business owner achieves a targeted level of performance measured either by the number of jobs created or longevity of the business.
That’s it.
This program can be a temporary stimulus program for 24 months, with a review after that period of time to see if renewal makes sense.
Here’s what the program accomplishes:
· For the first time in history, people on our side of the canyon have a way to earn capital/credit by improving themselves through education. We do this with every other profession now. Doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, teachers even plumbers and contractors are all subject to licensing exams that certify them as acceptable to do business with the public. Why not certify small businesses?
· Little attention is paid to the damage small business failure does to local economies. Communities allow anyone to start a business, lease space, hire people, run up liabilities to local vendors and fail 75% of the time. Look around at the collateral damage in the form of empty strip centers, dog-eared signs, lost services and trashed expectations. Why not certify small businesses?
· Real estate developers (many of whom find themselves on our side of the canyon) and financial institutions (many of whom are well represented on our side) can require potential tenants to be certified before they can sign a lease for a proposed strip center or commercial development. Why not certify small businesses?
· There are roughly 500,000 small business failures each year wasting around $25 billion in lost equity…every year. Imagine if that lost money (derived primarily from home equity loans and deferred compensation plans) were used for a productive rather than a futile purpose? Why not certify small businesses?
· One of the problems of society (worldwide) is the distribution of wealth. Rightfully so, the folks on the other side of the canyon do not see an obligation to toss some our way. The Right says “no way” the Left says “open the treasury”. I say “create a qualifying exam”. If you pass it you earn certain privileges if you don’t pass it I say “sorry about your bad luck”. But, most importantly, if you pass it you get enough capital to start-up and create jobs and complement local economies and form a firm foundation for local business. Why not certify small businesses?
The Sacks Group, Inc. has already developed this program. We have designed the entire curriculum, timeline and exam. Our program has required courses, like any course of study that leads to certification. Our program puts participants through an array of different forms of education (from classroom to individual to on the job training). My book “The Twelve Commandments for Small Business”™ is the unique foundation for our course of study. My philosophies have helped businesses to be successful for 25 years. But we teach differently than any existing institution and our results prove the efficacy of our program.
Maybe if we all scream loud enough the 20% will begin to realize that we have their best interests at heart. Many of them started out on our side and got over there through education. But, they only accept education that fills a pre-existing space on their side. Why not create a program that would allow entrée to the world of business to the 80%…but only if they qualify.
rjs
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
A Storehouse of Tools
Archeologists discovered what they believe to be an old civilization that apparently disappeared from the face of the earth. They found evidence of burning on most of the buildings, leading them to the conclusion that there was some sort of violent upheaval that spelled the doom of the society.
As they dug deeper they found some interesting anomalies. There appeared to be an absence of any kind of tools throughout the area. The more they explored the stranger it became. There were no cutting or hammering or digging tools. No farming or building tools. What they did find were crude tools of conflict…clubs and knives and axes.
Most interesting was that there was no apparent way for the people to make a living. What, they wondered, did these people live on? Apparently they had some way of getting food because there were plenty of household relics. The dishes and cups must have been filled with something.
But they were unable to uncover anything obvious that would describe the mundane activities of a people. For all intents and purposes they appeared to be ill-equipped to survive on a day-to-day basis.
Over time the puzzle gained followers in the anthropological community. Together, the field workers and the social scientists continued to work on the dilemma. And then, an even more challenging discovery was made.
High on a hill, in the center of the main town, was a huge storehouse containing tools. Thousands of implements that would normally be found dispersed among the ruins but, in this case, were all in one place. All the things the people needed to live a life were there. And the place was surrounded by battlements and barracks. Obviously well-guarded.
The anthropologists concluded that the tools of trade were considered valuable. A currency of sorts. If one had access to the tools of survival one must have been wealthy. He who had tools had an advantage over he who had none.
The fact that there were no tools in the hands of the general population indicated that they must have been dependent on whomever controlled the tools. Or maybe the general population was cared for by the people with the tools.
It all began to become clear. Here was a civilization that was so well taken care of by those who had tools that the people had no need for tools. As a result, over generations, the people lost their ability to use tools themselves. And they were probably quite happy and even prosperous.
But in their prosperity they failed to realize that they could no longer survive on their own. If their benefactor ever stopped providing tools and laborers they were helpless. And it was too late to do anything about it.
And, then it must have happened. For some reason, yet to be determined, the time of benevolence ended. And the people had no tools of their own. And people had no way to provide for themselves. And they must have become desperate to feed their families.
The battle lines must have been drawn. With no tools and no skills and the benefactor telling them they were on their own the people began to fight for survival. And what was left was what the archeologists discovered in the year 2110.
rjs
As they dug deeper they found some interesting anomalies. There appeared to be an absence of any kind of tools throughout the area. The more they explored the stranger it became. There were no cutting or hammering or digging tools. No farming or building tools. What they did find were crude tools of conflict…clubs and knives and axes.
Most interesting was that there was no apparent way for the people to make a living. What, they wondered, did these people live on? Apparently they had some way of getting food because there were plenty of household relics. The dishes and cups must have been filled with something.
But they were unable to uncover anything obvious that would describe the mundane activities of a people. For all intents and purposes they appeared to be ill-equipped to survive on a day-to-day basis.
Over time the puzzle gained followers in the anthropological community. Together, the field workers and the social scientists continued to work on the dilemma. And then, an even more challenging discovery was made.
High on a hill, in the center of the main town, was a huge storehouse containing tools. Thousands of implements that would normally be found dispersed among the ruins but, in this case, were all in one place. All the things the people needed to live a life were there. And the place was surrounded by battlements and barracks. Obviously well-guarded.
The anthropologists concluded that the tools of trade were considered valuable. A currency of sorts. If one had access to the tools of survival one must have been wealthy. He who had tools had an advantage over he who had none.
The fact that there were no tools in the hands of the general population indicated that they must have been dependent on whomever controlled the tools. Or maybe the general population was cared for by the people with the tools.
It all began to become clear. Here was a civilization that was so well taken care of by those who had tools that the people had no need for tools. As a result, over generations, the people lost their ability to use tools themselves. And they were probably quite happy and even prosperous.
But in their prosperity they failed to realize that they could no longer survive on their own. If their benefactor ever stopped providing tools and laborers they were helpless. And it was too late to do anything about it.
And, then it must have happened. For some reason, yet to be determined, the time of benevolence ended. And the people had no tools of their own. And people had no way to provide for themselves. And they must have become desperate to feed their families.
The battle lines must have been drawn. With no tools and no skills and the benefactor telling them they were on their own the people began to fight for survival. And what was left was what the archeologists discovered in the year 2110.
rjs
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Not If it Eats or Moves...
A banker friend of mine has always told me he has a strict policy when it comes to accepting collateral for a loan: if it moves or eats, he’s not interested. He’s rarely been wrong.
They had a feature on NPR the other day that made me think of him. They were talking about the fact that the summer concert business has changed over the years and is now consolidated in the hands of two or three very large companies who control every aspect of the industry. They were making the point that there are so many ways to charge people for things (from beer to souvenirs to lawn chairs to the tickets themselves) that there is an absolute fortune flowing through the treasuries of these major players.
If you’ve ever paid $9.50 for a beer or $7.00 for a bottle of water you understand what they mean. At these outrageous prices these concerts must make an absolute fortune.
Then I thought of my friend, which made me think of all the people in this world who look at gross revenue without thinking of the real cost and complexity of actually earning it. That’s why my banking buddy is so astute: if it moves he’s not sure where it is all the time and if it eats he’s not sure how big an appetite it has.
The banker’s saying that it’s too risky to loan to a business that is constantly moving around and if it eats he wants to make sure it only eats its own lunch and not his too. In other words, the more complicated a business concept is the more likely it will be difficult to keep tabs on (and, therefore, to eke out a profit).
For example, a company that buys a product from one guy, never takes physical possession of the product and then sells that same product to another guy is the simplest of businesses. You can make it even simpler if you can take an order from a buyer and only then go looking for the product to fulfill the order. It’s kind of like specialized shopping.
Now, compare the simplest of businesses to the summer concert business. While the former makes me feel warm and fuzzy, the latter makes the hair on the back of my neck stand at attention.
Imagine the chances of failure when the easiest part of the business is hiring an over-priced prima donna to entertain a group of 40,000 semi-sober overage teenagers in a confined space on a 90 degree day. That’s just the beginning.
Imagine the lighting and the sets and the instruments. It all has to be set up and broken down in 40 different cities with varying licensing ordinances, power supplies and highway access. You need two dozen 18 wheelers and a half dozen busses and they all have to arrive within a 2 hour window so rush hour traffic isn’t snarled.
But, if NPR featured the guys who had to dig fence post holes and set up 10,000 folding chairs people would think they were whining. Especially since the guy who started the company in the first place gets to touch the massive amount of money that comes in…at least until he has to spend it making things work.
rjs
They had a feature on NPR the other day that made me think of him. They were talking about the fact that the summer concert business has changed over the years and is now consolidated in the hands of two or three very large companies who control every aspect of the industry. They were making the point that there are so many ways to charge people for things (from beer to souvenirs to lawn chairs to the tickets themselves) that there is an absolute fortune flowing through the treasuries of these major players.
If you’ve ever paid $9.50 for a beer or $7.00 for a bottle of water you understand what they mean. At these outrageous prices these concerts must make an absolute fortune.
Then I thought of my friend, which made me think of all the people in this world who look at gross revenue without thinking of the real cost and complexity of actually earning it. That’s why my banking buddy is so astute: if it moves he’s not sure where it is all the time and if it eats he’s not sure how big an appetite it has.
The banker’s saying that it’s too risky to loan to a business that is constantly moving around and if it eats he wants to make sure it only eats its own lunch and not his too. In other words, the more complicated a business concept is the more likely it will be difficult to keep tabs on (and, therefore, to eke out a profit).
For example, a company that buys a product from one guy, never takes physical possession of the product and then sells that same product to another guy is the simplest of businesses. You can make it even simpler if you can take an order from a buyer and only then go looking for the product to fulfill the order. It’s kind of like specialized shopping.
Now, compare the simplest of businesses to the summer concert business. While the former makes me feel warm and fuzzy, the latter makes the hair on the back of my neck stand at attention.
Imagine the chances of failure when the easiest part of the business is hiring an over-priced prima donna to entertain a group of 40,000 semi-sober overage teenagers in a confined space on a 90 degree day. That’s just the beginning.
Imagine the lighting and the sets and the instruments. It all has to be set up and broken down in 40 different cities with varying licensing ordinances, power supplies and highway access. You need two dozen 18 wheelers and a half dozen busses and they all have to arrive within a 2 hour window so rush hour traffic isn’t snarled.
But, if NPR featured the guys who had to dig fence post holes and set up 10,000 folding chairs people would think they were whining. Especially since the guy who started the company in the first place gets to touch the massive amount of money that comes in…at least until he has to spend it making things work.
rjs
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
My Vision or Yours?
A friend of mine, who was CEO of a complex hospital operation (I guess that’s why they call them “hospital complexes”), had recently hired a bright, young graduate of a local university. He was planning to groom this young lady and to eventually move her into a middle management position. He arranged for her to be his direct report for her first six months on the job.
He gave her an assignment to write up a proposal for a new emergency room procedure that he was thinking of implementing. He gave her a very specific outline of what he envisioned and sent her on her way.
A day or so later she came back with several pages and sat down to discuss it with him. She told him she made a couple of changes in his outline because, frankly, what he was proposing did not sync with her vision of what an ER operation should look like.
He was slightly taken aback, caught between being both amused and annoyed by her audacity. After regaining his composure he said:
“I guess I didn’t make it clear when I hired you, your are here to implement my vision not yours!”
Needless to say, my friend’s comment knocked his new employee down a couple of rungs on her ladder. It was pretty obvious that the way for her to please her new boss was not going to be through her own ingenuity and creativity but, instead, by helping him to achieve his.
It’s ironic. When you are looking for a job, exactly the traits that make you attractive to a prospective employer can be the same traits, if you’re not careful, that can cause your demise.
An intelligent, resourceful, can do, will do employee is an asset we all seek…with one major proviso: we want that employee to use her skill sets to accomplish our goals not hers. Too often employees forget that they were not really hired to do “their thing”, they were hired to do “my thing”.
The higher you get on the organization chart, the more you get to do things your way. That’s what responsibility and authority are all about. If you want to climb concentrate on making your boss successful and, eventually, you will be able to hire people who will make you successful.
The CEO of any organization writes the agenda, employees do not. The best way to get a raise or a bonus is to let your boss know how dedicated you are making him or her look good, + and then doing it. Talk (especially behind his/her back) is cheap. You’re either on board or you’re not. And, by the way, you will often relinquish credit in public for your own work because it’s not about you; it’s about him/her. A good superior will share credit with you when it’s appropriate. Don’t forget, the outside world is well aware that you are a key staff member, so you always get tacit credit for making a contribution even if you’re name is not on it.
Attempting to be in the limelight too soon in your career is a great way to wreck your career. The limelight is earned as a result of a continual track record of supporting the organization (i.e. your boss), not for standing out in the crowd.
I’d like to make an important clarification. No one expects you to be a hypocrite or to sponsor behavior that is, in your opinion, contrary to the best interests of your boss. If you think something you’ve been told to do is morally or legally wrong or ill advised you have the responsibility to make your case to the boss. But, and this is a huge but, I am not talking about preferences. Your case must consist of demonstrable right or wrong not your opinion about right or wrong. The right to your own opinion is available way up on the ladder.
So, if you want your pay grade to ultimately give you the right to impose your preferences on others, work your way up by helping your bosses to get what they want. In the end, you’ll get what you want!
He gave her an assignment to write up a proposal for a new emergency room procedure that he was thinking of implementing. He gave her a very specific outline of what he envisioned and sent her on her way.
A day or so later she came back with several pages and sat down to discuss it with him. She told him she made a couple of changes in his outline because, frankly, what he was proposing did not sync with her vision of what an ER operation should look like.
He was slightly taken aback, caught between being both amused and annoyed by her audacity. After regaining his composure he said:
“I guess I didn’t make it clear when I hired you, your are here to implement my vision not yours!”
Needless to say, my friend’s comment knocked his new employee down a couple of rungs on her ladder. It was pretty obvious that the way for her to please her new boss was not going to be through her own ingenuity and creativity but, instead, by helping him to achieve his.
It’s ironic. When you are looking for a job, exactly the traits that make you attractive to a prospective employer can be the same traits, if you’re not careful, that can cause your demise.
An intelligent, resourceful, can do, will do employee is an asset we all seek…with one major proviso: we want that employee to use her skill sets to accomplish our goals not hers. Too often employees forget that they were not really hired to do “their thing”, they were hired to do “my thing”.
The higher you get on the organization chart, the more you get to do things your way. That’s what responsibility and authority are all about. If you want to climb concentrate on making your boss successful and, eventually, you will be able to hire people who will make you successful.
The CEO of any organization writes the agenda, employees do not. The best way to get a raise or a bonus is to let your boss know how dedicated you are making him or her look good, + and then doing it. Talk (especially behind his/her back) is cheap. You’re either on board or you’re not. And, by the way, you will often relinquish credit in public for your own work because it’s not about you; it’s about him/her. A good superior will share credit with you when it’s appropriate. Don’t forget, the outside world is well aware that you are a key staff member, so you always get tacit credit for making a contribution even if you’re name is not on it.
Attempting to be in the limelight too soon in your career is a great way to wreck your career. The limelight is earned as a result of a continual track record of supporting the organization (i.e. your boss), not for standing out in the crowd.
I’d like to make an important clarification. No one expects you to be a hypocrite or to sponsor behavior that is, in your opinion, contrary to the best interests of your boss. If you think something you’ve been told to do is morally or legally wrong or ill advised you have the responsibility to make your case to the boss. But, and this is a huge but, I am not talking about preferences. Your case must consist of demonstrable right or wrong not your opinion about right or wrong. The right to your own opinion is available way up on the ladder.
So, if you want your pay grade to ultimately give you the right to impose your preferences on others, work your way up by helping your bosses to get what they want. In the end, you’ll get what you want!
Friday, May 21, 2010
Occasionally the World Suddenly Makes Sense
Occasionally the world suddenly makes sense. I guess those times are what they call “ah ha” moments.
You know all the oversight committees in Congress? It’s always bugged me that every time some major catastrophe occurs, the committees and departments and task forces seem to be looking the other way. And then it dawned on me: These groups are not in charge of oversight, they’re in charge of oversights. And, in fact, they’re doing a terrific job. Going back to 9/11, there have been a litany of oversights.
My curiosity got the best of me, and I did some research. I found someone inside the Washington beltway who would tell me the truth (a task in itself), and here’s what I found out:
The oversight committee is actually part of a whole system. It handles the generally mundane task of dealing with day-to-day events. It traces its origin back to the Nixon administration and the concept of “plausible deniability.” In order for the president to be able to distance himself from an event, Congress is charged with creating a plausible oversight, as in “Oops, it was just an oversight.”
In Nixon’s case, a simple oversight wasn’t adequate so the “overlook committee” was created. This is a “select” committee, meaning that only special people serve on it, and its existence is not very well-publicized. When an oversight isn’t adequate this committee makes a conscious decision to overlook something. Whereas an “oversight” is seemingly an accident, deciding to “overlook” is on purpose.
As you might expect, from time to time, intentionally overlooking something is not enough. When this happens, the issue escalates to the “cover-up committee.” Things don’t get to the cover-up committee without presidential involvement. However, in order to preserve plausible deniability, the president only communicates with the committee in code. It’s something like the nuclear codes and changes with each administration.
I don’t know what the code phrase is in the Obama Administration, but under George W. it was “Heckuva job, Brownie.”
You know all the oversight committees in Congress? It’s always bugged me that every time some major catastrophe occurs, the committees and departments and task forces seem to be looking the other way. And then it dawned on me: These groups are not in charge of oversight, they’re in charge of oversights. And, in fact, they’re doing a terrific job. Going back to 9/11, there have been a litany of oversights.
My curiosity got the best of me, and I did some research. I found someone inside the Washington beltway who would tell me the truth (a task in itself), and here’s what I found out:
The oversight committee is actually part of a whole system. It handles the generally mundane task of dealing with day-to-day events. It traces its origin back to the Nixon administration and the concept of “plausible deniability.” In order for the president to be able to distance himself from an event, Congress is charged with creating a plausible oversight, as in “Oops, it was just an oversight.”
In Nixon’s case, a simple oversight wasn’t adequate so the “overlook committee” was created. This is a “select” committee, meaning that only special people serve on it, and its existence is not very well-publicized. When an oversight isn’t adequate this committee makes a conscious decision to overlook something. Whereas an “oversight” is seemingly an accident, deciding to “overlook” is on purpose.
As you might expect, from time to time, intentionally overlooking something is not enough. When this happens, the issue escalates to the “cover-up committee.” Things don’t get to the cover-up committee without presidential involvement. However, in order to preserve plausible deniability, the president only communicates with the committee in code. It’s something like the nuclear codes and changes with each administration.
I don’t know what the code phrase is in the Obama Administration, but under George W. it was “Heckuva job, Brownie.”
Monday, May 10, 2010
Man, Have We Ever Lost Our Way...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 40 million Americans received food stamps -- the latest in an ever-higher string of record enrollment that dates from December 2008 and the U.S. recession, according to a government update.
U.S. Food stamps are the primary federal anti-hunger program, helping poor people buy food. Enrollment is highest during times of economic distress. The jobless rate was 9.9 percent, the government said on Friday.
The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February, an increase of 260,000 from January. USDA updated its figures on Wednesday.
"This is the highest share of the U.S. population on SNAP/food stamps," said the anti-hunger group Food Research and Action Center, using the new name for food stamps, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). "Research suggests that one in three eligible people are not receiving ... benefits."
Enrollment has set a record each month since reaching 31.78 million in December 2008. USDA estimates enrollment will average 40.5 million people this fiscal year, which ends Sept 30, at a cost of up to $59 billion. For fiscal 2011, average enrollment is forecast for 43.3 million people.
Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton/Files
What is wrong with this country? We have Democrats and Republicans fighting with each other over power and politics and miscellany that improves nothing while 12.5% of our population needs food assistance. I find that totally unacceptable.
We have this Tea Party aberration raising rabble about government interference, and any other thing that can raise a crowd, while that same government is feeding 12.5% of our population.
We have wealthy people criticizing the fact that other wealthy people were bailed out by the government while other people, some of whom used to be wealthy, are using food stamps.
Man, have we ever lost our way.
rjs
U.S. Food stamps are the primary federal anti-hunger program, helping poor people buy food. Enrollment is highest during times of economic distress. The jobless rate was 9.9 percent, the government said on Friday.
The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February, an increase of 260,000 from January. USDA updated its figures on Wednesday.
"This is the highest share of the U.S. population on SNAP/food stamps," said the anti-hunger group Food Research and Action Center, using the new name for food stamps, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). "Research suggests that one in three eligible people are not receiving ... benefits."
Enrollment has set a record each month since reaching 31.78 million in December 2008. USDA estimates enrollment will average 40.5 million people this fiscal year, which ends Sept 30, at a cost of up to $59 billion. For fiscal 2011, average enrollment is forecast for 43.3 million people.
Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton/Files
What is wrong with this country? We have Democrats and Republicans fighting with each other over power and politics and miscellany that improves nothing while 12.5% of our population needs food assistance. I find that totally unacceptable.
We have this Tea Party aberration raising rabble about government interference, and any other thing that can raise a crowd, while that same government is feeding 12.5% of our population.
We have wealthy people criticizing the fact that other wealthy people were bailed out by the government while other people, some of whom used to be wealthy, are using food stamps.
Man, have we ever lost our way.
rjs
Remember the Good 'Ole Days of Banking?
Here’s a new definition of “chutzpah”. Part of the new financial reform legislation forbids domestic banks from trading in derivatives. Derivative trading (basically financial instruments that bet on other financial instruments) is a major source of revenue for the institutions that are currently posing as banks. The top five “banks” have spent upward of $6 million lobbying to have the prohibition deleted.
Their argument, now get this, is that if they are not allowed to play in the derivative market it will be left only to foreign banks AND FOREIGN BANKS ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE US GOVERNMENT.
Remember the story of the kid who murdered his parents and then pleaded with the court to give him a break because he was an orphan? This is even better than that! Who are these guys kidding?
They don’t want to stop playing the market because then they may be forced to try to make money being banks. If you look at the obscene profitability that banks are now reporting (and asking for an attaboy for recovering from last year’s meltdown) and then look at the source of the profits, a small fraction of it comes from normal banking activities. Interest arbitrage, derivative trading and the like represent the majority of the profits.
Remember the days when a bank took depositors’ money and loaned it to businesses so that the local and national economies would have a source of fluidity? Oops, that required exposure to risk and the careful analysis of financial statements and management activities. And, as we now know, most of the largest companies were lying (and their auditors were swearing to it) so who wants to be in the middle of that mess?
Besides, it’s much more sophisticated and fun to play with the big boys (and become one yourself) than it is to sit behind a roll top desk and serve customers.
How ‘ya gonna keep ‘em down on the farm after they seen Paree?
rjs
Their argument, now get this, is that if they are not allowed to play in the derivative market it will be left only to foreign banks AND FOREIGN BANKS ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE US GOVERNMENT.
Remember the story of the kid who murdered his parents and then pleaded with the court to give him a break because he was an orphan? This is even better than that! Who are these guys kidding?
They don’t want to stop playing the market because then they may be forced to try to make money being banks. If you look at the obscene profitability that banks are now reporting (and asking for an attaboy for recovering from last year’s meltdown) and then look at the source of the profits, a small fraction of it comes from normal banking activities. Interest arbitrage, derivative trading and the like represent the majority of the profits.
Remember the days when a bank took depositors’ money and loaned it to businesses so that the local and national economies would have a source of fluidity? Oops, that required exposure to risk and the careful analysis of financial statements and management activities. And, as we now know, most of the largest companies were lying (and their auditors were swearing to it) so who wants to be in the middle of that mess?
Besides, it’s much more sophisticated and fun to play with the big boys (and become one yourself) than it is to sit behind a roll top desk and serve customers.
How ‘ya gonna keep ‘em down on the farm after they seen Paree?
rjs
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Ideas Are a Dime a Dozen!
Business ideas are a dime a dozen! If every idea we have for improving the world or for making a million were successful, we'd all be living in paradise (not that St. Louis isn't paradise, but you know what I mean).
Seriously, at the idea stage everything looks feasible. Especially those 2:00 AM ideas. So what happens? Why don't most ideas every turn into reality?
It's simple...ideas don't fail in theory, they fail in the execution. I don't know the number, but I'm sure that the odds of an idea bearing any fruit are somewhere in the vicinity of winning PowerBall. Wishing doesn't make things happen.
But at the moment, we need to increase the likelihood that a business idea can turn into something. With so many people out of work and unlikely to find a decent job we better do something in a hurry. After all is said and done, starting a business my be the only career path left.
Introducing the Matterhorn Project – not your ordinary idea factory. At Matterhorn we teach execution. While everyone else teaches the theory of running a business, we teach the practice.
There is more information available about creating a small business than any human being is capable of absorbing. Some of it's good and some not so good. But, in the end, you can't learn to do something well by reading a book or attending a seminar. You need practice in order to apply what you've learned.
Matterhorn includes theory, taught by experts, but doesn't stop there. 2/3's of the time you invest in Matterhorn is spent actually running your business and earning a livelihood.
So don't spend money on trial and error. Do it right the first time with the Matterhorn Project!
rjs
Seriously, at the idea stage everything looks feasible. Especially those 2:00 AM ideas. So what happens? Why don't most ideas every turn into reality?
It's simple...ideas don't fail in theory, they fail in the execution. I don't know the number, but I'm sure that the odds of an idea bearing any fruit are somewhere in the vicinity of winning PowerBall. Wishing doesn't make things happen.
But at the moment, we need to increase the likelihood that a business idea can turn into something. With so many people out of work and unlikely to find a decent job we better do something in a hurry. After all is said and done, starting a business my be the only career path left.
Introducing the Matterhorn Project – not your ordinary idea factory. At Matterhorn we teach execution. While everyone else teaches the theory of running a business, we teach the practice.
There is more information available about creating a small business than any human being is capable of absorbing. Some of it's good and some not so good. But, in the end, you can't learn to do something well by reading a book or attending a seminar. You need practice in order to apply what you've learned.
Matterhorn includes theory, taught by experts, but doesn't stop there. 2/3's of the time you invest in Matterhorn is spent actually running your business and earning a livelihood.
So don't spend money on trial and error. Do it right the first time with the Matterhorn Project!
rjs
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Starting a Business is a Process...Not An Event!
It’s a process that most people get wrong, because 50% of the time they don’t make it through 2 years. The ironic thing is that there are more seminars and books and blogs about “How to Start a Small Business” than probably any other business-related topic. So what’s up?
Learning to start and run a business by attending seminars and reading books is about as effective as learning to be an Olympic ice skater by reading a manual. Failure is not caused by a lack of information but, instead, by a lack of the ability to execute.
That’s why we developed the Matterhorn Project. Matterhorn breaks the start-up process into two segments: 6 months of learning followed by 12 months of actual business operation. Any qualified organization can teach you the theory, only Matterhorn coaches you to successful execution.
So, go for the gold! Find out more about the Matterhorn Project today. Don’t start a business without it.
rjs
Learning to start and run a business by attending seminars and reading books is about as effective as learning to be an Olympic ice skater by reading a manual. Failure is not caused by a lack of information but, instead, by a lack of the ability to execute.
That’s why we developed the Matterhorn Project. Matterhorn breaks the start-up process into two segments: 6 months of learning followed by 12 months of actual business operation. Any qualified organization can teach you the theory, only Matterhorn coaches you to successful execution.
So, go for the gold! Find out more about the Matterhorn Project today. Don’t start a business without it.
rjs
Thursday, March 4, 2010
About This Project!
We have more than 100 years of combined experience in marketing, training, sales, accounting and banking! This program will guide you from the very beginning stages of a new business development, through business start-up and we will walk beside you for your first full year in business! Think of it as an "internship" in your own business!
rjs
rjs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
