===
Allen will be the next SIRC President Day Dinner speaker here at The Plantation club on Monday, Feb 15. Stay tuned!
===
And so it goes. Obama overlooks whatever is convenient as did Clinton vis a vis N Korea.
It is as is is is you know. (See 2 below.)
===
One of the biggest problems politicians have is they do not know how to be ordinary and thus relate to ordinary people.
They listen to experts who are only 50% correct most of the times, at best. These experts help losers, they help winners so the odds of expert political tacticians is not that great yet politicians spend millions, untold millions, taking the advice of people who are not real, take polls from those who tell them either what they want to hear or to get rid of them , or worst of all, express their deepest peeves and then these experts construct campaigns based on what they hear and poll.
Donald Trump will not be the Republican candidate but he does resonate because he speaks his mind and is unorthodox by political standards. Yes, Trump is a renegade and he will eventually fade because his language is not presidential, it has no 'soaringness phraseology' like Kennedy's or down to earth 'understandableness' like Reagan's. It is raw and touches nerves and thus has flash appeal.
It appeals to our angst bt it is not a good base on which to build a meaningful campaign that resolves problems though it may highlight them and leave the solutions for others to resolve.
Roger Ailes is probably one of the best at his job and turned FOX into a powerhouse and Archie was great because he touched a serious subject and permitted us to laugh while it was sinking in.
Hillarious lacks just about everything when it comes to curb appeal and eventually a politician's personality comes through if the handlers will allow it. Romney blew it, McCain blew it and so will Donald but for the time being he is 'clownishly' right on as he touches the nerve in an in your face way. . (See 3 below.)
===
In my humble opinion we are experiencing a long needed, overdue market correction. These corrections are precipitated by things that can be scary but in this instance Greece and China are not going to bring the market or world to its knees. Why? Because there are too many vested interests that will not profit by this occurring.
I do believe what is happening will deter The Fed and if a strong Republican is elected and market valuations are reasonable, I further believe this long and extended bull market recovery will move higher for a while.
Should Hilarious win I believe any potential euphoria will quickly quickly dissipate as air rushing out of a popped balloon. Stay tuned and time will tell. Always does.
===
As always I sneaked another memo in before leaving.
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Editor’s Note: This column was coauthored by Geno Lattus.
The perfect formula for financial crisis: Imagine a country that spends more than it makes and continues to borrow to make up the difference, leaving it forever catching up on debt payments because of mounting interest. Another analysis on the Greek crisis? No. The United States is running its government in the same fundamental way as Greece and a meltdown may be coming soon.
The Greek Formula. Greece recently defaulted on a $1.8 billion debt payment to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). After borrowing large sums, big bailouts and profligate government spending, Greece’s struggling economy still lags from the 2008 global financial crisis. Its gross domestic product (GDP) has declined steadily since the crisis, dropping 33% from 2008 to 2014. It’s debt-to-GDP ratio, essentially a measure of how much the Greek government has borrowed compared to how much revenue it collects, has reached the 175 percent mark. Greece is not generating enough tax revenues to service its debts.
The U.S. Formula. Like Greece, the U.S. experienced financial turmoil and a severe drop in economic productivity during the financial crisis of 2008. In response to the downturn, the federal government spurred the economy by increasing spending, inflating deficits to a total of $5.6 trillion by 2012. Federal debt, typically averaging just 38 percent of GDP over the last 50 years, has been used to fund these deficits, nearly doubling between 2008 and 2012 to 74 percent of the country’s GDP, or yearly economic output. World War II was the last time deficits and the debt were this high.
According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) 2015 Long-Term Budget Outlook, this country could soon end up in the same boat as Greece. Over the next 25 years, government revenues are projected to fall well short of spending, creating a large imbalance in the federal budget. Projected budget deficits are expected to rise slowly and will eventually double to 6 percent of GDP by 2040. An aging population and rising costs of Social Security and major health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program and subsidies for the Affordable Health Care Act are projected to cost 14.2 percent of GDP, double what they averaged over the last 50 years.
Debt is estimated to reduce the next few years, however, rising deficits will push debt levels quickly back to the present mark and by 2040 could be at a point where federal debt exceeds GDP, at which it becomes indefinitely unsustainable. As debt rises past GDP, creditors will eventually begin to doubt the government’s ability to cut spending or raise enough revenue to service its debt and demand higher interest rate premiums, exacerbating deficits.
A large and growing debt will create a downward financial spiral similar to the one Greece is currently embroiled in. As a large debt grows, it creates negative consequences for the economy, making it impossible to recover. Near zero interest rates have nowhere to go but up. The imminent increase in interest rates will raise the government’s interest payments. As interest payments rise, taxes are increased, creating a drag on economic output. A large amount of debt also detracts from productive private investment as investors spend a portion of their savings to buy government securities.
It’s Not Greek To Me. In the present and short term, current policies have led to the weakest recovery in the post-World War II era. In the 48 months since the recovery began, GDP had only increased by 9 percent, whereas the average 48-month GDP increase for recoveries in this era is 17 percent higher. The economy has experienced 10 recessions since WWII, and the average length of recovery is 58 months. The current recovery is now in month 73.
It is evident that changes need to be made. Our country’s reliance on debt to prop up the economy may lead us to financial disaster and cripple our way of life. As we continue to run deficits and borrow, more and more of government revenues will go toward debt, restricting lawmakers’ ability to use tax revenues and reducing their ability to respond to unexpected circumstances like financial crises and natural disasters. It may also create funding gaps in other important programs like defense, infrastructure and education. Lawmakers should heed the CBO’s warning by setting a realistic deficit reduction goal and implement a balanced budget plan that will ensure the government is living within its means.
A former member of Congress, Allen West is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and is the President & CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis, where Geno Lattus is a research associate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)---- Iran Made Illegal Purchases of Nuclear Weapons Technology Last Month
Benjamin Weinthal and Emanuele Ottolenghi
The question is not whether Iran can be trusted to uphold the nuclear deal now being negotiated in Vienna (it can’t), but whether the Obama administration and its P5+1 partners can be trusted to punish Iran when it violates the agreement?
The second report, released last week by Germany's domestic intelligence agency, is less ambiguous. The agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution,confirmed to us that Iran continues to seek illicit technology for its nuclear and ballistic missiles programs.
Iran has had a long history of trying to obtain nuclear technology from German companies, particularly by seeking ways to transport merchandise in circumvention of international sanctions. Since November 2013, Tehran has sought industry computers, high-speed cameras, cable fiber, and pumps for its nuclear and missile program. It appears that Iran's readiness to negotiate does not reflect any substantive policy change. Rather, it is a diplomatic tactic retreat forced by economic distress, not a strategic rethinking of its priorities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)
As sensitive as presidential candidates are to the tiniest shifts in public opinion, they can be shockingly obtuse about problems in their own organizations. But even an excellent politician can crash and burn without the right support from a well-oiled team. Remember: In business you can come in second or third and still be successful, but not in politics.
Building a Winning Political Team
Ronald Reagan knew how to do it. So did Bill Clinton. Their secret? They ignored the conventional wisdom.
Ronald Reagan and his presidential-campaign chairman, William Casey, in June 1980. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
As the 2016 presidential candidates start the long downhill run to the primaries early next year, the real test of their campaign teams begins.
If history is any guide, many of today’s highflying contenders will fall to earth in the next nine months, dragged down by dysfunctional organizations. What is astounding is that for all their experience running gubernatorial, senatorial or corporate staffs, most of this year’s candidates will repeat the same mistakes that have sunk their predecessors for generations.
For example, Jeb Bush is assembling a team of “superstars,” some of the best names in the campaign business. Hillary Clinton has pulled together staff based primarily on their compatibility and loyalty to her. Both strategies are usually recipes for disappointment.
We have been studying how effective teams work. Much research has been done the past 15 years that can shed light on this question—by anthropologists, sociologists, brain scientists and even cultural historians, who have uncovered common organizational archetypes that have held through the ages. If we’ve learned anything, it is that conventional wisdom about building and leading successful teams is almost completely wrong.
Here are some common mistakes:
• The more, the merrier. Why not bring as much talent, experience and intellectual firepower to the challenge as you can afford? There is, in fact, a mathematical argument against doing precisely that. Every new node in a network adds many more potential connections. Thus, while a team of four has just six interconnections, a team of 16 has 120 interconnections. It is near-exponential growth: n * (n-1) / 2.
Hierarchies help, but every additional team member adds complexity that can slow down decision-making and hamstring adaptability—not good when elections are won or lost on quick responses to the other candidates’ claims. As psychologist J. Richard Hackman told the Harvard Business Review in 2009: “Big teams usually just wind up wasting everybody’s time.” Better to use the smallest possible team that can get the job done.
• Recruit for compatibility. That is a recipe for, at best, second-rate results. After Doris Kearns Goodwin published “Team of Rivals,” her 2005 book on the Lincoln administration, came a flurry of interest (especially at the Obama White House) in teaming up people who fought on opposite sides of political battles. The downside is that rivals may not be able to fully put aside their differences.
Instead, the best solution is a team whose members complement one another. In other words, recruit for maximum diversity. A team with members of different viewpoints is not only less likely to err because of groupthink, but also more likely to come up with novel solutions to problems, according to research by Scott Page, a professor at the University of Michigan.
This doesn’t mean finding people of different races who all went to the Kennedy School of Government, but rather individuals with different life experiences, talents, cognitive skills and personalities. Bill Clinton’s 1992 “War Room”—with its crazy quilt of personalities such as James Carville, George Stephanopoulos and Paul Begala—is the defining example. Consider the difference between Mr. Obama’s 2008 hugely successful campaign team—a diverse mix of Silicon Valley whiz kids, Chicago pols and party veterans—and his underperforming administrative team.
• A great team doesn’t need a strong leader. Just the opposite. Diverse teams are also volatile, explain researchers David Harrison and Katherine Klein, because differences in opinions and attitudes can clash. Thus, great teams need an “active manager” to hold them together. In a presidential campaign, there is no place for passive leaders ( Patti Solis Doyle with Hillary ’08) or inexperienced ones ( Susan Estrich, campaign manager for Dukakis ’88).
Similarly, it is the campaign manager’s job to tell the candidate the truth, but not to manage him or her. Thanks to Stuart Stevens’s worries about how Mitt Romney’s Mormonism would be perceived, we didn’t see the candidate’s warm, family side (a revelation to voters of both parties) until after the election. All we got during the campaign was stiff Mitt.
• Stick with the team you’ve got. It is never too late to make a change: Ronald Reagan fired his campaign director, John Sears, on the day of the New Hampshire primary in 1980, replacing him with William Casey, who famously “let Reagan be Reagan.” In the 21st century—thanks to teleconferencing and Web-based recruiting—teams can be formed or dissolved at digital speeds, so why stick with mediocrity?
This goes against much of the recent research on teams, which argues for building enduring organizations with a strong internal culture. But the short life-spans of campaigns and the winner-take-all nature of politics renders that advice meaningless. Instead, play to win, even if you are still making changes at the 11th hour
• Don’t lose sight of the big picture. This is great advice for the candidate, but not-so-great advice for the campaign manager. Short of a catastrophic change in the competitive environment, great teams settle on a strategy early and then set out to achieve it. They don’t flirt with alternative strategies along the way. Harvard professor J. Richard Hackman has argued for the importance of providing teams with tasks that are clear, challenging, consequential and consistent. Endless brainstorming, so beloved by organizational theorists in the past is, in fact, a recipe for chaos with diverse teams, according to a 2004 study published in the European Journal of Social Psychology.
As sensitive as presidential candidates are to the tiniest shifts in public opinion, they can be shockingly obtuse about problems in their own organizations. But even an excellent politician can crash and burn without the right support from a well-oiled team. Remember: In business you can come in second or third and still be successful, but not in politics.
Mr. Karlgaard, the publisher of Forbes, and Mr. Malone, a technology journalist, are the authors of “Team Genius: The New Science of High-Performing Organizations,” out this week from HarperBusiness.
