Friday, February 27, 2009
Can the police stop gang violence?
Get the Facts behind the news
The newspaper headline read “Violent Crime on The Rise”. The homicide rate is going up and gun violence is spiking,” says Ron Ruecker, head of the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police. The increase is primarily occurring in large cities such as Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, New Orleans, and Baltimore. What are some cities doing right? Chuck Wexler head of the Police Executive Research Forum says that cities that are able to quickly deploy officers to hot spots can cut back on crime. Preventative efforts and community involvement are also key”.
As one of our senior newscasters would say, “and now the rest of the story”. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune, by Anthony D. Box, may give us some clues. Anthony served 9 years with the FBI. He has a bullet in his liver from wrestle with a thug when he was 16.
He says the most distressing aspect of the rise in violence is the usual bromide by public officials that the POLICE SHOULD DO MORE. Anthony believes these public officials are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. He also believes that handgun bans are not effective.
Anthony says the real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS. and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
Anthony agrees with Neil Basanko, executive director of the South Chicago Chamber of Commerce, “that it all begins with family”. He quotes Pres-elect Obrama, its time people accept responsibility for themselves, their family, and their community. Its time> to challenge men to quit behaving like boys.
Problems with the police forces next
Thursday, February 19, 2009
CAN WE LEARN FROM JAPAN'S ECONOMIC STMULUS
The facts Behind the NEWS
From 1991 thru 2008 Japan had a gov’t stimulus program. The US economy is not identical to the Japanese but there are similarities. The US is roughly twice as large an economy as Japan. Experts in Japan and the US believe Japan spent too much money on infrastructure and not enough on education and social services which create more jobs per $ spent than infrastructure. JAPANESE STATISTICS: every yen spent on infrastructure added 1.37 yen, 1.6 yen for social services like care for the elderly, pension payments, 1.74 for schools and education. However money spent on infrastructure does put people to work and thus may help prevent a depression or total collapse. These figures are from The Japanese Institute of Local Government, a non-profit policy research group.
The stimulus worked best from 1991 to 1995 when Japan spent two trillion dollars for a 3% rise in Japanese GNP. An equivalent effort for the US would be four trillion dollars, Our present stimulus plan is only $780 billion.
The experts believed in a quick massive stimulus with a follow-up at a lower level for some time, till recovery takes root. Japanese experts thought that the stimulus was cut back in 1995 to a lower level too soon. Some experts thought that this is what happened to FDR in the US causing the 1937 recession. To be effective the stimulus must be kept going for some time. The Japanese stimulus was started up again but at a lower level than the original start. The second stimulus start showed little effect though it was continued for 10 years.
Japan’s economy did grow from 2003 to 2007. Japanese experts think that what helped the Japanese economy the most was the gradual rebuilding of private balance sheets and banks liquidity, and increased exports to China and the US. Japan experts strongly recommended projects that would be helpful fora number of years. They emphasized transparent decisions based on economics not politics.
From 1991 thru 2008 Japan had a gov’t stimulus program. The US economy is not identical to the Japanese but there are similarities. The US is roughly twice as large an economy as Japan. Experts in Japan and the US believe Japan spent too much money on infrastructure and not enough on education and social services which create more jobs per $ spent than infrastructure. JAPANESE STATISTICS: every yen spent on infrastructure added 1.37 yen, 1.6 yen for social services like care for the elderly, pension payments, 1.74 for schools and education. However money spent on infrastructure does put people to work and thus may help prevent a depression or total collapse. These figures are from The Japanese Institute of Local Government, a non-profit policy research group.
The stimulus worked best from 1991 to 1995 when Japan spent two trillion dollars for a 3% rise in Japanese GNP. An equivalent effort for the US would be four trillion dollars, Our present stimulus plan is only $780 billion.
The experts believed in a quick massive stimulus with a follow-up at a lower level for some time, till recovery takes root. Japanese experts thought that the stimulus was cut back in 1995 to a lower level too soon. Some experts thought that this is what happened to FDR in the US causing the 1937 recession. To be effective the stimulus must be kept going for some time. The Japanese stimulus was started up again but at a lower level than the original start. The second stimulus start showed little effect though it was continued for 10 years.
Japan’s economy did grow from 2003 to 2007. Japanese experts think that what helped the Japanese economy the most was the gradual rebuilding of private balance sheets and banks liquidity, and increased exports to China and the US. Japan experts strongly recommended projects that would be helpful fora number of years. They emphasized transparent decisions based on economics not politics.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
WHY A NEW ECONOMIC POLICY
THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress
to monitor the Federal Bailout says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS. “Instead the gov’t seemed to go from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan.
A reason for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not have an economic policy or strategy. Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard School Professor Porter is a strong advocate of the need to develop an Economic Strategy.
Professor Porter notes the American political system as it has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. I believe Professor Porter would like to see an ORGANIZED APPROACH TO POLICIES THAT PROMOTE LONG TERM GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS.
Is what has driven our success starting to erode?
.
Prof Porter believes” a series of policy failures have offset and even nullified “US“ strengths just as other nations are becoming more competitive”. Let’s have a look at some of these economic areas.
1) “An inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology is hampering our feeder system for entrepreneurship. Research and development as a share of the GDP has declined, while it has risen in other countries”. This is well recognized but policy makers have failed to act.
2) Our belief in competition is waning. “A creeping relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed mergers to dominate markets”. “We are seeing more interference in competition with protectionism and favoritism.”
3) US colleges and universities do not have a serious plan, such as GI Bill or National Science Foundation programs, to improve access to them. The US now ranks 12in educational attainment for 25 to 34 year olds. For 30 yrs we have not improved ourselves in this area. This is an “ominous trend in an economy that must have the skills to justify our high wages.”
4) At a time when job insecurity and turnover are high the US gov’t has not taken responsibility to provide a transition safety net for US working people. The job training system is ineffective and receives less funding each year. Pension security is declining. Social security is not being adjusted and strengthened. Access to affordable health insurance is a major worry to most people. The gov’t could equalize the tax deductibility of individuals purchasing insurance to assist those not covered by their employers, but has failed to do so.
5) The US is energy inefficient. Public policies fail to promote energy conservation.
6) “Trade and foreign investment are fundamental to the success of the US economy but the US has lost its focus and credibility in shaping the international trading system.” “With no strategy the US has failed to work with other advanced countries to assist poorer countries to feel confident about opening markets and internal reform.” “Our foreign aid is still tied to the purchase of US goods rather than the actual needs of countries.”
7) “The federal gov’t has failed to recognize and support the decentralization and regional specialization that drives our economy.
8) Lack of regulatory oversight combined with lack of a strategic plan has resulted in a hodge-podge of policies that have driven up the costs of doing business. TO SUM UP WE HAVE HAD POOR ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT.
9) Is good strategic economic plan possible considering our political system?
It requires political parties and private leaders to come together and chart a long term plan. Prof Porter recommends a bipartisan joint planning group to coordinate priorities,
Does our new Stimulus Bill help these weaknesses?
Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress
to monitor the Federal Bailout says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS. “Instead the gov’t seemed to go from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan.
A reason for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not have an economic policy or strategy. Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard School Professor Porter is a strong advocate of the need to develop an Economic Strategy.
Professor Porter notes the American political system as it has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. I believe Professor Porter would like to see an ORGANIZED APPROACH TO POLICIES THAT PROMOTE LONG TERM GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS.
Is what has driven our success starting to erode?
.
Prof Porter believes” a series of policy failures have offset and even nullified “US“ strengths just as other nations are becoming more competitive”. Let’s have a look at some of these economic areas.
1) “An inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology is hampering our feeder system for entrepreneurship. Research and development as a share of the GDP has declined, while it has risen in other countries”. This is well recognized but policy makers have failed to act.
2) Our belief in competition is waning. “A creeping relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed mergers to dominate markets”. “We are seeing more interference in competition with protectionism and favoritism.”
3) US colleges and universities do not have a serious plan, such as GI Bill or National Science Foundation programs, to improve access to them. The US now ranks 12in educational attainment for 25 to 34 year olds. For 30 yrs we have not improved ourselves in this area. This is an “ominous trend in an economy that must have the skills to justify our high wages.”
4) At a time when job insecurity and turnover are high the US gov’t has not taken responsibility to provide a transition safety net for US working people. The job training system is ineffective and receives less funding each year. Pension security is declining. Social security is not being adjusted and strengthened. Access to affordable health insurance is a major worry to most people. The gov’t could equalize the tax deductibility of individuals purchasing insurance to assist those not covered by their employers, but has failed to do so.
5) The US is energy inefficient. Public policies fail to promote energy conservation.
6) “Trade and foreign investment are fundamental to the success of the US economy but the US has lost its focus and credibility in shaping the international trading system.” “With no strategy the US has failed to work with other advanced countries to assist poorer countries to feel confident about opening markets and internal reform.” “Our foreign aid is still tied to the purchase of US goods rather than the actual needs of countries.”
7) “The federal gov’t has failed to recognize and support the decentralization and regional specialization that drives our economy.
8) Lack of regulatory oversight combined with lack of a strategic plan has resulted in a hodge-podge of policies that have driven up the costs of doing business. TO SUM UP WE HAVE HAD POOR ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT.
9) Is good strategic economic plan possible considering our political system?
It requires political parties and private leaders to come together and chart a long term plan. Prof Porter recommends a bipartisan joint planning group to coordinate priorities,
Does our new Stimulus Bill help these weaknesses?
Friday, February 6, 2009
WHY AN ECONOMIC STRATEGY III
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress to monitor the Federal Bailout says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.“ Instead the gov’t seemed to be lurching from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan. .
One of the reasons for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not have an economic strategy. Yogi Berra a modern day philosopher has observed. “If you don’t know where you are going you may not get there. “
Why does Prof Porter, Harvard School of Business Professor, believe what has driven our success is starting to erode?
There are probably several reasons. Two reasons that are part of the sme problem stand out.
1) As Prof Porter notes the American political system has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. The means that the effect of a decision, or the cumulative effect of several decisions from various parts of our economy or political system are not examined for their effect on the whole system. The effects on the whole could be bad, good, negligible.
2) Decisions made for the purpose of changing the economic system, such a tariffs, anti-trust laws, oversight provisions etc. frequently take into account the immediate industry or situation rather than considering the overall and long run effects.
The US needs an economic strategy. More later.
Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress to monitor the Federal Bailout says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.“ Instead the gov’t seemed to be lurching from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan. .
One of the reasons for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not have an economic strategy. Yogi Berra a modern day philosopher has observed. “If you don’t know where you are going you may not get there. “
Why does Prof Porter, Harvard School of Business Professor, believe what has driven our success is starting to erode?
There are probably several reasons. Two reasons that are part of the sme problem stand out.
1) As Prof Porter notes the American political system has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. The means that the effect of a decision, or the cumulative effect of several decisions from various parts of our economy or political system are not examined for their effect on the whole system. The effects on the whole could be bad, good, negligible.
2) Decisions made for the purpose of changing the economic system, such a tariffs, anti-trust laws, oversight provisions etc. frequently take into account the immediate industry or situation rather than considering the overall and long run effects.
The US needs an economic strategy. More later.
why does Prof Porter believe what has driven our success is starting to erode?
There are probably several reasons. Two reasons that are part of the sme problem stand out.
1) As Prof Porter notes the American political system has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. The means that the effect of a decision, or the cumulative effect of several decisions from various parts of our economy or political system are not examined for their effect on the whole system. The effects on the whole could be bad, good, negligible.
2) Decisions made for the purpose of changing the economic system, such a tariffs, anti-trust laws, oversight provisions etc . frequently take into account the immediate industry or situation rather than considering the overall and long run situation.
This is why the US needs an economic strategy.
There are probably several reasons. Two reasons that are part of the sme problem stand out.
1) As Prof Porter notes the American political system has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. The means that the effect of a decision, or the cumulative effect of several decisions from various parts of our economy or political system are not examined for their effect on the whole system. The effects on the whole could be bad, good, negligible.
2) Decisions made for the purpose of changing the economic system, such a tariffs, anti-trust laws, oversight provisions etc . frequently take into account the immediate industry or situation rather than considering the overall and long run situation.
This is why the US needs an economic strategy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)