On the Brink of an innovative mechanism ;-) {WINK WINK}

I would like to incoorporate Colonel Phillip Meilinger The Ten Rules of Good Followership into Our Global Economic Crisis which has stimulus and regulatory agencies managing how to bail out the global economy:

This article is the best way to assert the decisions that need to be made to sustain our economy. I have been observing the events for the past few years and this article is accurately projecting un sugar coated information. (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/15/volcker-dems/):
Is Volcker Getting Through? House Democrats Discuss Reviving Glass-Steagall

Bloomberg reported today that former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who currently heads President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, “visited nine cities in five countries in the past eight weeks to warn that bankers and regulators ‘have not come anywhere close to responding with necessary vigor’ to the worst economic crisis in 70 years.”

In particular, Volcker has slammed the notion that financial regulation will stifle innovation by saying that the greatest banking innovation in the last 20 yearswas the ATM. “I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth — one shred of evidence,” Volcker said at a banker’s conference in England.

However, “there’s little evidence that policy makers are heeding Volcker”:

Two years after the start of the deepest recession since the 1930s, no U.S. or European authority has put in force a single measure that would transform the financial system, based on data compiled by Bloomberg. No rule- or law-making body is actively considering the automatic dismantling of banks that Volcker told Congress are sheltered by access to an implicit safety net

While Bloomberg is technically correct that “automatic dismantling” is not being considered, the report leaves out that Great Britain is taking apart the mega-banksthat are still under government control, while the financial regulatory reform packagepassed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week included an amendment from Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) that would allow regulators to dismantle systemically risky firms.

Plus, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said today that House Democrats are “considering reinstituting the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act,” which placed a regulatory wall between depository institutions and investment banks, preventing financial conglomerations like Citigroup from coming into being “As someone who voted to repeal Glass-Steagall, maybe that was a mistake,” Hoyer said.

So while it’s true that Volcker’s voice hasn’t been amplified enough — and the administration is counting way too much on public admonishments to influence bank behavior — there are at least some steps being taken to more actively rein in the biggest banks on both sides of the Atlantic.

Volcker’s argument about the role of innovation, though, is spot-on, and hasn’t been adequately discussed. As Dean Baker pointed out, “financial industry profits now account for more than 31.5% of all corporate profits,” which is “a higher share than at any point during the housing bubble years.” One financial engineer actually told Volcker that financial innovation does nothing to help the economy, but “it’s a lot of intellectual fun.”

Do we need a financial system that swallows up almost one-third of corporate profits by passing paper back and forth? I don’t think we do. And hopefully lawmakers will realize that Volcker is beating this drum and listen up."

More Mild, Less Cluster *(&-"Management"

I once applied for a job years ago, that was titled "Technology Advancement." It was a very braod title. I went to the interview, filled out the application, was in a suit, looked real nice, and I felt good. There were 6 young people leaving the office when I arrived, and 6 sitting inside with me, so there was quite a bit of selction/recruiting go on. I interviewed with some recruiter. They asked me to stay and go out with some salesman, and (That moment I became aware that this was a cold calling contract company.) I went with the person, and he really really realy liked me. I told him about my aspirations which were about sustainability and weren't even about the company, and I got tired after a while from walking in dress shoes around a village. I saw everyone when we returned from our sales and felt alright if I didn't get the job after that point. That evening, I got a call wanting a second interview, I don't know why I bothered (my striving ethic is always have the best intention, and put forth everything into my effort, and I'll work while making some reward), so I went and I interviewed with the branch manager the next day. She liked me and hired me. We immediately went into a conference room and the entire sales team was in there doing Abstract marches, anyway that through me off, I felt that I could be more effective by actually doing work rather than marches (HAHA). They had me train with another manager (Like you said Rusty a manager for everything.) The manager was a happy person. (That's another thing I look for; happiness. It's always good and a good sign to see people in happy moods when they work. ) The experience kept looking more and more grim, as I noticed how akward people were to me. Someone confronted me that I was eating Matzah Ball Soup, and they never saw anyone eat matzah ball soup before. That was retarded to me, not that they never saw someone eating matzah ball soup, but that they said they never saw anyone eat matzah ball soup to me.) It was wierd, I wanted out of it, and then it was the weekend. and Sunday night I got a call from the first salesman who took me around while he cold called and he basically said I didn't have a good enough civil record (Because I had a underage drinking summons from high school graduation Which I was under the impression got taken down to a slight infracture) and that even though they "Really Really Didnt want to let me go" Their sponsor "Verizon" didn't allow that. So I was fired. So I can't complain that I personalyl was let go, but I couldn't be the only person that got through the system ( I didn't know there was a system I was trying to get through, until my last class pointed out Nexis Lexis to me.) to a point. Even though I didn't care, I was disheartened that when they hire someone they don't even stand by their choice of who they recruited. I did everything right, with everything. I remember on this particular application they didn't request to know if I had a previous crime or misdemeanor. So somewhere across theirspectrum that companys human capital failed to maintain/preserve the integrity. To this day I don't know what the ethical liability was/is of having to let someone go a week after you hired someone, because their sponsor has, plane a simply a bias against you.

Couragous Preparation for grave scenarios

Having an ample amount of alternatives are a profoundly important tactic for organizations. The level of intensity to procure the conservational effort (Not creating new jobs or backfilling jobs) is unlimited to how much thought and energy into it, which can invoke connections with other functions, divisions, etc. of the company. These scenarios grant them ideal work experience, used for the same purpose to find solutions to unsolvable problems.

Revolution in Taxing Organization

"The Office" has been very pertinent of the current economic situation. This week's episode dealt with the topic of "Employee of the month" and was intensely revolving ethical objectives, and repurcussions. The boss was asked to hold an employee of the month contest, and devised a fair way to decide on a point system who that deserving employee would be. the Employee of the month happened to be his self, and then when all hell broke lose he picked the 2nd highest person with the points and it happend to be his wife. The whole office erupted because the employees all pooled money for the E O T and were dissatisfied with the fair outcome.) This is just a sitcom, I know. I do think that in all episodes of managing there are connections that resonate to people who are employees, or other elements of the company that will unfortunately be valued on a bias basis, rather than an ethical basis. I have a parallel question for you Mark( I think it's parallel with ethical concerns) Would you support a tax system that you get to pick which government entities get to receve your money, rather than the "Bureaucratic" tax system?

FUN DEBATE!

Some one earlier read Thomas Friedman's book, and ignorantly confronted me with the wrong points from his book. Let me quote my entire response to him for you. "However I will dispute that technology has brought bio-dynamic farming to globalization. Bio-dynamic farming is the healthiest and most integral form of agriculture there is on this planet. It's been damaged ENORMOUSLY By improper use of technology, not respecting conservation, and basing progress off of abstracts rather than sound bio-ethics of sustainability. If Thomas Friedman was such a genius why did he have publishers invest in marketing campaigns in the subways of NYC which inefficiently waste resources. In my opinion Thomas is looking to sell his book to a market that's as intellectually "Bright" as he is, he'd stop dooming the planet and promote his book solely online, and sell it over the Internet as well. If he truly is an author of the 21st century, and not an author living in the shadows of Ayn Rand, then I'll confront his product with a boycott because of the redundant foolishness he transpires by not acting ideally egalitarian"

Joseph Naham

I think that it's correct to value the Internet, but don't hold reservations in it for solving all of one's information needs. The day we assume that the Internet is the ultimate information machine we stop thinking out of the box on more universal dynamics.

To The point in saying that the Internet is a powerful source of information. On the other hand there's no Internet program that will Flawlessly predict natural disasters which effect companies, markets, global business. We have to be down to earth, and to infer to a more out of the box point we have to also be down with planets around us sharing our solar system just as much as Earth utilizes it. I'd like to explain that Bio-Dynamic growing is the practice of farming (It's been done for thousands of years all over the world) which associates different gravitational pulls on minerals and nutrients according to which astrological event is occurring where different planets close to our planet effect those minerals with different gravitational forces. I argue that the Internet will not go that much further. Observance of the planets, combined with disciplined bio-dynamic farming techniques are purely how to progress informatively with this enterprise. I practice bio-dynamic farming and the resources are sustainable by what sustenance I intake, I progress my ability to form purely by enjoying efficient farming experiences. There's no technology that's even come close to revolutionizing the pure benefits of bio-dynamic gardening without compromising it's ethical integrity. In reference to Glenn Bleck's ingnorant rant I viewed on HuffingtonPost earlier: For anyone, or group who want to dispute synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides are technologically more efficient, integral, and superior would be an overwhelming waste of virtuous energy.