Anyone reading a new blog that opines on financial and business matters will try to quickly figure out where this person is coming from. Is he a liberal, conservative, libertarian, statist, communist, socialist or what?
I guess I should be up front on this issue. But the problem is I am not sure what I am. When I take one of those quizzes that asks a bunch of questions about financial and social issues - I always come out pretty strong as a libertarian. Now that has always made sense to me because if you look at the Cato Institute guidelines for a libertarian they include a basic belief in:
- The freedom of the individual
- Limited government
- Free markets
- Peace (who is not for peace?)
Then I go to some libertarian web sites and read some of the verbiage and scratch my head. That is not always me. And too many libertarians are trying to get stronger politically so they can elect their kind and then impose their thinking on everyone.
So I am a little confused on this question. But let me be clear. I am absolutely rock solid firm on a belief that the best system for the most people includes ideas like limited government (much more limited than we now have in the U.S.A.), individual freedom, and free markets.
Although technocrats always believe that a government of smart people can plan a much better economy, the evidence of that is completely missing. In fact the historical evidence is overwhelming that it does not work.
One of the reasons it cannot be done is that economic technocrats are oblivious to the fact that all economies are in fact local, not national or global. And the richest, most vibrant part of all economies are centered in small businesses, making local and rapid decisions about pricing, supply, demand, inventory, marketing, etc. Yes, there is a national economy that is the sum of all the local economies, but you simply cannot plan it, because you are not smart enough.
There is evidence however, that when you free up those small businesses to make their own decisions, and make it possible to reinvest most of their cash flow back into their growth (read -low taxes), then marvelous things happen. In fact, as pointed out in an earlier post, that is where all the job growth is. Job growth in the big corporations has been negative.
By the way, in this type of system, a high percentage of those small businesses are going belly up every year. So what - the people in those businesses get up, dust themselves off, and get involved in another business - and they are a little smarter the next time.
But this is what government planners (technocrats) really hate. They want a system that is predictable, where everyone knows how much growth there will be each year, where jobs are stable (meaning people work for the same companies year after year) and where planning will provide the right kind of workers in the right locations in future years. When you really think about it - it is laughable. It is also socialism.
And yes - I am unabashedly a capitalist. Capitalism works - for everyone. One of my favorite thinkers, G.K. Chesterson, wrote years ago that he was impressed with capitalism because it had done so much for people, but in the long run it would fail people because the obvious long term result would be that the economy would gradually be taken over by a few mega corporations that would dominate everything. How wrong he was - capitalism actually leads to the opposite. The long term effect of capitalism and free markets seems to be the triumph of small businesses.
So I guess I am sort of a libertarian - maybe.
So, am I a Democrat or a Republican? I am decidedly an independent. But when it comes to elections you have to realize that an election is not about principles or beliefs per say. In a two party system an election is a binary event. You look at two candidates and hold your nose and vote against the one who is further from your views. And the people who are further from my views on limited government and individual freedom and free markets are the Democrats. So in most instances I hold my nose and vote Republican. However I have never given a dime to either party and never will, because on those key issues of limited government and individual freedom and free markets the Democrats are only slightly better than the current Republican party. And lately both parties are shifting more toward growing the size and power of government - an ominous trend.
O.K - now you know. Sort of.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Monday, January 1, 2007
Differences - small and large businesses?
I went from working in an R&D (product development) organization in which I had 1400 people around the world working for me to one in which there were about 30 people in product development - all in a small building.
In reflecting on the differences I was most stuck by the similarities. People in product development tend to think alike and the quality of the individual engineers and scientists were comparable. Also the type of technical challenges were the same.
One clear difference that was evident from the beginning though was decision making time. In DuPont our product decisions had to be reviewed by all effected around the world. This often resulted in endless debates about what the product specifications should be. This was not bureaucratic people trying to delay things - it was good people with different views who wanted to influence the decision and to be sure the resulting product would sell well in their markets. The net result was incredibly sluggish though. And because I grew up in that environment i was not aware of how terribly slow it was. I am talking about one to three month delays at making decisions.
Then I began working at DTM Corporation in Austin - a start-up with total employees of about 100. The CEO and Vice-Presidents as well as the engineers and marketers were bumping into each other daily. Very important decisions could be made in one day - sometimes by a group standing in a hallway drinking coffee. What a delight that was. And what a competitive advantage!
Were the decisions as good? I could not see that much difference at first. But over time we learned how to improve product development decisions at DTM (the small company) by gradually installing a structured and disciplined decision making process. And that process improved the product introduction cycle time significantly. I may discuss that process in a future post. One of my fundamental beliefs is that even very small businesses need disciplined decision making processes. And a good decision making process does not slow things down - it can improve cycle times.
In reflecting on the differences I was most stuck by the similarities. People in product development tend to think alike and the quality of the individual engineers and scientists were comparable. Also the type of technical challenges were the same.
One clear difference that was evident from the beginning though was decision making time. In DuPont our product decisions had to be reviewed by all effected around the world. This often resulted in endless debates about what the product specifications should be. This was not bureaucratic people trying to delay things - it was good people with different views who wanted to influence the decision and to be sure the resulting product would sell well in their markets. The net result was incredibly sluggish though. And because I grew up in that environment i was not aware of how terribly slow it was. I am talking about one to three month delays at making decisions.
Then I began working at DTM Corporation in Austin - a start-up with total employees of about 100. The CEO and Vice-Presidents as well as the engineers and marketers were bumping into each other daily. Very important decisions could be made in one day - sometimes by a group standing in a hallway drinking coffee. What a delight that was. And what a competitive advantage!
Were the decisions as good? I could not see that much difference at first. But over time we learned how to improve product development decisions at DTM (the small company) by gradually installing a structured and disciplined decision making process. And that process improved the product introduction cycle time significantly. I may discuss that process in a future post. One of my fundamental beliefs is that even very small businesses need disciplined decision making processes. And a good decision making process does not slow things down - it can improve cycle times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)