Must Reading: The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman

I've read several articles about and by Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, but finally got around to reading it. It is one of the most important books on what is going on in the economic world that I have read in decades. It should be required reading for every policy maker in Washington, DC.

The book examines how the Internet, the massive changes in which items can be cheaply and quickly shipped, and other factors have made it possible for virtually any person at virtually any place to compete with others.

What the reader learns from this book is that there is little governments, businesses, and societies can do about these changes. "Resistance is futile." Rather governments need to figure out how to compete in this changing world rather than try to force this globalization to accommodate them. I will be doing more posts about what I have learned from Friedman's book in the future.

Friedman isn't a free market advocate, per se, and you can tell that he is puzzled and disturbed about the trends he is monitoring. However, his observations are excellent. As a strong believer in the power of the market to succeed, his book actually makes me quite optimistic about the future and hopeful about many economies that have been long term economic basket cases. This is predicated, of course, on our ability to comply with the changes that are taking place and not fighting them. If we comply, the US will be more powerful and influential, and the world itself could become a better place.

If you haven't read this book, I think you should consider it. If you want to check it out and other great books, please go through my bookstore at the Houston Business Show website. When you get there, simply click the Barnes & Noble button and start searching.

In Spite Being Marketed as "New", Obama Sounds Like Old Time Democrat

If you were listening to a radio and the voice didn't tune in very well and sounded distorted, Sen. Barack Obama's announcement could easily be confused with a campaign speech from Jesse Jackson's earlier failed campaigns. Obama talks about a "new day" and a "new chapter" in our history, but his rhetoric is largely stuck in America's past.

He discusses racism and discrimination as if it were as prominent today as when he was born in the 1960s. Frankly, his neighborhood must have been much rougher than mine because we were born the same year and this little white boy's best friend was an African American named Joe Cosby through most of our elementary years. Marty White became one of my best friends in Junior High and he, too, was African American. I'm not saying that America hasn't struggled with racism, but I get the sense that many African Americans of a liberal persuasion want to throw our grandparents racism in our face as means of using guilt to get their ends. Obama is going to find this a dangerous and unproductive trail to take, in my opinion. He needs to become a candidate for all the people and not a man looking for revenge from the past.

His views of the economy are stuck in the past as well. Thomas Friedman has persuasively pointed out that "the world is flat," which means that through technology anyone in the world can compete with anyone else. That is why China and India have become such major economic players in the last few years. Obama acts as though he doesn't live in the same world as we do. He attacks free trade, argues for raising salaries to artificial highs, and taxing businesses into oblivion. Unfortunately, in our world, that would translate to shabby American products, the exportation of jobs, and the demise of job creation. The world we live in requires being competitive, not living in a fantasy world of how it "should" be.

Furthermore, Obama wants to talk about socialized medicine (AKA, universal health care) as a panacea to our medical crisis. There is no doubt we need people covered, but shifting it to government only means that health care will be plagued with shortages and there will be reduced accountability (good luck suing the government for their medical mistakes). My grandfather and aunt died in England waiting for treatment thanks to socialized medicine and that is a common stated cause in countries that use such a system. Obama's proposal is the same Ted Kennedy advocated in the 1960s and there is nothing new to it. An innovative approach would be one that gives 100 percent tax credits for individuals to get their own coverage, even earned income credit for some (meaning they get money directly back for their purchase), the creation of policies with high deductibles and additional tax savings for taking annual visits (prevention is crucial), and other policies that restore responsibility where it belongs (which is on individuals).

Finally, his anti-war rhetoric is a flashback to the 1960s and the Vietnam War. We are not fighting against a potential domino principle (the belief many countries would fall to communism if Vietnam fell), but a real threat. We were attacked by terrorists and many of the ones fighting our brave and trained volunteers there would normally be over here attacking public schools and hospitals if we haven't moved the theater of the war to the Middle East. We didn't start this war and we are very naive to think we can ended by moving troops out of there and over here. There is little question that our enemies will follow them.

There is nothing really new in Obama's rhetoric, it is the same old time liberalism stuck in the tragic decades of the past. We can't protect America's jobs, we have to compete for them. We can't stick our heads in the sand, we must fight for our safety and freedom wherever the war requires. Government cannot solve our health care crisis and many can argue it caused it; instead we need real solutions with more consumer involvement.

The US can't afford Obama's policies, neither in money nor human lives. There is nothing new about him and his approach to politics has been a dying breed for decades. It is my hope that voters can see through the style and the find the lack of substance.

Katie Couric's Big Day

Today was Katie's big day as host of CBS Evening News. She made history by being the first female anchor of the most prestigious and important 30 minutes of news. Yes, I know, that is a lot of hyperbole, but that is the media's position on it, not mine. In reality, evening news is in desperate shape and Katie Couric wearing little to no clothes would not be able to likely save its staggering decline in viewership (by the way she was fully and appropriately dressed). Furthermore, the approach they took with Katie will likely contribute to this media's further decline.

First of all, the new approach is no longer the evening news. It is, instead, a mini version of a news magazine such as 20/20, Primetime Live, or 60 Minutes. Instead of making sure the major news stories were covered in less than 30 minutes, Katie gave Morgan Spurlock of "Supersize Me" fame an opportunity to trash our "divided nation" and to express his opinion that we need to stop operating in extremes in her new "Free Speech" segment. Furthermore she had Thomas Friedman of the New York Times on who discussed how we need to restore the friendly US that much of the world loved and appreciated (and often used as a doormat, but we won't go there). The new format was mildly entertaining, but it wasn't the "Evening News."

Second, it isn't the right approach to reach the typical Evening News viewer. That viewer is 60 years old and likes to hear from older sons (such as Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson) and not necessarily from that "chatty" Couric girl. I'm just talking the typical senior, in my opinion, not necessarily my view. I don't see her surviving long trying to reach the senior crowd. Further, the networks are actually trying to distance themselves from seniors and are trying to pursue the all important Accumulators -- 35 to 55 year olds who largely drive the economy today. Which is exactly why they pursued Katie, who falls in the age group and other parts of that key demographic.

Third, she won't likely reach the Accumulators either. Most of them are doing a lot of things at 5:30, but watching the evening news isn't one of them. They are picking up kids, making meals, taking care of parents, or several other things that have nothing to do with the smiling Katie. This audience is reached now, largely, through the Internet, which allows them to watch the footage they want to watch and see it when they care to see it. In no time the podcast version of the news will have a much larger audience then the TV broadcast, but with the rate evening news is going, that won't be saying much.

I hate to be negative. I actually like Katie and miss her on the Today Show, but I believe this experiment will fail and she will have an audience significantly smaller than she did early each morning on NBC. By the way, the morning shows like Today are about the only viable way to reach the all important Accumulators because they are busy multi tasking and find the background noise of information and the relaxed environment of the program a great way to launch a day. It is sad she left this viable place to reach an audience to go to the largely dead network news. But don't worry, we will likely see her on some other day time show in the not too distant future. Watch out The View!