Saturday, February 26, 2022
Germany Decides to Send Weapons to Ukraine in Paramount Foreign Policy Shift
After years of post WWII policies to keep Germany out of conflict it has now shifted that policy to send weapons to Ukraine. German 1,000 anti-tank weapons, 500 “Stinger” surface-to-air missiles and 10K ton fuel come on top of the $350 million U.S. aid package. The situation is such that Western countries have to consider their own long-term security and thus have decided to act with support. Russia was also repelled from Kyiv temporarily but we will need see what happens over the next few days. It looks as though Russia can't afford to get bogged down for financial and public image reasons. Slowing Russia down quickly and repelling their advances in the early stages of the conflict will likely raise the cost of the conflict politically and financially. (I suspect they wanted to complete the mission within a week and are now worried about a longer draw out situation that would reflect increasingly negative in the world's view. )
Higher Education is Changing and So Should We? Online and Ground Systems
Higher Education is changing and the world between online and ground professors are also changing to create blended universities. There are some differences between the two modes of teaching but the fundamentals of knowledge transfer are still the same. Blending traditional and online systems is something that already started but the culture has not yet caught up to these changes (Its normal that culture is slower to change.). Thus the next generation of professors and students will be very much open to teaching and learning on ground and online.
There are natural advantages and disadvantages to both mediums of education. One provides convenience and the other provides a culture. There are also differences in terms of how we interact on ground and how we interact online. Ground provides rich educational culture (and other advantages) while online is becoming more relevant for the digital economy and is more convenient for continuing education (as well as non-traditional students.)
Our economy is evolving and changing quickly. People will need to go back to school to update their skills more frequently then they did during the Industrial Era. That can be difficult in a traditional campus environment unless one lives in the immediate vicinity of a University. If you want to complete your school work while taking care of kids or working your job the commitment for ground classes are much more than online (In the old old model many had to quit work to go to school.đŦ Lost human capital!).
However, it is also that level of commitment and the way online education is viewed that creates the problem. Students in online education often view schooling like a long term service that helps them achieve their goals versus a single four/five year campus commitment. Take a couple of classes and then take a break because life is chaotic and then come back and take some more classes when ready is the mindset some students maintain (Nothing inherently wrong with it if we encourage them to keep going and get right back in.).
Bouncing in and out can cause havoc on traditional college metrics. Two different modes and the same benchmark for each. Its hard to sort of move beyond that because of many facets and layers of culture and interests. Broadening when/how someone is considered "drop out" and when they are "engaged in life" could change those metrics. Is it accurate? It depends on who you ask and where their interests lay.
That doesn't excuse universities from doing their best to retain college students through strong curriculum, engaging coursework, student services/help, institutional culture, quality faculty, connecting often and mentoring students throughout their programs (Personally, I think it would be helpful to reach out to struggling students and have a mentor connect with them to encourage them to stay focused on finishing. A single point of reference/human face to reach out.). Either way we will discuss and struggle with which is the best path forward as far as ground or online provides the most societal benefit. Likely, like lots of other things, it won't be all one way or another way, but a greater awareness of how they work together to create national competitiveness.
Perhaps we can get them to adapt and enhance each other to improve our lagging international educational competitiveness? 𤡠that would require an awful lot of đđĻģ (Oh wait! Listening before concluding is what higher education teaches us. How are we doing on our critical thinking skills? A+ or D+? Don't let grade inflation fool you! đ)
Friday, February 25, 2022
MI. Senate Bill 768: Lower Taxes or More Infrastructure to Improve GDP?
Michigan GOP put out a proposal for a in a Detroit Free Press article 'Michigan House GOP unveils sweeping income tax cut, different from Senate GOP plan' that seeks to do a number of things of which the one's I'm primarily interested in are the reduction of individual income tax rate from 4.25% to 3.9% and the corporate income tax rate from 6% to 3.9%.
You can read the SENATE BILL NO. 768
The question then becomes should we lower the tax rate or should we spend the money on infrastructure? That isn't an easy question to answer because it would take a significant literature search (and perhaps some unique calculations) to find precisely where that tax rate and infrastructure spending should be for maximum GDP ROI.
It does appear that from a Tax Association study on a related topic in ,'Evaluating the Economic Impact of Additional Government Infrastructure Spending' that infrastructure spending grows GDP and cutting corporate and income taxes also increases GDP. đđ
This is what I can say without spending a lot of time figuring out where that number should be (I think I could figure out a pretty good split for this money that sort of finds the sweet spot but it takes hours and hours and hours of review, reading, and cross comparison with Michigan's future strategic prospects in mind. Maybe I can't as it all depends on available information, time and a pretty good calculator.).
So what I have to say probably isn't particularly helpful. The answer is they both increase GDP but finding a workable spending framework through negotiation and evidence based management is helpful. Balancing the science with the politics is taxing at best (đ Pun!). Whatever Republicans and Democrats decide I think they will find a workable level (Excess funds isn't the worst thing to argue over.). I just have two caveats (MNC-DC, G7-Tax)
1.) Make sure the infrastructure is well thought-out to return Michigan as an advanced manufacturing destination with export oriented systems.
2.) Ensure the tax cuts are sustainable over years of abundance and years of leanness (i.e. don't put the rate so low it isn't sustainable.)
Lock up the untenses and let the food fight begin........
CEO-Military Leadership and the Power of "The Worm at the Core" in Candidate Selection
"The Worm at the Core" is a conception of true self that make up a leader's essence that only comes out in the most difficult positions (i.e. risk of death, serious harm, significant lose, ruined reputations, etc..) We hear about leadership personality as it relates to corporate level, politics, and within the military but don't often go down to the core. People can be trained to improve their leadership but some of that comes from a deeply rooted biological origin that bubbles up only in difficult situations. Whether you are a business guru or a military leader your inner strengths will determine your leadership essence.
Top leaders and their top management teams will be successful if they have the right personalities in the right positions. Leadership is often personality based (some of it can be learned) that derives from a person's core value systems. We often don't know who that is until we put people in difficult positions where choices are not perfect. Its an aha moment when stated values and enacted values occur. When picking your next leadership candidate consider 1.) impact of CEO-TMT Personalities on firm change; and, 2.) The deeper self through the Terror Management Theory
CEO-TMT Personalities and Firm Change
What they found was CEO emotional stability, extraversion and conscientiousness related to bureaucratization, strategic pro-activity and firm performance. Meaning, that a CEO's emotional awareness mixed with extraverted personalities and conscientiousness can work to create organizational change to redevelop functioning bureaucratic systems. In other words, when companies/organizations (i.e. civilian or military) that want to see successful change initiatives should consider the merits of certain personality types that help get them there.
The Deeper Side of Self-Terror Management Theory
Terror management theory (TMT), a social and evolutionary psychology theory, was originally proposed by Jeff Greenberg, Sheldon Solomon, and Tom Pyszczynski to explain how people act under threats to life. You can read more about that in the publication Terror Management Theory (Thompson, et. al 2012). Leadership is often theoretical until it is applied to a real life scenario. Battlegrounds include physical risk and board rooms include career risks. Both are highly stressful. It is part of your core personality and we often select leaders by false outward appearance that crack under pressure while others might excel under pressure. (Worm at Core, The Power of Death)
Self-esteem and cultural encoding become highly important in difficult situations. When pushed the brink people will often dig deep and rally around core values and principles. What those are can be defined through one's culture. For example, one leader may rally around pro-social values to help people overcome a challenge while another will begin to scapegoat specific people within their population as "evil". Its hard to know precisely who will do what until they are placed in very difficult situations (This is why I support universalism as a meaningful world view in our core cultural attributes to better ensure unity among diverse people. Culture is programming of the mind. Flexible and adaptable cultures can take in more information adjust to difficulties while overly rigid cultures create increased conflict.).
Because we don't have perfect measures of personality and performance under duress (i.e. worm at core) we have to do the best we can in candidate selection. You will want to think about emotional stability, extraversion and conscientiousness as factors in success as well as any historical/background of leaders functioning during chaotic times. Current personality mixed with past performance can be a powerful consideration when selecting future candidates. Just keep in mind that we never know who someone truly is until they have been challenged. Some will thrive and some will collapse. It is not dependent on their social class, the college they attended, or who they are connected with. True leadership walks the talk.
Abatecola, Gianpaolo & Mandarelli, Gabriele & Poggesi, Sara. (2013). The Personality Factor: How Top Management Teams Make Decisions. A Literature Review. Journal of Management & Governance. 17. 1073-1100. 10.1007/s10997-011-9189-y.
Thursday, February 24, 2022
Biden Discusses New Sanctions on Russia February 24th, 2022
President Biden discusses new sanctions on Russia. It is an attempt by the U.S. to ensure the consequences of invading Ukraine are more than any benefits received. Putin will now need to consider these new factors in his short and long-term strategic decision making. His next step will be dependent on the master plan he is reading from and what he hopes to achieve at the end of the day. The ability to accomplish those goals is highly dependent on how world reacts to the situation and the deterrent pressure they create. We have to wait to see the effectiveness of the sanctions. Nothing happens in a vacuum and choices ripple. Balance and counter balance.
Three Videos on Ukraine: UN General Assembly, White House Briefing and Putin Prior Invasion
The invasion of Ukraine has already begun so this is just background for the moment and will likely be looked at for historical reasons. What it looks like is Russia still wants to negotiate but wants to do so from a type of maximum positions where their troops are already in control of Ukraine (A type of state hostage situation and/or chess piece.) The West is then forced to negotiate with him based on such power terms. The danger of such a strategy is that he is forcing Europe and many within the world to view Russia as a new threat and they will make strategic decisions that will likely hurt Russia's economic footing both short and long term. One possibility is that Russia turns further East toward China becoming more subservient and dependent on China to be a buyer of their products.
There are so many caveats to this these are all sort of loose possibilities based on each movement of the players within the acting geopolitical conflict. One risk the U.S. faces is hyper politics, those who push divisionary positions and those who still listen. Bi-partisanship and focus on central American needs are necessary.
Whitehouse Press release 02-23-22 (Ratcheting up of sanctions.)
Putin Discusses Ukraine Situation (Appears to outline his justifications).
Its in Russian with English subtitles. You can read the transcript on the Kremlin State Site.
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
A Few Thoughts on Senator Rick Scott's 11 Point Plan (R)
I like to read what is going on with politics and the proposals that are being put forward for public consumption. It should be noted that discussing something doesn't mean I agree or disagree as I'm trying to understand what is being proposed and its benefit for the rest of the nation. That means I would put up any proposal of this magnitude and discuss my thoughts as an American citizen; regardless of the party.
First, let me say that Senator Rick Scott is going to be further right then me (I'm a light right and not necessarily on these issues.) but I do understand what he is trying to say here (I'm not sure he expects to have it 100% approved as it looks more of perhaps a starting gate position. Maybe not? đ¤ˇ). As with this proposal (and any other proposal) there are things I like and dislike so I will just say in general a few comments that sparked my interest (meaning not in specific).
I think there is some merit in some of the arguments but specifics would be highly negotiable among different societal stakeholders.....
1.) Pledge of Allegiance and learning about the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
2.) Religious freedoms and the rights of people to practice their faith in a respectful way.
3.) The concept of moving beyond prior race and religious dynamics to create solidarity of people.
4.) Wall or no Wall. There are some benefits and detractors to finishing the wall as my Republican and Democrat friends will argue. I would look at it from a practical and functional aspect while not neglecting optics.
That is all I got to say at the moment (I'm learning and not trying to get into pitched battles. Everyone take a breath. We can't grow as a nation unless we share ideas. đ). I want to see what is brought forward by other Republican and Democrat leaders to gauge positions. A type of compare and contrast to see where they might find fertile middle ground for future negotiations (To turn theoretical into practical.). Sometimes listening is better than talking. Bashing each other is also generally more unhelpful than looking for points of similarity.
We save America by working together, sharing perspectives, and coming to solutions we can agree upon as a society.
An 11 Point Plan to Rescue American by Senator Rick Scott (R)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)