45.4 - To Friend or Fight or Hide?

One of the big choices facing not only politicians, but businesses and other Nations will need to choose which strategy when working with Donnie. Like the bully in the playground, the choice is to:

  • compliment him and give him your sandwich at lunch
  • fight him publicly
  • try to avoid him

Putin, most Republican politicians and the business leaders who heed his calling out on the playground yard are "trying to work with him". Just like the bully, he is easy to out-smart by playing to his ego. Tell him you will keep workers in the US, tell him you are creating jobs in the US and he gets his ego rush and thinks it is all because of him.

On the other hand, there are businesses who are trying to avoid - Uber and Nordstrom are the two stories in the news today. But with boycotts going both ways Pro Donnie and Anti-Donnie, most smart businesses who want to take this strategy will just cover up for a while.

For politicians - both leaders of other nations as well as US politicians, there is a similar version of the decision to be pro or anti (or hide from) Donnie. Of course it is expeditious for Democrats to fight - they have a lot to gain if the pendulum swings back from Donnie. For Republicans it is clear he is giving them enough that they will keep bringing him their lunch money. For other Nations who are not under autocratic rule, it is much more complex. While they may receive benefits from their relationship with the US (protection, trade, tourists), politically at home getting too close to Donnie is not politically smart (16% popularity in this poll).

Figuring out how to play with bullies is tough. Just ask the Australian Prime Minister...

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ringside Winding Down

A year ago, a group of us met in a pizza parlor to discuss how we could bring the social web to every website and business. In January, we launched Ringside Networks with seed funding from Matrix Partners, one of the best VC firms in the country. By the end of March we released into open source an initial beta of our Social Application Server – a very ambitious project. We got some very positive reviews on our approach, our implementation and the need in the marketplace for every website to become social. We were ready for our Series A round of funding, and in late May we received a number of term sheet offers from the very best VC firms. As we were about to finalize our funding, one of the biggest non-evil Internet companies asked if we would have interest in being acquired instead. After a lot of thought and debate, we decided that the larger company would enable us to get our technology to market sooner and with more impact. The story sounds almost too good to be true. And it w...
Read more

Capitalism vs. the Three Legged Stool

Image
Wikipedia defines: " Capitalism  is an  economic system  in which trade, industry and the  means of production  are controlled by private owners with the goal of making  profits  in a  market economy ." This definition has always bothered me. I prefer a different model where there is equal recognition of the three primary drivers behind the success of a company: Owners Employees Customers I like to think of it as a three legged stool, where each leg is as important as the other.  One gets too large or small and the stool tips over. The free market is supposed to take care of Employees and Customers.  Employees because the Owners will create so many jobs that due to supply and demand, employees will receive competitive pay.  Customers because if the owners are not building the right thing, then they can go elsewhere. As someone who has helped to build about 10 startup companies now, I have seen the power in mak...
Read more

Galbraith Revisited

Image
To follow up on my post from a while ago, Galbraith sited 5 key reasons for the 1929 crash and following depression: 1. The bad distribution of income. 2. The bad corporate structure. 3. The bad banking structure. 4. The dubious state of the foreign balance. 5. The poor state of economic intelligence. To compare this to today: 1. Bad income distribution. 1929 - Top 5% received about 33% of all personal income. 1929 - Top 1% held 44% of all wealth. 2000 - Top 1% received about 20% of all personal income. 2004 - Top 1% held 34% of all wealth. Here is a picture of the real income gains between 1979 and 2005 by percentage. It is clear that the top income groups are gaining ground faster than lower income groups - creating an income distribution that approaches 1929. 2. Bad corporate structure. In the 1929 era there had been a large rise in a "vast structure of holding companies and investment trusts... In particular the dividends from the operating companies paid the interest on t...
Read more