Obama Administration Making the Banker's Error

The Obama administration is already finding itself having to defend its economic projections of a strong economic recovery. We're still in the middle of a mess that stemmed in no small part from the refusal of bankers to consider the worst case scenario, from admitting that things could be far worse. So why is the current administration doing the same? For the same reason: It is unpleasant to ask people face reality.

But Obama was elected on the idea of a change in the past and some respect for the truth ... at least, that is the marketing angle his staff used. The only way to escape the danger of the overly optimistic is to use a range of scenarios: good, realistic, and bad. The bad one has to be really bad, take into account the worst that could happen. The realistic should be just that. Presenting only one scenario that tends toward the optimistic is to whistle past danger. To do what has been foolish in the past only continues the foolishness.

IBM Under Temporary Ban from New Federal Contracts

Well, I certainly was surprised by this: prosecutors are examining the relationships between IBM employees and the Environmental Protection Agency. When there is a suspected procurement problem, all federal agencies tend to follow the lead of the one involved in an action. That could quickly become serious for Big Blue:

Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM does business with all corners of the government, though the Defense and Homeland Security departments are much bigger customers than the EPA, according to federal spending databases. Last year IBM's contracts amounted to at least $1.3 billion, roughly 1 percent of its 2007 revenue.

That's not a huge amount, but I wonder if it could scare other business off. No publicly-held corporation will be interested in appearing to be involved in questionable business, even if by proxy. Here's a copy of the emailed statement from the EPA.

Pushing a Rope

Well, looks like everyone from the president to the Fed's chairman is ready for economic stimulus. There's only one problem, as I heard Robert Reich state well on Marketplace Morning Report. I have my own way of thinking about it. A rope can be a great tool to get something moving, but only if you are pulling on it hard enough. Push, and the mass of fiber collapses.

The problem with current proposals to stimulate the economy is that the people in charge are forgetting this simple yet telling physical experience. To put a few hundred into the hands of many, given the rise in energy and food prices, means that they might almost, but probably not quite, stay where they were. That's just holding the rope, not pulling. The richest part of the populace would have more free capital, but there's only so much they can consume; there are just not enough of them to make a difference.

Trying to get businesses to invest is like pushing the rope. Companies spent 15 to 20 years relearning the lesson that it makes no sense to invest in infrastructure, capacity, and inventory that you don't need. Make the money available, and corporations won't invest money in stimulating ways because for them it is a waste. Instead, they'll look for other places to park the cash that might offer some return.

And to stimulate the economy, the government and the Fed effectively have to loosen the money supply, reducing the value of the dollar and burying the country under the weight of even more debt and unsupported currency. Better we should realize that sometimes you have to wait out unpleasant news rather than get a nasty rope burn trying to finagle your way out of it.

One More Twist On Dollar

I was reading an article in the Financial Times (sorry, don't have the URL handy) that made an interesting point. Although the US press has been talking about the danger of the Euro supplanting the dollar as the standard for international trade, that would take many years to happen. Why? Too many governments and central banks have enormous dollar holdings. Should the Euro suddenly become the currency of choice, all of a sudden, all that paper might have to be written down, and no one wants to take that kind of hit, which would make the credit crisis look like nothing. So we should all temper that home-brewed doom and gloom, favored for its ability to drive audience and, as a result, advertising, with some old-fashioned facts.

Patent Politics

I have an article in the August 2007 issue of IP Law & Business about politics, displeasure, and the US Patent & Trademark Office. I actually preferred the original first paragraph:

Business people and lawyers complaining about federal agencies? Quick, call the TV cameras—the sun rose today. But noise about the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the patent community is escalating lately from complaints to serious criticism and even to allegation.

Ah, well, editing is about change. The topic is interesting, though - and given new continuation rules (which affect the entire patent application process) and proposed changes in patent law, there's a lot that CEOs and CFOs should be considering. This is not just an issue for a company's general counsel.