Over @ HBR Blogs, Jeff Goldsmith asks the following question: Has the U.S. Health Technology Sector Run Out of Gas?.  Looking historically, he notes the amazing progress since the 1970s, but a decline in that growth since 2000:

…Technological innovation — in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices including imaging, and enterprise IT — exploded in the thirty year period 1970 to 2000…

…Then about a decade ago, the US medical technology sector entered a prolonged innovation drought. In pharmaceuticals, new drug introductions declined by almost two thirds, while drugs patented in the latter part of the boom period lost protection, this despite a near tripling in R+D outlays. (New drug introductions rebounded modestly in 2008 and 2009, but still haven’t regained their 2004 levels)….

He goes further to note that this dip in activity wasn’t just about new drugs:

…The drought wasn’t confined to pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Imaging, a dazzling success story for three decades, has seemingly run out of gas. Imaging equipment sales collapsed precipitously in the US, by roughly 40%…

…Enterprise clinical information technology seems to have hit a similar flat spot. The major commercial IT platforms for hospitals and health systems are more than a decade old.

& all of that makes complete sense based upon what we know about the last couple of decades.

Since the mid-1990s (well really, since the 1960′s), we have increased regulation on the medical industry on a constant basis.  From minor changes in who qualifies, to new regulations such as HIPA, to very large new regulatory pressures such as the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, resulting in an explosive growth in government expenditures of health care:

There have also been additional pressures.  Increases in financial and IT regulations through SOX and other legislation have increased companies’ weariness to put themselves at risk and increased costs of doing business.

These pressures in increasing the costs of doing business, combined with the federal government expenditures crowding out private spending, has resulted in higher costs for businesses and therefore consumers as well.  The new heath care and financial overhaul bills will continue this pressure.

The big cost however is what the author notes:  the lack on innovation.  When the government seeks to consistently erect new and more costly barriers to entry, competition will naturally decline.  The correlation to that behavior is that costs will grow more rapidly as we know competition in the long-term generates downward pressure on prices.

As we see now – prices are increasing, availability is decreasing, as the government decreases the availability of future competition in industries the government tightly controls such as health care.  Conversely with those industries with fewer barriers to entry have downward pressure on prices, such as cell phone or internet providers.

While I consider this failure of centralized control as a major factor, Mr. Goldsmith posits three contributing factors, risk aversion from management, size and increasing bureaucracy, and the fact that we are losing out globally for scientific talent:

1. Firms that used to be run by scientists and engineers are now run by attorneys and marketing executives….
2. Their ability to foster innovation has succumbed to a bureaucratic management culture….
3. Bright young foreign science and technology graduates are returning to India or China instead of staying here and creating new products or companies….

While I agree with all of these things, I think reasons 1 & 3 can be combined easily to a more basic point about government interference and centralized control.  Indeed they are symptoms of the problem and not necessarily the disease.

Having said that, I think it’s also important to note that reason number 2 exists due to the same thinking reasons 1 & 3 do – the belief that centralized control is a nominal good (DA post on business trends here).

The author seems remiss in not making the connection, even if he did eloquently, maybe unwittingly, stumble across it when writing about global competition:

…If they have more freedom to innovate in their home countries, that’s where they’ll go….

For as long as we continue to discuss symptoms and not the actual disease, we will continue to miss the point.

• Proving once again that fascism isn’t just a word, Italy (here via Economist) gave three Google executives six-month suspended sentences for “allowing a clip of an autistic boy being bullied to be viewed on Google Video, which the judge said broke Italy’s privacy laws. “

Just to clarify, I’m not pro-autistic-bullying and would think a civil trial isn’t out of the question, but jail?

• Fannie Mae needs more cash, but just 15 billion… from the taxpayer of course (here via RTTN News).   Seems like people might not agree with this (here via WSJ):

The Obama administration’s decision to cover an unlimited amount of losses at the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years stirred controversy over the holiday….

Probably why the decision was made over the holidays.

• Crazy fundamentalists blame the Golden Girls for homosexuality (here via ChristWire).

• Democrats & President Obama, all firmly against the Patriot Act after signing it, vote to  prevent all measures from lapsing (here via Wired) for the next full year.

• Harvard intellectual tells us why allowing corporations to spend money on politics is bad (here):

…To understand why, it is important to focus on the individuals who make decisions for companies. When corporations decide which politicians to support, what kind of messages to send, and which political outcomes to seek, their general investors are not consulted. Rather, such decisions are likely to reflect the preferences and objectives of the insiders who manage the companies, ostensibly on shareholders’ behalf….

A little interlude for a thought experiment.  Change which politicians to support and which political outcomes to seek to which charities to support and which cultural outcomes to seek.  Or try reality and change it to, which lobbyists to support and which regulatory outcomes to seek.  But of course, he defines the problem for us:

…And politicians that benefit from corporate spending and access to corporate resources will have an interest in serving the insiders’ preferences and objectives….

Which presupposes politicians already don’t have this interest, presumes it will get much worse, and last, but not least; for spending to have any affect at all, voters have to be swayed to vote against their interests.

It seems the default assumption of every perceived risk these days is simply this:  there can never be too many laws when trying to protect people from themselves.

• CalTech researchers say the brain is wired for equality (here):

…Specifically, the team found that the reward centers in the human brain respond more strongly when a poor person receives a financial reward than when a rich person does. The surprising thing? This activity pattern holds true even if the brain being looked at is in the rich person’s head, rather than the poor person’s….

Oddly enough, the Freakanomics blog posted this with little comment (here) proving environmental factors such as working for the NY Times can affect even innovative economists.  I’ll admit there might be more, but from what they’ve shown, the results do not necessarily say anything about equality at all.  A perfectly reasonable answer is one of need: a rich person doesn’t need a windfall as much as a poor person.

CalTech’s reasoning:

…It’s long been known that we humans don’t like inequality, especially when it comes to money. Tell two people working the same job that their salaries are different, and there’s going to be trouble…

Conflating the thinking that comes with social status and worth when compared to colleagues and equality of results.  It could be in a lot of cases, the person making less might think they work harder and deserve more, not equal.

• & finally, via the Hill.  Did Nanci Pelosi really say that

…”They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”…

Via Buzz.Yahoo.com (because I refuse to send people to the Huffington Post), the Huffington Post reports (here):

President Obama will unveil on Thursday a proposed levy on the nation’s biggest financial firms structured not just to repay taxpayers for the bank bailout, but to recoup some of the public subsidy that “too big to fail” banks have enjoyed on account of their implicit government backstop, a senior administration official tells the Huffington Post….

First, I honestly have a problem with senior administration officials lending their knowledge to such a highly partisan propaganda site as the Huffington Post.   They long ago stop pretending to care about being news or even being accurate and moved straight into MoveOn.org territory.

Now, I’m not saying the President or his staff must chose the outlets I would prefer, but they could definitely send out press statements or use seemingly “real” and more honest news organizations.  It’s not like the NY Times isn’t on the President’s side – why go to Huffington?

Either way – regardless of the merits (or lack thereof0) for this specific  marketing strategy – it seems quite obvious that Mr. Obama and his team lacks a fundamental understanding of economics.  Their continued reliance on government solutions to all economic problems, demonstrates a misunderstanding of the dynamics needed to keep this economic engine and society moving forward.

It seems they have an idea that they can model the economic behavior of institutions they define as “Too big to fail” as if this equilibrium is: A) possible to spot & B) static enough to allow the slow moving government the ability to legislate in a helpful way.

Indeed the current economic crisis itself lends credibility to the idea that the government is in no position to grasp the complexities that exist when dealing with so many interconnected businesses (here):

…”We are here to examine what happened in the public sector, what happened in regulatory agencies, what happened in enforcement agencies,” said Phil Angelides, the chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission….

While investigating the public portion of the failure:

…Questions focused on failures around regulatory decisions to loosen bank leverage and capital limits, faulty credit rating agencies, a warning about epidemic of mortgage fraud and a decision by Congress and the FDIC to stop collecting vital insurance fees from ‘well capitalized” banks between 1996 and 2006….

They grilled DOJ:

…Panel members asked Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct an investigation into what, if anything the agency did after the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2004 warned that mortgage fraud was so rampant that it was a potential “epidemic.”…

& the SEC:

…SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro was inundated with questions about the agency’s failure to oversee credit rating agencies, which provided overly rosy debt ratings for problematic mortgage securities….

The FDIC & Congress:

…Meanwhile, the FDIC and Congress were criticized for its decision not to collect deposit insurance premiums from well capitalized banks for roughly a decade between 1996 and 2006….

But it’s ok, because the FDIC agrees with them:

…Both Schapiro and FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair agreed that an SEC decision in 2004, under its chairman at the time, William Donaldson, to allow banks to identify how much capital and leverage they must have on hand, based on their own model-based formula, was a mistake that allowed banks to expand their leverage to problematic levels….

Where the lead to the obvious conclusion they were searching for the entire time – government help:

…Bair said. “I think the only place to tackle that on a system-wide basis for both banks and non-banks was through consumer protection rules that gave the Fed the authority to apply rules against abusive lending across the board to both banks and non-banks.”…

Now it might just be me, but thinking federal regulators with new powers over banks and abusive lending standards will get it right next time seems a tad optimistic…. you know, especially considering their massive failure with the current crisis.

Which is of course only a portion of the story.  The government, through various GSE’s, exacerbated the problems with global capital flows, by giving banks incentives to make riskier and riskier loans (here):

…The actual causes of our financial troubles were unusual monetary policy moves and novel federal regulatory interventions. Regulatory distortions intensified in the 1990s. Poorly chosen public policies distorted interest rates and asset prices, diverted loanable funds into the wrong investments, and twisted normally robust financial institutions into unsustainable positions.

We can group most of the unfortunate policies under two main headings: (1) Federal Reserve credit expansion that provided the means for unsustainable mortgage financing, and (2) mandates and subsidies to write riskier mortgages….

Please don’t misunderstand me – just because someone leaves their keys in their car doesn’t mean you should take it – so immoral actions on behalf of lenders, home buyers, and an inaccurate understanding of the true risks were also present in the prelude to this tragedy:

…There is no doubt that private miscalculation and imprudence made matters worse for more than a few lending institutions and individual borrowers….

& therein lies the true rub.  This imprudence is something for which the market should bear the price of their mistakes.  Only through bearing the true cost will their incentives ever line up with true moral behavior.  If you think a local bank or lender wasn’t able to sell every single loan to a GSE, they would’ve continued to allow bad loans to be made which they knew would sink themselves… well, that’s just not very likely and not very rational.

But don’t worry – I’m sure with these new and smarter people, this time they’ll figure out which banks are too big to fail, do it right, and only tax them in the amount they need to insure against the risk.

It’s been a full five years since Thomas Friedman gave us the book and idea that The World is Flat. While I’ll never be one to completely agree with Mr. Friedman, he proffers from an economic perspective that national boundaries are becoming less and less a barrier.  The consequence in America, as with all other western societies, is a need to prepare to compete with other countries for jobs.

As outsourcing becomes easier and developing countries access to highly skilled resources in developing countries, citizens have been or will soon be forced to compete for jobs not only with their local competition, but with their global competitors as well.

DA noticed for a little while now, that the US seems to moving backwards in terms of competitiveness (here):

…Odd thing is – those without freedoms or with lesser freedoms around the world have been pushing for market reforms, including Germany, France, China, Russia… while the US is pushing centralized control over banking and health care (to name two things)….

Energy apparently skipped my mind that day, but either way… with more evidence at hand, Ron Hart wrote a great piece The dangers of ‘Crony Capitolism’. He begins with a a prescient Winston Churchill quote:

Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk.  Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.

His basic premise is that through increased economic regulations in America and a movement away from the free market, we are in real danger of losing our economic edge:

…But the real damage done by his taking control of our major banks and car companies (and now one-sixth of our economy with his health care grab), is that private capitalism, one of the great drivers of our country’s abundance for all of us, has been damaged….

& due to these anti-market policies combined with ever increasing regulation, we are not only in danger in the future, but the signs are already here:

…The result, per Forbes magazine, is that we are losing ground to foreign competitors.

Korean automaker Hyundai registered record sales in August. Chinese telecom manufacturer Huawei might soon pass Cisco in sales. Brazil’s jet maker Embraer is, according to Cessna CEO Jack Pelton “scaring us to death.” And more IPOs are happening away from America’s overly regulated capital markets. In addition, India has heart bypass surgery outcomes equal to the U.S. at half the cost, and Singapore is willing to pay U.S. biotech research stars about $715,000 in annual salaries….

Concluding with:

…In short, we do not have a monopoly on capitalism. We risk losing out to a world market that moves faster and with more resolve today than ever before. Our new political class does not seem to care that innovation and capitalism are fleeing….

Well said.

In a great piece over @ The Christian Science Monitor, Arnold Kling & Nick Schultz argue well that Markets fail. That’s why we need markets:

…This seemingly paradoxical view is based on several overlapping strands of research in economics as it pertains to development, history, technology, business expansion, and new-firm formation. According to this view, entrepreneurs at work in the economy – in finance, high tech, manufacturing, services, and beyond – are constantly experimenting, creating new business models, techniques, and technologies that upend the established order of things.

Some new technologies and innovations are genuine improvements and are long-lasting welfare enhancers. But others are the basketball equivalent of pump fakes – they look like the real deal and prompt market actors to leap hastily into action, only to realize later that their bets were wrong.

Given this dynamic, markets are unpredictable, prone to booms and busts, characterized by bouts of exuberance that are rational or irrational only in hindsight.  But markets are also the only reliable mechanism for sorting out this messy process quickly. In spite of the booms and busts, markets drive genuine long-run innovation and wealth creation.

Not as eloquently as they did, I wrote about this earlier in the year (here):

…the dynamic system of the United States might have felt more pain that other countries during this crisis, but due to the mostly decentralized economic model, we will recover more quickly than most…

It then seems for most people to become a question of risk adversity.  Do we allow for individual freedom and understand that sometimes failure is a part of the process?  Or do we constantly attempt to control individual behavior for fear of potential negative consequences?

Only if we first believe in the premise that by trading freedom for stability, we actually get stability.  The CSMonitor article continues:

…When governments attempt to impose order on this chaotic and inherently risky process, they immediately run up against two serious dangers.

The first is that they strangle new innovations before they can emerge. Thus proposals for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a systemic risk regulator, a public health insurance plan, a green jobs policy, or any attempt at top-down planning may do more harm than good.

The second danger has to do with the nature of political economy. Politics creates its own kind of innovators who can be as destabilizing to markets as market actors themselves – but in far more pernicious ways.

Economists call these political entrepreneurs “rent-seekers.”…

…This gets to the key difference between markets and governments. When innovation-driven excesses and imbalances are recognized in the marketplace, the system can correct itself quickly. This is less the case when government policy failure occurs.

Because political failure is less publicly tolerable than market failure, the temptation becomes for policymakers to avoid acknowledging their role in creating or perpetuating problems.  Or they double down on bad bets. So rather than recognize the government’s central role in the housing boom and bust and quickly changing its ways, we see the federal policy apparatus continuing to throw good money after bad in the mortgage market and on Wall Street….

I wrote about this “doubling down”  (here):

…For those playing the home game, this means we are taking a problem caused by excessive credit and government incentives and trying to fix it by:

1. Preventing the normal contraction that needs to happen by artificially propping up failed business and bad home purchasing decisions.
2. Keep money cheap by keeping interest rates very low.
3. Then, repeat the same process that got you to the recession in the first place by incentivizing the market to buy a commodity (housing) which is still overvalued in some places….

…I’m not really into prediction making as it’s obviously fraught with so many problems, but I’ll never understand how the solution to cheap money and an over investment of housing, is to keep money cheap and incentivize home buying…

As historically known, the vast majority of centralized government intrusions into free markets and free people has led to disastrous consequences.  NBER research suggests that two of the reasons for the current global economic crisis are due to unfree markets:

…The inability of emerging economies to absorb savings through domestic investment and consumption due to inadequate national financial markets and difficulties in enforcing financial contracts; the currency controls motivated by immediate national objectives;…

Everywhere we look objectively, freedom gives us more of everything.  Do you want to fix healthcare?  Using the government will likely lead to higher rates and more control, using individual freedom however doesn’t cost much as has been proven in other avenues such as food.  Something I think is just as important as healthcare, but been left to the market unlike health care.

& the market has responded.  Food costs as a percentage of disposable income has decreased from 23.4% in 1929, to just 9.6% in 2009 (here).

Meanwhile health care costs continue to increase with government regulation.  In just the past 5 years spending on health care as a percentage of GDP has continue to go up and is projected on that trend still.  In 2005 spending was 15.9% of GDP whereas in 2009 is it 16.9% and projected to be 19.5% in 2017  (here).

It seems that the overwhelming majority of evidence suggests to honestly help the most needy, freedom is not only a moral good, but a requirement for anything approaching success…. yet what seems to be an irrational fear of “economic crisis” many people can’t see the forest for the trees.

This year is really a banner year for the unions.  Recently, they begin early pushing the Obama administration to pass the double-speak entitled bill, the Employee Free Choice Act (which actually removes individual free choice - here @DA).

Not content with simply removing your right to vote anonymously and thereby reduce your freedom of association, they went to the state level.  There they decided that individual business owners can now be forced by law into the union (here @ WSJ):

…A year ago in December, Ms. Berry and more than 40,000 other home-based day care providers statewide were suddenly informed they were members of Child Care Providers Together Michigan—a union created in 2006 by the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees….

& obviously they are doing this for a reason:

…Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in annual dues to the union—from the child-care subsidies….

But not to worry, the union is doing something with all that money.  More lobbying:

…Ms. Berry now sees money once paid to her go to a union that does little for her. She says she is “self employed and wants nothing to do with the union.”

The union claims it is working for Ms. Berry and others like her by pressing the legislature to increase child-care payments….

For the score keepers at home – the government through union lobbying has forced (by law) private citizens running their own commercial enterprise to pay dues, which they graciously will remove from their state reimbursed child-care subsidy checks…. all in order to lobby the government to raise the child-care subsidy.

For the union organization itself though – lobbying dollars spent pays off.  Also from earlier this year, during bankruptcy of large companies involving unions, they got paid first (here @ DA):

…Now we have POTUS playing politics with the rule of law.  Ensuring money goes to unions before secured creditors, the same unions who are using that money to buy up assets of the companies they helped to bankrupt….

The unions and their elected representatives of course are playing the game as designed and currently played by the voters.   The unions know based upon their membership and war chest they can affect the outcome of an election.  The leaders they help get elected know this and therefore craft union friendly legislation.

Effectively the unions moved away from an organization championing workers’ rights, into another corporation using the government to ensure their continued existence.  & by doing so, they will ultimately raise the cost of doing business for everyone, including the working families they claim to support.

As always in a representative government, the voters are ultimately to blame.  Whether their failure is due to an inability to care, critically think, understand basic economic incentives, or lack of equilibrium between the moons of Venus & Neptune…

Irregardless of why, given the current state of incentives and voters unwillingness to punish their legislators, unions will continue to rent-seek at the expense of the average  citizen.

In a rush to ensure that no good crisis goes to waste, the Obama Administration, through the Federal Reserve and other bureaucrats are passing “laws” without even a wink & a nod to the public who didn’t elect any of these people to write laws.

In the Washington Post:

The battle to pass regulatory reform legislation in the face of intense opposition launches in earnest Wednesday morning with a hearing featuring Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who will once again champion a package of sweeping changes that only Congress has the power to make…

…But outside that spotlight, the Obama administration, and the independent agencies with which it is increasingly synchronized, are moving forward with changes that do not require new laws, but could match or exceed the impact of anything that emerges from Capitol Hill…

I guess talking to the public about things like health care, auto buyouts, and the Olympics were proving to be too difficult.  All those pesky citizens with their rights and stuff standing up in opposition.  It will be much better now that they are out of the way:

…The Federal Reserve is cracking down on Wall Street’s legendary paydays. The Treasury Department plans to require banks to carry larger capital reserves. The Securities and Exchange Commission has eight pending proposals to clean up financial markets….

…The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, is asserting authority to review bank compensation policies. There is widespread agreement that many bankers were paid during the boom for spectacular short-term results achieved by taking massive risks that ultimately produced the global crisis.

Keep in mind this is the exact same government agency who kept interest rates too low even whiles trends were predicting the internet bubble in early 2000 and continued that behavior even when the next bubble, housing, was easily spotted.  I’m sure they’ve learned their lesson.

…The Fed is expected in the next few weeks to release for public comment a proposal instructing banks to make sure that compensation reflects risk. For example, if two employees generate the same amount of profits while taking different amounts of risk, regulators would like to see more reward for the less risky approach….

Oh – this ought to be fun.  The same group who can’t be bothered to even mention that their policies might have had a negative effect are now going to be in a position to tell bankers what they can make based upon what a government agency sees as the risk associated with any particular investment.

That assumes the government has the ability to accurately define risks and define compensation.  Dealing with risks only, the government has a poor track record.  The Soviet Union was much weaker than we thought, Iraq was without weapons we all knew was there, and even in the most recent crisis, politicians pushed Fannie & Freddie right up to the edge of the cliff even as people continued to tell them the drop would hurt.

As Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan said when asked if the housing bubble was a black swan (an outlier), replied, “But to me that wasn’t a black swan; it was a white swan. I knew it would happen and I said so.”

What does Mr. Tableb know anyhow?  After all, the esteemed Mr. Greenspan said the low interest rates weren’t the problem and we all know he doesn’t have any conflict of interest in saying so.

This is the government though.  Why would they go through this exercise in certain failure without at least doubling down? (here):

…The SEC also is flexing its muscles. The commission has proposed restrictions on short selling…

Never mind the fact that short selling by itself can’t force a market go down.  Never mind the fact the government had their hands in this every step of the way.  Never mind the fact that un-elected bureaucrats are subverting the representative process of legislating by making sweeping regulatory overhauls with little oversight.  Never mind economic freedom is just as important to the human condition as social freedom.

Yep, that’s the government, telling us, “never mind”.

Well, we’ve moved from Cash for Clunkers onto Cash for Appliances and politicians everywhere have patted themselves on the back for what a fine job the original program did.

According to most news reports, sales were up a tremendous amount due to this program.  ABC News reports Auto Sales Up in August Thanks to Cash for Clunkers, Bloomberg reports U.S. Consumer Spending Climbs on ‘Cash for Clunkers, and CNN reports 4th UPDATE: Auto Industry Posts Best US Sales Of Year.

If one just reads the headlines and do the normal drive-bys on the news, this is yet another government program which is a rousing success.

This assumes of course you only look on the surface.  Looking further, there were many consequences of this program that probably wasn’t helpful.  Listing the potential and real negatives is a worthwhile endeavor if we truly wish to analyze the situation.  Since I can’t sum up the problems with this program any better than Cato has, Chris Edwards posted on their blog:

* A few billion dollars worth of wealth was destroyed. About 750,000 cars, many of which could have provided consumer value for many years, were thrown in the trash. Suppose each clunker was worth $3,000 at a guess, that would mean that the government destroyed $2.25 billion of value.

* Low-income families, who tend to buy used cars, were harmed because the clunkers program will push up used car prices.

* Taxpayers were ripped off $3 billion. The government took my money to give to people who will buy new cars that are much nicer than mine!

* The federal bureaucracy has added 1,100 people to handle all the clunker administration. Again, taxpayers are the losers….

* The auto industry received a short-term “sugar high” at the expense of lower future sales when the program is over. The program apparently boosted sales by about 750,000 cars this year, but that probably means that sales over the next few years will be about 750,000 lower. The program probably further damaged the longer-term prospects of auto dealers and automakers by diverting their attention from market fundamentals in the scramble for federal cash.

This isn’t to say they’re weren’t positives.  This only mean that using a vision which includes more than the past couple of months to analyze the situation will objectively result in either seeing this as a smaller success than currently marketed, or more likely, seeing this as an actual failure.

This is a continuous issue with basic human thinking.  All humans due to brain wiring and evolution have certain built in biases that cause us to make ineffective decisions.  By better understanding those biases, we can seek to minimize them.  Without minimization though, this thinking results in quick based resolutions that are overreaching and often end with a result much different from intended.

A few easy recent examples come to mind.  Sarbanes-Oxely, the Patriot Act, and McCain-Feingold.

Using SOX, lots of new regulations were added to company finance reports due to Enron, MCI, and other companies.  However the regulations can’t possibly prevent what took place nor can they do any better than what happened.  In Enron’s case, corrupt management ruined a business and they went to jail.  SOX will not prevent another Enron and I think the incentives against doing it again already exist when CEOs, CFOs, and others lose their business and their freedoms.

The true result of SOX?  A new industry of people and millions and millions spent by companies to ensure compliance, which is passed on to consumers that will not prevent future fraud (Bernie Madoff?).

Another example – even small decisions made too fast can turn out to be completely wrong.  Here in St. Louis, MO, they renamed a part of I70 after Mark McGwire due to his home run record.  It was a travesty to begin with as the road used to be named after Mark Twain, but after the steroid scandal included Mr. McGwire the idiocy and quickness of the decision was easy to see.

Additionally, the economy; lots of us still wish for the 90s when jobs were extremely plentiful, pay was high, and the economy was moving forward with lots of momentum.  Long term view?  It turned out to be a ponzi scheme that was mostly paper profits which resulted in a bubble that, as with all bubbles, burst.   Indeed, there was no new business cycle or new business rules that changed the economy in such a way as to guarantee no more downturns.  Several very large companies declared bankruptcy, CEOs went to jail, and millions of individuals lost a lot of their retirement money as their 401Ks nosedived.

In some ways though, making quick decisions makes complete sense.  In our very quick world, we are forced to make decisions quickly and lots of times, make those decisions based upon partial information.  In business, product innovation, management decisions, battlefield tactics, and in many other places this is necessary and having the skill to do this well is a requirement in most aspects of today’s professional life.

However, even though quick decisions on partial information are required in today’s world, we must still be cognizant of potential long term ramifications if we truly intend to leave a world for our children and grandchildren that is better than we found it.

Otherwise, we can continue to only contemplate things in small slices of time and we will certainly continue down the road of bad decisions.

Of course that’s just my two synapses rubbing together… I could be wrong.