Why do businesses succeed...and fail?

Quick, simple answers pop right up.  But pause a moment and the simple answers just don't provide complete understanding.  The obvious answers are:

• make money and become rich;
• a challenge you can't refuse;
• compete and win; 
• see and meet a need.

The truth may be that there are as many reasons for starting a new business as there are people trying.  

Most businesses start with one common trait: each and every founder of a successful business was stubborn and a leader.

There is, however, one additional trait: perceptiveness. They understood and met the needs of the customer...of the marketplace.  Quality and Price always go together if there is to be success.

An study of the beginnings of any business only teach us about that...the beginning.  There have been many men who started a business and ran it successfully, only for it to fade and fail upon the death of the founder.  Why?

Many stubborn leaders don't want to delegate; it gives up control of quality and process and leaves the leader subject to mistakes and lack of drive by others and is anathema.  They don't like it; it smacks of lack of control and giving up of power.  They will make it very uncomfortable for anyone who pushes for any sort of delegation.  That stress will tend to drive all but the most subservient away...to other businesses or enterprises, leaving no one of leadership quality to continue the business upon the passing of the founder.

The businesses that survive do so because some just as stubborn subordinate refuses to be driven out and values what the business does more than a good relationship with the founder OR the founder comes to see the business not as an extension of themselves, but as having a business life and purpose of its own, and comes to appreciate nurturing it as a separate entity, welcoming others with new and different approaches.  If all at the top management level continue to respect and nurture that approach, the business will survive until that attitude fades and dies or the quality of leadership fades and dies.  Either will lead to collapse or absorption by another, successful, company.

Why be concerned with such considerations?  One major reason is as a potential investor.  You can be certain that the attitudes and quality of management, whether of a start-up or an ongoing business, are of paramount reason to a Warren Buffet and others who make their living as investors.  Whether buying stock, or investing in ownership/profits of start-ups, success depends on evaluating the motivation and talents of those at the top (or, in the case of a new business...the bottom).  As a person looking for a job, the same evaluation would be a benefit, if only to work at getting a job that would last.

Why do we have Racial Unrest today? (#3 of 3)

There is a valid assertion that by providing government assistance that assures survivability and is available for virtually an unlimited period we cause the receiving group to not only become dependent on such support, but to train them to ignore all other potential efforts to be self-sufficient.

But given that such dependence now exists, to discuss whether or not it should have been done is a useless exercise.

To be "given" support over an extended period of time with no requirement or expectation of moving from that support to self-support creates a sense of shame (usually deeply buried) and compensatory attitudes to bolster a sense of self-worth.  For kids without fathers present in their daily lives, they substitute gangs and gang membership.  To support their self-worth, they develop their own sense of right and wrong that supports their own actions, regardless of what those actions are, as "right."  And they totally ignore efforts from "others" to change that view, because to change would necessitate that they acknowledge that their previous actions were not "good" or "right."  Oh, there are some that see the bigger picture, but not many.

It is this unwillingness to change, and the underlying anger that supports it, that creates the real problem for those kids, their neighborhoods, and ultimately for America as a nation.  What can or should be done?

I freely admit that I don't know.

But there are some ideas that might be worthy of at least talking about.

Supposing an organized effort was made to take every single child that did not have a father present and employed out of the neighborhood and put them in a proven, approved foster home that had access to a good school district with support to encourage achievement?

What if the rules on schooling provided not only for school choice, but for schools to be able to bar  disruptive kids from the campus, thus allowing students who wanted to learn the teacher time to enable that desire?

What if disruptive kids were required to be put in a military type, government organization where they were supervised and required to work each day for a menial wage until they came to recognize the advantages of learning?

How about city officials discussing with gangs the possibility of them becoming screening groups for calling in regular Police forces, making them officially responsible for the safety of their community?  That would give them status but also make them responsible...a good pairing for learning to live a useful life.

Are these answers?  Probably not...but it is time we all recognized the very real and difficult problems that our citizens who live in the inner cities have and work to provide good and beneficial options for those there who want improvement.

Unfortunately I don't see our government, at any level, having any real interest in solving the situation.  They just want it to be quiet: quiet summers, quiet desperation, quiet unhappiness.  And that is just an abdication of their respective oath's of office.  Until we demand and see that that attitude changes, we will have to look to private organizations to move forward.  And I hope that all of them, both civic and religious groups, step up...and soon.  Each of us, as citizens of a great nation, should have available to us a path to success.  That path isn't free, and it isn't easy, but it should exist so that every citizen with purpose and motivation can travel forward...and upward.

Why a "President" Trump may be best for America

Until this morning I had favored the election of Mr. Trump as President as a means of punishing professional politicians for their narcissistic, inbred consistent ignoring of their constituents wishes, requests and needs, choosing instead to form their badly disguised cross-aisle cooperation to protect each other at the taxpayers' expense.  They all needed to rediscover and suffer consequences. I reasoned that an outsider would accomplish that, and although Mr. Trump seems likely to be far more liberal than I would like, it was paramount to punish all those with such a longer track record of not listening that I ignored his liberal potential.

But this morning my thoughts suddenly turned in a much more positive direction.

One of the constant complaints heard is that our government is not only responsive, but that it just can't get things done.  We hear that our President had no interest in creating any working relationship with Congress in general, with the "other" side, and even is aloof from those office holders from his own party.  We note that even wanted actions by the executive branch don't help because upon an election of a President who thinks otherwise, those decrees can be reversed...so no business or individual can invest in any business because of that inherent risk.

Others point to the Congressional impasses that result in lots of words and votes, but either stall or end up being vetoed by the Chief Executive.

May I suggest that electing Donald Trump is extremely likely to solve all of these complaints, relegating them to the scrap heap.

Why?

What is Mr. Trump's broadest impact on the world?  No, not his Real Estate empire or accomplishments.  It is the book, "Art of the Deal."  It clearly demonstrates Mr. Trump's desire to "get things done"...preferably at a profit, but always as economically as possible.

To accomplish something that he deems essential, is he likely to walk away from anything because of ideology?  I don't think so.  He will want to have proof of what it will cost, where the money will come from (if from borrowing, he'll want to know how it will be paid back), and who and how will the costs be controlled and the results be guaranteed.  No  verbal assurances are likely to be acceptable to him...put it in the "voted for" document for everyone to see.

How or why is this good?

Because now...finally...there is supreme motivation for getting good people to run, and for getting people out to vote for Congressional and Senate elections!

It is very likely that a President Trump will work with whatever Congress the people elect...Republican, Conservative, Democrat or Liberal.  And those elections will determine who will be "dealing" with President Trump.  It is entirely likely that the more conservative the Congress, the more conservative the deals that will be made.  But, conversely, if the "people" chose to elect those of the Liberal or Democratic viewpoints, Mr. Trump will work deals that would be more liberal.  None of us would be completely happy, but I strongly suggest that government would, again, work!  Remember that President Reagan worked with a Democratic Congress to get things done.  So did President Clinton.  Good administrators will find a way to accomplish more things in ways that make the most people more content.

So...if more and more people come to the same conclusion, I think that a lot of Democrats will cross over to vote for Mr. Trump...if he is nominated...knowing that if they also achieve numerical superiority in Congress, their views and wants will be heard and respected.  And those of a more conservative bent will feel the same.  Everyone will then focus on those Senate and Congressional races, realizing that the President will honor those elections in the manner in which he negotiates government action with the Legislative branch.

And THAT would be a good thing for the entire country.

Barack Obama - a layman's analysis

For almost eight years now...ever since he burst on the scene as a Junior Senator running against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination to be President...Mr. Obama has been an enigma.

Here was an unproven young man with what appeared to be an excellent educational background and an exceptional oratorical ability seeking the approval of a major Political Party to attempt to win the Office of the Presidency of the United States.  Any cursory examination of his background revealed that he had fine educational opportunities (although curiously his transcripts and papers from that period were never made available) and his work experience seemed confined to that of a Chicago-based Community Organizers, with little administrative experience or record.  Further reading revealed that the closest thing to a mentor was one Frank Marshall Davis, an admitted and proven Communist active in Communist, Socialist and Marxist causes.  Also of interest to any researcher was his long-time attendance and affinity for the Church of one Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who's sermons seemed to glorify a "victim" status for his church members and often called down the wrath of God on America for their treatment of his members generally.

Few attempts to discuss this background ever found its way into the mainstream media.  There seemed a protective cocoon established around Mr. Obama's background and history other than the superlative labels of intelligence and high Educational background.  Any challenge to this cocoon...any attempt to pierce it...were met with accusations of racism.  You see, what we have not yet mentioned was that Mr. Obama's genetic background is 50% black, as his father was from Kenya, although not present for most of Mr. Obama's life, as he was raised in a single parent home in Hawaii.

However, the cocoon was no excuse for awareness of the totality of Mr. Obama's background.  Any person who deemed it important enough to know details about the background for a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States of America could easily find and read the essential details.  Few did.  There was an aura of "special" about him seen by his supporters.  How much of this perceived "awe" was the admitted power of his oratory and how much was the collective vision of putting to rest the stain of slavery by putting into the office of the Presidency a man of the black race, or some other perception may never be known.  What seems clear, however, is that absent his Black background...if he were a white man of European heritage...he would have been judged as too young, too inexperienced, of unproven ability and with no track record by which to judge his likely intentions upon achieving the Office of the President.

He won.

Since taking office, Mr. Obama's performance has been spotty at best.  Running on the ambiguous (subject to being defined differently by each listener) tag line, "Hope and Change,"  Mr. Obama promptly disappointed the first of his well-wishers by approaching elected officials of the opposing party, not with offers to compromise and work together but, with the comment, "I won," and then pushing through (barely) a partisan health-care bill.  He failed to use his majority control of government to achieve promised immigration reform and generally earned a failing grade in "plays well with others" by totally neglecting to even attempt to establish a working, friendly relationship with Congress...even within his own party.  He disturbed many with what appeared to be an "apology" tour of the world as unseemly and obsequious.  Over his two terms, his Foreign Policy has seemed, at best, puzzling and at times non-existent.

While his supporters will deem my comments extreme, even they will admit a certain lack of achievement and direction, as well as Mr. Obama's proven propensity to lie to the the general public.  I will not bore anyone with the multiple examples...the fact stands.

But...now rises the ongoing question of...Why?  Some have argued that the lack of performance is simply a matter of lack of experience.  Others assign darker motives.  And the scope of the speculation is absolutely breath-taking with most being beyond the ability of this writer to consider, ...even momentarily.

I would like to suggest the major explanation (or motivation, if you wish) of Mr. Obama's behavior and attitude in office goes back to a self-perception of victim-hood.  Certainly, Mr. Obama was subjected to the challenges of growing up as neither fish nor fowl; he was half-Black, raised in a single parent home by a loving mother but feeling clearly that he was a minority.  He spent much time hearing the country and the world being analysed by Mr. Davis.  While a card-carrying Communist, Mr. Davis also saw the Black race as being victims...and felt he was a victim.  The truth is that Mr. Davis WAS a victim and was punished continually for the "sin" of "being black."  Of course, he was also seen as at fault for his Communist views, a judgement that would have descended upon him regardless of his skin color.  But...much of what an impressionable youth would take from the relationship was that element of being a victim, even as his education would steer him away from the Communist point of view...at least in part, although clearly there were associations (again, never explored or discussed during his campaign by anyone, much less the public) with socialist groups.

Would a self-image of being a liberated "victim" explain most, if not all, of Mr. Obama's character, behavior and attitudes?  Consider: he has a thin skin, reacting badly to criticism, unable to admit fault; he is virtually unable to punish others or hold them accountable, finding sympathy with them regardless of outcome; he finds it virtually impossible to confront anyone or anything directly, unless at a distance or in surroundings he deems "safe"; he avoids contact with people where is is not in absolute control, where he can avoid one-on-one challenges (where unavoidable, he does not challenge directly any person face to face); he expresses true feelings and particularly anger only when with trusted friends.

"Victim-hood" places an almost unimaginable burden on anyone.  To me, the consideration of it as a primary element explaining Mr. Obama's behavior and attitude, as well as his character, gave occasion to an "Ah-hah" moment.  That doesn't make it so.  But perhaps it is worthy of consideration?