You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #3: If You Don't, Your Business Goes Bankrupt [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. If You Don't, Your Business Goes Bankrupt
There's one thing about being indecisive...not able to make a decission, but that's OT...

Of those who are in leadership, the "resolute" leaders always are the worst. Once they set the course, it's set...and if that means into the rocks, so be it. No one can tell this leader and a good chance he'll increase the speed just to "show you". Or those that have to copy others and always make the same mistakes...usually worse. "If it's good for AIG..."...

Much of making choices is based on the situation you face. You always keep options open and ready to adjust where needed...but always to have a plan...an idea of where you'll be in 3 or 6 or 12 months. I see President Obama following a similar tact...one that may not please everyone, but a plan and one that he can and will modify as the situation warrants.

This administration inherited an economy in freefall...the first priority was to stop the implosion and a Geitner or someone with knowledge of the system made better sense than bringing in economists and others not tainted by Wall Street...but then look at the learning curve we'd have to deal with...and I'm not sure we had the time for them to get up to speed. Even Krugman admits it's easier to give advice and criticism than it is to try to move a very large beauracracy. You modify behavior rather than radically alter it.

Time will tell where we go now. With the government holding large stakes in banks and corporations, this does mean we are now "stockholders"...and as we saw at GM, I see President Obama willing to change leaership when it means protecting his/our investment. I see this happening over time in many other operations we now have a large say in...but done not to create a further risk to the investment...call it a soft landing.

The changers will and should be the stockholders...either through voting in new leadership or in law suits. These are the people who have suffered from mismanagement and have the most to lose or gain. We're already seeing some of this occuring at BOA. Others will face criminal actions...like the growing scandals at AIG and Merril Lynch that could take down even more. Time is the avenger here as this economic mess took 30 years to build, it's not gonna be straightened out with the wave of an executive order or radical surgery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC