8.01.08
Today General Motors announced an 18.5 billion dollar loss for the second quarter. When I heard the announcement my thoughts shifted to the recent documentary film “Who killed the electric car?” and how this recent financial outcome and that of the auto industry in America could be different. This timely documentary provides the framework for the relationship, the natural tug of war, between enlightened regulation or legislation, consumers and entrenched, powerful institutions like the auto industry. The intersection between the internal combustion engine and technological progress in the film highlight the opportunity for a new paradigm for industry growth. If like oil/energy companies today GM were able to look beyond their primary mechanism for sales and provide a new platform like the EV1 they diversify toward greater growth opportunities. That General Motors maintained its vested interest in the internal combustion engine is understandable structurally. Not, however, profitable and just as public policy must look forward for solutions to related problems so industry also has a responsibility not to block these measures but embrace them for its own sake.
In today’s global business environment corporations that constantly reassess their core business: how, when and why it provides products and services are the real winners. Think General Electric, Google and Apple and you get what I mean. GE recognized that long term growth prospects for household appliances and light bulbs weren’t that great so they invested in developing MRI machines and aircraft engines. Google based on its self described crede, Do No Harm, seek out opportunities in energy transmission and direct public access to wireless internet and increasing avenues for information distribution. Apple recognized that they were not simply providing computers but creative opportunities. Corporations that don’t or aren’t constantly reinvent themselves, industry neutral, will lose. Where are you now Netscape and AOL? Toward this end policy makers have an even greater responsibility to stare down the money and power that entrenched entities carry and force change. At this point in our development as a democracy and development it is a reality not an ideology, academic and useful that we utilize the tools we have to lead. In America, public policy that advocates for issues like clean air and energy conservation through economic growth, efficiency and productivity is what really makes us great. This is the responsibility of our elected officials and business leaders. The world looks to us for global leadership that is what hegemony is all about. This is how we develop, grow and prosper.
Today General Motors announced an 18.5 billion dollar loss for the second quarter. When I heard the announcement my thoughts shifted to the recent documentary film “Who killed the electric car?” and how this recent financial outcome and that of the auto industry in America could be different. This timely documentary provides the framework for the relationship, the natural tug of war, between enlightened regulation or legislation, consumers and entrenched, powerful institutions like the auto industry. The intersection between the internal combustion engine and technological progress in the film highlight the opportunity for a new paradigm for industry growth. If like oil/energy companies today GM were able to look beyond their primary mechanism for sales and provide a new platform like the EV1 they diversify toward greater growth opportunities. That General Motors maintained its vested interest in the internal combustion engine is understandable structurally. Not, however, profitable and just as public policy must look forward for solutions to related problems so industry also has a responsibility not to block these measures but embrace them for its own sake.
In today’s global business environment corporations that constantly reassess their core business: how, when and why it provides products and services are the real winners. Think General Electric, Google and Apple and you get what I mean. GE recognized that long term growth prospects for household appliances and light bulbs weren’t that great so they invested in developing MRI machines and aircraft engines. Google based on its self described crede, Do No Harm, seek out opportunities in energy transmission and direct public access to wireless internet and increasing avenues for information distribution. Apple recognized that they were not simply providing computers but creative opportunities. Corporations that don’t or aren’t constantly reinvent themselves, industry neutral, will lose. Where are you now Netscape and AOL? Toward this end policy makers have an even greater responsibility to stare down the money and power that entrenched entities carry and force change. At this point in our development as a democracy and development it is a reality not an ideology, academic and useful that we utilize the tools we have to lead. In America, public policy that advocates for issues like clean air and energy conservation through economic growth, efficiency and productivity is what really makes us great. This is the responsibility of our elected officials and business leaders. The world looks to us for global leadership that is what hegemony is all about. This is how we develop, grow and prosper.
Recent financial market related events serve as an appendix to this post in that appropriate regulation of financial instruments like derivatives could have helped us avoid this mess. There is a difference between ideology and prudence and if our elected officials could come to a better understanding of this we all will be better off. It is worth pointing out that in this time of financial crisis the world still looks to the US and US treasury bonds in particular as a safe deposit.
No comments:
Post a Comment