I can't help but point out how ignorant most Americans are about
economics. This ignorance has been revealed in recent polls, where people
say "Look what the president has done for the economy." The inference is
that. . .the President is responsible for the condition of the economy.
Duh? What about the Federal Reserve, legislation passed by congress, and
laws enacted and enforced at the state and local level? Then add to it
the interplay between our economy and those of other nations, and you end
up with such a intensley interconnected entity -- the economy -- that you
can't really blame or credit any one person with its condition!
But there are a number of observations that for me make a good starting
point in learning from the global economy:
1- Those nations that have some form of democracy, generally have a
healthier economy.
2- Those nations that have learned to balance national regulations with
corporate and personal creativity are doing even better.
3- Those nations who are "too successful" will -- and are -- get
criticized by those not doing so well.
4- Those that aren't doing so well think it is the responsibility of those
who are to take care of their problems.
This is a pattern of behavior I see at nearly every level of human
interaction -- economic, corporate, domestic, and community.
Those who understand and take advantage of the freedom to make choices,
will inevitably do better than those who feel boxed in or bereft of
choices (regardless of whether the lack of freedom is imposed or
imagined). Those who learn to "control" their freedom by responsible
action, will move passed survival and learn to thrive. Those who don't
learn to thrive will get angry with those who have. And statistically
there are more who don't learn to thrive than those who do, so the
majority will gang up on the minority and demand that the minority take
care of them.
Think about it.
How many people in your organization really "thrive" or do such an
excellent job that there is a very noticeable difference between them and
everyone else? How many are surviving but not thriving? How many are
barely surviving? The bell-curve is well and good. . .
And so this raises a lot of really important issues for corporate
governance, for social governance, and for economic development.
How much should those who thrive be expected to help those who are
struggling? How much should the survivors be expected to help those who
struggle? What would the impact of those choices be on the longevity of
the entity (organization, nation, world economy, ect.)?
-- Benjamin Compton bbc_rc@hotmail.comLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>