The Ultimate Game of Life
Every day, most people go through life on a human-version of auto-pilot - bored with their jobs, stuck in routines and without real control over their lives, relationships and success.
But what if you could change that quickly and start putting yourself on a track that will literally pull you in the direction of your goals and greater happiness, health and wealth?
That's what The Ultimate Game of Life is all about. We like to think of it as the game with the ultimate reward.
With the support of coaches and a team-like community, The Ultimate Game of Life provides players with a unique and effective game-like
Monday, October 4, 2010
Who's business is it anyway?
Say goodbye to off-the-shelf accountancy.
Sage & Company has the same focus now as when it was formed in 1920s: to help you achieve your financial goals and business priorities, on your terms.
So what are your aspirations?
Business growth? Acquisition? Disposal? Expansion? Retirement? Efficient payroll? Tax reduction? Inheritance planning? Management accounting?
Tell us where you want to be and let eight decades of expertise help you achieve your ambitions.
Sage & Company has the same focus now as when it was formed in 1920s: to help you achieve your financial goals and business priorities, on your terms.
So what are your aspirations?
Business growth? Acquisition? Disposal? Expansion? Retirement? Efficient payroll? Tax reduction? Inheritance planning? Management accounting?
Tell us where you want to be and let eight decades of expertise help you achieve your ambitions.
The man who invented the cash machine
"They're clever scoundrels," fumes John Shepherd-Barron at his remote farmhouse in northern Scotland. He is referring to the seals which are raiding his salmon farm and stealing fish.
John Shepherd-Barron
John Shepherd-Barron's cash machine first appeared in 1967
Inventor's memories
"I invented a device to scare them off by playing the sound of killer whales, but it's ended up only attracting them more."
But failure with this device is in contrast to the success of his first and greatest invention: the cash machine.
The world's first ATM was installed in a branch of Barclays in Enfield, north London, 40 years ago this week.
Reg Varney, from the television series On the Buses, was the first to withdraw cash.
Inspiration had struck Mr Shepherd-Barron, now 82, while he was in the bath.
"It struck me there must be a way I could get my own money, anywhere in the world or the UK. I hit upon the idea of a chocolate bar dispenser, but replacing chocolate with cash."
Barclays was convinced immediately. Over a pink gin, the then chief executive signed a hurried contract with Mr Shepherd-Barron, who at the time worked for the printing firm De La Rue.
Teething troubles
Plastic cards had not been invented, so Mr Shepherd-Barron's machine used cheques that were impregnated with carbon 14, a mildly radioactive substance.
The machine detected it, then matched the cheque against a Pin number.
Reg Varney withdraws cash
Reg Varney was the first to use an ATM
However, Mr Shepherd-Barron denies there were any health concerns: "I later worked out you would have to eat 136,000 such cheques for it to have any effect on you."
The machine paid out a maximum of £10 a time.
"But that was regarded then as quite enough for a wild weekend," he says.
To start with, not everything went smoothly. The first machines were vandalised, and one that was installed in Zurich in Switzerland began to malfunction mysteriously.
It was later discovered that the wires from two intersecting tramlines nearby were sparking and interfering with the mechanism.
One by-product of inventing the first cash machine was the concept of the Pin number.
Mr Shepherd-Barron came up with the idea when he realised that he could remember his six-figure army number. But he decided to check that with his wife, Caroline.
"Over the kitchen table, she said she could only remember four figures, so because of her, four figures became the world standard," he laughs.
End of cash?
Customers using the cash machine at Barclays in Enfield High Street are mostly unaware of its historical significance.
A small plaque was placed there on the 25th anniversary, but few people notice it. Given that there are now more than 1.6 million cash machines worldwide, it is a classic case of British understatement.
Plaque at Barclays in Enfield commemorating the first ATM
The plaque at the site of the first ATM goes unnoticed by many
Mr Shepherd-Barron says he and his wife realised the importance of his invention only when they visited Chiang Mai in northern Thailand.
They watched a farmer arriving on a bullock cart, who removed his wide-brimmed hat to use the cash machine.
"It was the first evidence to me that we'd changed the world," he says.
But even though he invented the machine, Mr Shepherd-Barron believes its use in future will be very different. He predicts that our society will no longer be using cash within a few years.
"Money costs money to transport. I am therefore predicting the demise of cash within three to five years."
He believes fervently that we will soon be swiping our mobile phones at till points, even for small transactions.
At 82, Mr Shepherd-Barron is very much alive to new ideas and inventions - even though his device that plays killer whale noises still needs a little bit of tinkering.
John Shepherd-Barron
John Shepherd-Barron's cash machine first appeared in 1967
Inventor's memories
"I invented a device to scare them off by playing the sound of killer whales, but it's ended up only attracting them more."
But failure with this device is in contrast to the success of his first and greatest invention: the cash machine.
The world's first ATM was installed in a branch of Barclays in Enfield, north London, 40 years ago this week.
Reg Varney, from the television series On the Buses, was the first to withdraw cash.
Inspiration had struck Mr Shepherd-Barron, now 82, while he was in the bath.
"It struck me there must be a way I could get my own money, anywhere in the world or the UK. I hit upon the idea of a chocolate bar dispenser, but replacing chocolate with cash."
Barclays was convinced immediately. Over a pink gin, the then chief executive signed a hurried contract with Mr Shepherd-Barron, who at the time worked for the printing firm De La Rue.
Teething troubles
Plastic cards had not been invented, so Mr Shepherd-Barron's machine used cheques that were impregnated with carbon 14, a mildly radioactive substance.
The machine detected it, then matched the cheque against a Pin number.
Reg Varney withdraws cash
Reg Varney was the first to use an ATM
However, Mr Shepherd-Barron denies there were any health concerns: "I later worked out you would have to eat 136,000 such cheques for it to have any effect on you."
The machine paid out a maximum of £10 a time.
"But that was regarded then as quite enough for a wild weekend," he says.
To start with, not everything went smoothly. The first machines were vandalised, and one that was installed in Zurich in Switzerland began to malfunction mysteriously.
It was later discovered that the wires from two intersecting tramlines nearby were sparking and interfering with the mechanism.
One by-product of inventing the first cash machine was the concept of the Pin number.
Mr Shepherd-Barron came up with the idea when he realised that he could remember his six-figure army number. But he decided to check that with his wife, Caroline.
"Over the kitchen table, she said she could only remember four figures, so because of her, four figures became the world standard," he laughs.
End of cash?
Customers using the cash machine at Barclays in Enfield High Street are mostly unaware of its historical significance.
A small plaque was placed there on the 25th anniversary, but few people notice it. Given that there are now more than 1.6 million cash machines worldwide, it is a classic case of British understatement.
Plaque at Barclays in Enfield commemorating the first ATM
The plaque at the site of the first ATM goes unnoticed by many
Mr Shepherd-Barron says he and his wife realised the importance of his invention only when they visited Chiang Mai in northern Thailand.
They watched a farmer arriving on a bullock cart, who removed his wide-brimmed hat to use the cash machine.
"It was the first evidence to me that we'd changed the world," he says.
But even though he invented the machine, Mr Shepherd-Barron believes its use in future will be very different. He predicts that our society will no longer be using cash within a few years.
"Money costs money to transport. I am therefore predicting the demise of cash within three to five years."
He believes fervently that we will soon be swiping our mobile phones at till points, even for small transactions.
At 82, Mr Shepherd-Barron is very much alive to new ideas and inventions - even though his device that plays killer whale noises still needs a little bit of tinkering.
Floating Funds… Fun for who?
So big corporations withhold money from each of their employees checks for taxes. They find some way to pay the money to government either quarterly or in one lump sum at the end of the year. So what happens with the money while it’s waiting to be paid for the taxes it was drawn for?
Chances are pretty good the money is being re-invested some type of maretable security making 10-12%. I’d imagine that some corporations give a share of it back in the form of a Christmas or performance bonus, or maybe they use it to fund their 401K and other benefit packages. I bet that a lot of places with low paying labor, (Fastfood joints, janitorial companies etc. simply keep it).
I’d be interested to see what really happens to that money.
Chances are pretty good the money is being re-invested some type of maretable security making 10-12%. I’d imagine that some corporations give a share of it back in the form of a Christmas or performance bonus, or maybe they use it to fund their 401K and other benefit packages. I bet that a lot of places with low paying labor, (Fastfood joints, janitorial companies etc. simply keep it).
I’d be interested to see what really happens to that money.
Business as usual for smoke-free places
Nearly two years after Ireland became one of the first countries to strictly enforce a comprehensive ban on smoking in indoor public places, including bars, cafes and restaurants, more countries are taking tough — and not-so-tough — action against passive smoking.
For Ireland's smokless pubs, it's business as usual.
Sheila Stanley
For Ireland's smokless pubs, it's business as usual.
A few weeks before the ban came into force in Ireland, Dublin banker Jimmy Fogarty asked the barman at his local pub: “What are you going to do when the ban comes in?” “Breathe,” the barman replied.
The ban has since been embraced — albeit reluctantly — by Ireland’s hospitality industry though wholeheartedly by staff working in the sector. However, some studies have shown to be unfounded industry representatives’ fears that business would dip.
A study partially funded by Ireland’s Office of Tobacco Control (OTC) that was published in the Irish Journal of Medical Science in July reported that the number of customers in 38 Dublin public houses had increased by 11% since the ban. Predictably, tobacco industry-sponsored studies say otherwise. But for publicans and clients, it’s still business as usual.
At Mulligans pub in the centre of Dublin, manager Gary Cusack said that the number of clients dipped during the first three months after the ban, but soon picked up to the usual levels after that: “As for our staff, they’re delighted, as the work environment is a lot healthier now.”
Mulligans is one of the many pubs that created an outdoor area to keep smokers happy and now welcomes a new clientele: families with children.
The Irish ban, which came into force in March 2004, was not so much to encourage people like Fogarty to give up smoking, but to protect people like his barman, according to Nigel Fox, an OTC spokesman.
"As for our staff, they’re delighted, as the work environment is a lot healthier now."
Gary Cusack, manager of Dublin pub, Mulligans.
According to OTC statistics, there has been a slight reduction in the proportion of the population that smokes since the ban, from 25.5% in March 2004 to 24% in June 2006. An OTC study published in November 2005 showed a decline in exposure to second-hand smoke and a decline in respiratory symptoms in non-smoking bar staff in pubs.
The tough measures were taken after Ireland signed up to WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the world’s first legally binding public health accord, in September 2003. It was not the first to be tough on smoking.
Singapore introduced laws restricting smoking in public places and prohibiting tobacco advertisements in the 1970s. In 1986, the Ministry of Health launched a programme for smoking control, with the motto: “Towards a Nation of Non-Smokers”.
Bans have been strictly enforced in two US states: California (1998) and New York (2003). New South Wales in Australia banned smoking in public places in 2000.
But since the treaty’s adoption, the number of countries taking tough action has grown fast. As of November 2006, 139 plus the European Union bloc of 25 countries had become parties to the treaty. These countries are required to impose a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship within five years. The treaty requires parties to adopt and implement effective legislative and other measures providing for protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in public places.
Failure to comply with the Convention’s terms can expose countries and individuals in those countries to potentially costly criminal or civil legal action.
In 2001, Israel became one of the first countries to impose a ban on smoking in public places, but enforcement has been weak. This year Israel, as party to the WHO Framework Convention, became one of the first countries to see successful legal action based on the treaty, when a pregnant woman sued a restaurant owner for allowing smoking.
"The scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke."
Dr Armando Peruga, the WHO Tobacco-Free Initiative’s Acting Coordinator for National Capacity Building.
The list of countries with smoking bans in public places is growing. But facing pressure to enact weaker prohibitions, some have imposed only partial bans that allow smoking in limited circumstances in bars, cafes and restaurants.
In the UK, a comprehensive ban was agreed upon after a lengthy debate over whether smoking should be allowed in private members clubs and in pubs that don’t serve food, and will be in place across the country by summer 2007. In France, the debate is still raging over the list of public places where smoking should not be allowed.
In Spain, a partial ban allows bars, cafes and restaurants with a surface area of less than 100 square metres to choose whether to go smoke-free or not, while those larger are obliged to provide an INDOOR smoke-free section.
There have also been problems with implementing the ban in restaurants, cafes and bars, according to Dr Armando Peruga, the WHO Tobacco-Free Initiative’s Acting Coordinator for National Capacity Building. These implementation problems are due to uneven enforcement, as regional governments have wavered between being lax and strict.
Smoking bans are not just the preserve of the wealthy nations: several developing countries are joining the club. Thailand has some of Asia’s strictest anti-smoking laws. In Uruguay, a new law banning smoking in public places was pushed through by the country’s president, oncologist Tabaré Vázquez. Uganda pushed a ban through too, despite tobacco farming interests in that north-west of the country, and Rwanda has also implemented a ban on indoor smoking in public places.
The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan is the only country to date that has banned the sale of tobacco products altogether. However, Peruga said that other countries need to reduce demand first by banning smoking in public places and making it socially unacceptable because an all-out ban risks creating a black market for tobacco products.
Wealthy industrialized countries have long campaigned against tobacco to protect people’s health. To compensate for shrinking markets in affluent countries, the tobacco industry has turned its sights to Asia, eastern Europe, and countries of the former Soviet Union to promote their products and undermine tobacco-control efforts.
The antics of the fictional tobacco industry lobbyist Nick Naylor in the movie Thank You for Smoking have been described as tame compared to real life. In reality, the industry has used its wealth to influence politicians to create favourable environments for industry efforts to promote smoking.
The tobacco industry has formed alliances with the hospitality industry, arguing that establishments will lose customers if they do not allow smoking in restaurants, cafes and bars. Tobacco interests have sponsored restaurant owners’ associations as front groups to campaign against the ban on smoke-free public places. The industry does this despite the growing body of evidence that smoking is harmful not just to smokers’ health, but secondary smokers as well.
Previously secret British American Tobacco company documents showed that the company considered investing in a £2.25m ($4.2m) action film with a heroine who smoked, for distribution in Europe as part of an aggressive marketing campaign, according to an article published in the European Journal of Public Health in May.
The tobacco industry is also trying to penetrate markets in developing countries that, unlike many developed countries, lack strong public health campaigns and anti-smoking measures. In Uzbekistan, it successfully lobbied for the replacement of the advertising ban, required for countries that sign up to the treaty, with an industry-led “voluntary practice code”. In Mexico, tobacco interests obtained immunity from future taxation and maintained a voluntary code of advertising practice in exchange for donations to the public medical insurance fund.
Facing the prospect of falling demand, the tobacco industry has started promoting non-smoke products, such as snuff and chewing tobacco, and promoted the use of ventilators systems as an alternative to smoke-free environments. The latter measure has found favour in Belgium where a partial ban allows smoking in bars and cafes with ventilation and an area for non-smokers.
However, citing a 2004 study by the American Society of Heating and Air Conditioning Engineering, WHO’s Peruga said that ventilators need “the force of a hurricane” to reduce the concentration of toxins from tobacco smoke to a safe level because “the scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.”
For Ireland's smokless pubs, it's business as usual.
Sheila Stanley
For Ireland's smokless pubs, it's business as usual.
A few weeks before the ban came into force in Ireland, Dublin banker Jimmy Fogarty asked the barman at his local pub: “What are you going to do when the ban comes in?” “Breathe,” the barman replied.
The ban has since been embraced — albeit reluctantly — by Ireland’s hospitality industry though wholeheartedly by staff working in the sector. However, some studies have shown to be unfounded industry representatives’ fears that business would dip.
A study partially funded by Ireland’s Office of Tobacco Control (OTC) that was published in the Irish Journal of Medical Science in July reported that the number of customers in 38 Dublin public houses had increased by 11% since the ban. Predictably, tobacco industry-sponsored studies say otherwise. But for publicans and clients, it’s still business as usual.
At Mulligans pub in the centre of Dublin, manager Gary Cusack said that the number of clients dipped during the first three months after the ban, but soon picked up to the usual levels after that: “As for our staff, they’re delighted, as the work environment is a lot healthier now.”
Mulligans is one of the many pubs that created an outdoor area to keep smokers happy and now welcomes a new clientele: families with children.
The Irish ban, which came into force in March 2004, was not so much to encourage people like Fogarty to give up smoking, but to protect people like his barman, according to Nigel Fox, an OTC spokesman.
"As for our staff, they’re delighted, as the work environment is a lot healthier now."
Gary Cusack, manager of Dublin pub, Mulligans.
According to OTC statistics, there has been a slight reduction in the proportion of the population that smokes since the ban, from 25.5% in March 2004 to 24% in June 2006. An OTC study published in November 2005 showed a decline in exposure to second-hand smoke and a decline in respiratory symptoms in non-smoking bar staff in pubs.
The tough measures were taken after Ireland signed up to WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the world’s first legally binding public health accord, in September 2003. It was not the first to be tough on smoking.
Singapore introduced laws restricting smoking in public places and prohibiting tobacco advertisements in the 1970s. In 1986, the Ministry of Health launched a programme for smoking control, with the motto: “Towards a Nation of Non-Smokers”.
Bans have been strictly enforced in two US states: California (1998) and New York (2003). New South Wales in Australia banned smoking in public places in 2000.
But since the treaty’s adoption, the number of countries taking tough action has grown fast. As of November 2006, 139 plus the European Union bloc of 25 countries had become parties to the treaty. These countries are required to impose a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship within five years. The treaty requires parties to adopt and implement effective legislative and other measures providing for protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in public places.
Failure to comply with the Convention’s terms can expose countries and individuals in those countries to potentially costly criminal or civil legal action.
In 2001, Israel became one of the first countries to impose a ban on smoking in public places, but enforcement has been weak. This year Israel, as party to the WHO Framework Convention, became one of the first countries to see successful legal action based on the treaty, when a pregnant woman sued a restaurant owner for allowing smoking.
"The scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke."
Dr Armando Peruga, the WHO Tobacco-Free Initiative’s Acting Coordinator for National Capacity Building.
The list of countries with smoking bans in public places is growing. But facing pressure to enact weaker prohibitions, some have imposed only partial bans that allow smoking in limited circumstances in bars, cafes and restaurants.
In the UK, a comprehensive ban was agreed upon after a lengthy debate over whether smoking should be allowed in private members clubs and in pubs that don’t serve food, and will be in place across the country by summer 2007. In France, the debate is still raging over the list of public places where smoking should not be allowed.
In Spain, a partial ban allows bars, cafes and restaurants with a surface area of less than 100 square metres to choose whether to go smoke-free or not, while those larger are obliged to provide an INDOOR smoke-free section.
There have also been problems with implementing the ban in restaurants, cafes and bars, according to Dr Armando Peruga, the WHO Tobacco-Free Initiative’s Acting Coordinator for National Capacity Building. These implementation problems are due to uneven enforcement, as regional governments have wavered between being lax and strict.
Smoking bans are not just the preserve of the wealthy nations: several developing countries are joining the club. Thailand has some of Asia’s strictest anti-smoking laws. In Uruguay, a new law banning smoking in public places was pushed through by the country’s president, oncologist Tabaré Vázquez. Uganda pushed a ban through too, despite tobacco farming interests in that north-west of the country, and Rwanda has also implemented a ban on indoor smoking in public places.
The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan is the only country to date that has banned the sale of tobacco products altogether. However, Peruga said that other countries need to reduce demand first by banning smoking in public places and making it socially unacceptable because an all-out ban risks creating a black market for tobacco products.
Wealthy industrialized countries have long campaigned against tobacco to protect people’s health. To compensate for shrinking markets in affluent countries, the tobacco industry has turned its sights to Asia, eastern Europe, and countries of the former Soviet Union to promote their products and undermine tobacco-control efforts.
The antics of the fictional tobacco industry lobbyist Nick Naylor in the movie Thank You for Smoking have been described as tame compared to real life. In reality, the industry has used its wealth to influence politicians to create favourable environments for industry efforts to promote smoking.
The tobacco industry has formed alliances with the hospitality industry, arguing that establishments will lose customers if they do not allow smoking in restaurants, cafes and bars. Tobacco interests have sponsored restaurant owners’ associations as front groups to campaign against the ban on smoke-free public places. The industry does this despite the growing body of evidence that smoking is harmful not just to smokers’ health, but secondary smokers as well.
Previously secret British American Tobacco company documents showed that the company considered investing in a £2.25m ($4.2m) action film with a heroine who smoked, for distribution in Europe as part of an aggressive marketing campaign, according to an article published in the European Journal of Public Health in May.
The tobacco industry is also trying to penetrate markets in developing countries that, unlike many developed countries, lack strong public health campaigns and anti-smoking measures. In Uzbekistan, it successfully lobbied for the replacement of the advertising ban, required for countries that sign up to the treaty, with an industry-led “voluntary practice code”. In Mexico, tobacco interests obtained immunity from future taxation and maintained a voluntary code of advertising practice in exchange for donations to the public medical insurance fund.
Facing the prospect of falling demand, the tobacco industry has started promoting non-smoke products, such as snuff and chewing tobacco, and promoted the use of ventilators systems as an alternative to smoke-free environments. The latter measure has found favour in Belgium where a partial ban allows smoking in bars and cafes with ventilation and an area for non-smokers.
However, citing a 2004 study by the American Society of Heating and Air Conditioning Engineering, WHO’s Peruga said that ventilators need “the force of a hurricane” to reduce the concentration of toxins from tobacco smoke to a safe level because “the scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.”
FORTUNE cover story: Business Loves Hillary: Who business is betting on
Who business is betting on
In a wide-open race, candidates are scrambling to get CEO endorsements. Our exclusive Fortune survey goes behind the scenes from Wall Street to Silicon Valley to find surprising alliances and discover how they were forged.
By Nina Easton, Fortune Washington bureau chief
June 25 2007
....Multiply that effort (Hillary Clinton's successful bid for the support of Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack) many times over, and you can understand why the safe to swim signs are sprouting up all over Clinton Inc. Yet she is not the only Democrat to achieve surprising success in a realm traditionally taken for granted by Republicans. Her leading Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, has made forays into Wall Street and Hollywood to nab business support. He, too, has found admirers among top Republicans, most notably John Canning Jr., CEO of Chicago private-equity firm Madison Dearborn (see First). For their part, top GOP candidates like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney have lined up a small army of pinstriped pitchmen. But what's different this time is that CEOs are up for grabs on both sides. A Fortune survey of where business leaders are lining up in the 2008 race, based on dozens of interviews with top executives, reveals a concerted push by Democratic candidates to secure the blessing of big business while they continue to take their swipes at corporate America on behalf of the little guy. Even at this early stage of the primary race, the business endorsements of Clinton alone rival - in size, scope, and prestige the list of CEOs publicly supporting the Kerry - Edwards ticket in the 2004 general election. The more than 150 top executives who have raised money for Clinton represent such brand names as Anheuser-Busch, Comcast, Estée Lauder, Palm, Sun Microsystems, and Qualcomm. Venture capitalist James D. Robinson III, the former CEO of American Express and a longtime Republican, told Fortune he now supports Clinton for President, citing her "breadth of experience, especially on the international level, which is critical for going forward."
A difficult war tests loyalties among business leaders, just as it does among other voters, who increasingly identify themselves as Democrats. But Iraq is only one factor behind this year's wide-open race for business support. With the scandals of the early part of the decade behind them, corporate leaders are once again emerging as opinion leaders - not only speaking out on such issues as health care, taxes, and the environment, but calling for government action. "This has been an important period for businesses of all sizes," Clinton told Fortune. "They really can't control health-care costs." And Clinton's Senate tenure has been a significant antidote to her controversial stint as a First Lady proposing health-care reform, which critics decried as an attempt to nationalize medicine. "There has been a real opportunity to know me and work with me," she says, "and to develop personal friendships."
Not to be discounted is that corporate America likes to bet on winners. Coming on the heels of the Democratic takeover of Congress, the party has a real shot at winning the White House. For Republican candidates, a sour political environment is only the beginning of the battle. With several strong candidates and no clear front-runner, a business community that largely united behind George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 is now more fractured, with most major Bush donors still sitting on the sidelines. "Even in 2000, Bush was the presumptive nominee," notes longtime GOP fundraiser and Thayer Capital chairman Fred Malek. "Signing up with Bush was a no-brainer."
Business leaders can provide added heft to a candidate's fundraising efforts - the major candidates are expected to raise a record $1.4 billion in this race - but they also help a candidate's image branding. Democrat John Edwards, who offers sharp-edged populism, is a tougher sell to business. But Clinton and Obama view CEO support as a key part of their crossover appeal. A roster of business endorsements "says to voters that you'll be strong on the economy," says Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe. Most of the top-tier candidates - Republican and Democrat have made pilgrimages to the Business Roundtable's offices in Washington to pitch some 60 CEOs at a time...
In a wide-open race, candidates are scrambling to get CEO endorsements. Our exclusive Fortune survey goes behind the scenes from Wall Street to Silicon Valley to find surprising alliances and discover how they were forged.
By Nina Easton, Fortune Washington bureau chief
June 25 2007
....Multiply that effort (Hillary Clinton's successful bid for the support of Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack) many times over, and you can understand why the safe to swim signs are sprouting up all over Clinton Inc. Yet she is not the only Democrat to achieve surprising success in a realm traditionally taken for granted by Republicans. Her leading Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, has made forays into Wall Street and Hollywood to nab business support. He, too, has found admirers among top Republicans, most notably John Canning Jr., CEO of Chicago private-equity firm Madison Dearborn (see First). For their part, top GOP candidates like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney have lined up a small army of pinstriped pitchmen. But what's different this time is that CEOs are up for grabs on both sides. A Fortune survey of where business leaders are lining up in the 2008 race, based on dozens of interviews with top executives, reveals a concerted push by Democratic candidates to secure the blessing of big business while they continue to take their swipes at corporate America on behalf of the little guy. Even at this early stage of the primary race, the business endorsements of Clinton alone rival - in size, scope, and prestige the list of CEOs publicly supporting the Kerry - Edwards ticket in the 2004 general election. The more than 150 top executives who have raised money for Clinton represent such brand names as Anheuser-Busch, Comcast, Estée Lauder, Palm, Sun Microsystems, and Qualcomm. Venture capitalist James D. Robinson III, the former CEO of American Express and a longtime Republican, told Fortune he now supports Clinton for President, citing her "breadth of experience, especially on the international level, which is critical for going forward."
A difficult war tests loyalties among business leaders, just as it does among other voters, who increasingly identify themselves as Democrats. But Iraq is only one factor behind this year's wide-open race for business support. With the scandals of the early part of the decade behind them, corporate leaders are once again emerging as opinion leaders - not only speaking out on such issues as health care, taxes, and the environment, but calling for government action. "This has been an important period for businesses of all sizes," Clinton told Fortune. "They really can't control health-care costs." And Clinton's Senate tenure has been a significant antidote to her controversial stint as a First Lady proposing health-care reform, which critics decried as an attempt to nationalize medicine. "There has been a real opportunity to know me and work with me," she says, "and to develop personal friendships."
Not to be discounted is that corporate America likes to bet on winners. Coming on the heels of the Democratic takeover of Congress, the party has a real shot at winning the White House. For Republican candidates, a sour political environment is only the beginning of the battle. With several strong candidates and no clear front-runner, a business community that largely united behind George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 is now more fractured, with most major Bush donors still sitting on the sidelines. "Even in 2000, Bush was the presumptive nominee," notes longtime GOP fundraiser and Thayer Capital chairman Fred Malek. "Signing up with Bush was a no-brainer."
Business leaders can provide added heft to a candidate's fundraising efforts - the major candidates are expected to raise a record $1.4 billion in this race - but they also help a candidate's image branding. Democrat John Edwards, who offers sharp-edged populism, is a tougher sell to business. But Clinton and Obama view CEO support as a key part of their crossover appeal. A roster of business endorsements "says to voters that you'll be strong on the economy," says Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe. Most of the top-tier candidates - Republican and Democrat have made pilgrimages to the Business Roundtable's offices in Washington to pitch some 60 CEOs at a time...
CHINA’S CURRENCY IS WHO’S BUSINESS AGAIN? NOT OURS!
I not sure what this means but here I am again disagreeing with Paul Krugman. Prof. Krugman argues in the New York Times that we must act to stop the People’s Republic of China from undervaluing its currency:
For the truth is that U.S. policy makers have been incredibly, infuriatingly passive in the face of China’s bad behavior — especially because taking on China is one of the few policy options for tackling unemployment available to the Obama administration, given Republican obstructionism on everything else. The Levin bill probably won’t change that passivity. But it will, at least, start to build a fire under policy makers, bringing us closer to the day when, at long last, they are ready to act.
I suggest that the Chinese currency issue is none of our business. Who gives us the right to decide what some other country can do with its currency? We have debased our currency since 1913 with the Federal Reserve/fiat currency policies? Should some other nation threaten us with sanctions if we do not adopt the gold standard? That is what the Levin resolution does:
The legislation before us today clarifies that countervailing duties can be imposed to offset the effects of an undervalued currency. Countervailing duties would be available to any U.S. industry that could demonstrate that it has been ‘materially injured’ by imports from the country with the undervalued currency.
It gets worse; we invoke the WTO to force Red China to act:
“WTO rules allow for the application of countervailing duties to offset or neutralize export subsidies. To date, Commerce has refused to find currency manipulation a countervailable export subsidy, for the sole reason that non-exporters (e.g., U.S. tourists in China) benefit from the undervalued currency as well. This is more restrictive and is at odds with WTO Appellate Body rulings that a subsidy can be considered an export subsidy even if it is available in some circumstances that do not involve export.
* * *
“Some argue against action for fear of retaliation by China. Such retaliation itself would be inconsistent with the rules of the WTO. WTO inconsistent retaliation is not a reason to delay pursuit of WTO consistent action.”
I am appalled; we are threatening another nation with a international agency on a matter of internal sovereignty. This is outrageous. We would be outraged if the EU used the WTO to interfere in an internal matter. It has already occurred: The Byrd amendment was an attempt to bring compensation for dumping and subsidies to those hurt by the trade abuse; the EU got the WTO to reject it. Read this press release from the EU (Remember – the EU is NOT our friend!) and ask yourselves what we should do.
That means that distribution of collected anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties to US companies will continue and distort the conditions of competition on the US market at the expense of imported goods for an undetermined number of years. * * * The EU will now carefully review the details of the compromise reached in Congress and its implications for EU companies. In so doing, the EU will work in close coordination with the other complainants.
We should withdraw from the WTO immediately and stop forcing other nations to change internal policies. Let’s instead stand for national sovereignty and set an example for others to follow if they choose to do so!
For the truth is that U.S. policy makers have been incredibly, infuriatingly passive in the face of China’s bad behavior — especially because taking on China is one of the few policy options for tackling unemployment available to the Obama administration, given Republican obstructionism on everything else. The Levin bill probably won’t change that passivity. But it will, at least, start to build a fire under policy makers, bringing us closer to the day when, at long last, they are ready to act.
I suggest that the Chinese currency issue is none of our business. Who gives us the right to decide what some other country can do with its currency? We have debased our currency since 1913 with the Federal Reserve/fiat currency policies? Should some other nation threaten us with sanctions if we do not adopt the gold standard? That is what the Levin resolution does:
The legislation before us today clarifies that countervailing duties can be imposed to offset the effects of an undervalued currency. Countervailing duties would be available to any U.S. industry that could demonstrate that it has been ‘materially injured’ by imports from the country with the undervalued currency.
It gets worse; we invoke the WTO to force Red China to act:
“WTO rules allow for the application of countervailing duties to offset or neutralize export subsidies. To date, Commerce has refused to find currency manipulation a countervailable export subsidy, for the sole reason that non-exporters (e.g., U.S. tourists in China) benefit from the undervalued currency as well. This is more restrictive and is at odds with WTO Appellate Body rulings that a subsidy can be considered an export subsidy even if it is available in some circumstances that do not involve export.
* * *
“Some argue against action for fear of retaliation by China. Such retaliation itself would be inconsistent with the rules of the WTO. WTO inconsistent retaliation is not a reason to delay pursuit of WTO consistent action.”
I am appalled; we are threatening another nation with a international agency on a matter of internal sovereignty. This is outrageous. We would be outraged if the EU used the WTO to interfere in an internal matter. It has already occurred: The Byrd amendment was an attempt to bring compensation for dumping and subsidies to those hurt by the trade abuse; the EU got the WTO to reject it. Read this press release from the EU (Remember – the EU is NOT our friend!) and ask yourselves what we should do.
That means that distribution of collected anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties to US companies will continue and distort the conditions of competition on the US market at the expense of imported goods for an undetermined number of years. * * * The EU will now carefully review the details of the compromise reached in Congress and its implications for EU companies. In so doing, the EU will work in close coordination with the other complainants.
We should withdraw from the WTO immediately and stop forcing other nations to change internal policies. Let’s instead stand for national sovereignty and set an example for others to follow if they choose to do so!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
