Category Archives: Economics

Federalist No. 30

In Federalist No. 30, Hamilton addresses the issue of taxation.

In this essay, Hamilton makes it clear that there must be interwoven, in the frame of the government, a general power of taxation, in one shape or another. After all, money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions.

Hamilton also argues that the ends of public happiness will be promoted by supplying the wants of government, and all beyond this is unworthy of our care or anxiety. To support this position, he asks how is it possible that a government half supplied and always necessitous,
can fulfill the purposes of its institution, can provide for the security, advance the prosperity, or support the reputation of the commonwealth? How can it ever possess either energy or stability, dignity or credit, confidence at home or respectability abroad? How can its administration be any thing else than a succession of expedients temporizing, impotent, disgraceful? How will it be able to avoid a frequent sacrifice of its engagements to immediate necessity? How can it undertake or execute any liberal or enlarged plans of public good? In other words, a government must be adequately funded to do its job.

The power of creating new funds upon new objects of taxation, by its own authority, would enable the national government to borrow as far as its necessities might require and take the actions necessary to maintain, and defend, the Union.

Federalist No. 13

In Federalist No. 13, after addressing the utility of the union in respect to commercial relations and a navy in Federalist No. 11 and the utility of the union in respect to revenue, Hamilton then approaches the broader subject of the advantage of the union in respect to economy in government. Since we all want a more economical government, this is definitely one of the series’ must reads.

Hamilton starts off by noting that, if we have an efficient government, the money saved from one object may be usefully applied to another, and there will be so much the less to be drawn from the pockets of the people. Is it just me, or have governments around the world forgotten this? Let’s look at North America. Every state and province has their own Department of Motor Vehicles, and every state and province issues their own licenses. And while this is probably as it should be, they all use their own, custom, systems instead of using one, common, system (or at least one system that uses the same APIs and same protocols) so they need to do extra work to get driver history data from drivers who move into the state or province. In addition, many are not able to automatically suck the basic information of the individual in from a Federal database, and we have a duplication of data that leads to propagation of errors. One system, individually administered by each state, would be much more efficient. As prove, look at multi-tenant SaaS, which is gaining traction in enterprise software. Every improvement is able to be immediately leveraged by all for one development cost. But I digress, back to one of Hamilton’s key points:

If the States are united under one government, there will be but one national civil list to support; if they are divided into several
confederacies, there will be as many different national civil lists to be provided for. The whole point of a union is strength and efficiency. Since it is true that when the dimensions of a State attain to a certain magnitude, it requires the same energy of government and the same forms of administration which are requisite in one of much greater extent, efficiency can only increase with size and scale (provided such size and scale is properly administered). The advantage of civil power is that properly organized and exerted, [it] is capable of diffusing its force to a very great extent; and can, in a manner, reproduce itself
in every part of a great empire by a judicious arrangement of subordinate institutions.

Hamilton’s final words deserve to be etched in stone:

If, in addition to the consideration of a plurality of civil lists, we take into view the number of persons who must necessarily be employed to guard the inland communication between the different confederacies against illicit trade, and who in time will infallibly spring up out of the necessities of revenue; and if we also take into view the military establishments which it has been shown would unavoidably result from the jealousies and conflicts of the several nations into which the States would be divided, we shall clearly discover that a separation would be not less injurious to the economy, than to the tranquillity, commerce, revenue, and liberty of every part.

Why The Republican “Trickle Down” Platform Won’t Fix the U.S. Economy

While a recent video uploaded to Youtube on Why Obama Now didn’t do the greatest job of explaining why you should vote for Obama, it did do a great job of why you shouldn’t vote for any republican who still believes that if you lower tax cuts for the rich, the “trickle down” effect will save the economy. This is one video worth checking out for that reason alone!

Another Reason Why China Will be #1 in GDP by 2021

As part of the 158B in infrastructure spend China recently unleashed, “China’s NRDC approved 25 urban rail transit project plans and feasibility studies in 1 day”. That’s a whole lotta transit. And they’re doing this at a time when the economy slows and growth stabilization becomes the top priority.

They may have spent much of the 20th century hiding behind a red curtain, but they have learned that if they want to again become the dominant economy (which they were uncontested from the beginning of the second millennia to about 1800, although the economy of Europe as a whole was about the same size as China from 1500 to 1800, which was still known as the Age of Chinese Dominance), they have to not only play in the global market, but invest at home to give themselves an edge. While we will spend decades bickering about the need for high-speed rail, they will identify the need and approve a feasibility study within the next five year plan at the latest. And if the feasibility study comes back positive, they’ll get it done. In comparison, California started talking about high-speed rail at least as early as 1996, when the California High Speed Rail Authority was established, did not decide to go for it until 2008, and did not approve the first phase until July of this year.

China realizes that if it is going to go head-to-head with the United States, it has to at least match the United States, if not exceed the United States, it in all of the metrics that matter, including education, R&D investment (to the tune of 2.2% of GDP), and infrastructure. And it’s doing that. It plans to meet its goals of 45,000 km of high-speed railway and 83,000 km of highway networks. The infrastructure will be able to move people and goods as efficiently in the interior as on the coasts, making most of China suitable for new factories and office parks. This will allow China to continue to dominate in global manufacturing and take on more back-office functions.

So when are we going to realize that if we want to maintain our lead a little longer, and push forward the date when India knocks down the USA to #3, that we are going to have to stop wasting money on ineffective broad-based buy-American stimulus programs and invest in infrastructure and R&D in an effort to at least keep pace with China?

To Solve the Talent Crisis, Think Different!

We have a talent crisis across the board in Supply Management and Supply Chain. We shouldn’t have a talent crisis, but because of continual short-sightedness in industry and government, we do.

And at this point I should probably end the post because by now the average person who stumbles upon this post is probably screaming that it’s not our fault, because we value talent, we have great education systems, and we’re trying hard to fix it, etc. etc., but it is our fault. Why?

Every year we rank talent in the top 3 issues. And every year, as our hopes and dreams that strong growth and stability will return get slashed by reality, the first thing we do is cut the training budget. And then, when we realize that there’s too much to do with too little people, we cut professional development time and ask people to work overtime on tactical tasks that add nothing to their skill set. And the cycle continues. So, in the corporate world, we cause our own chaos.

And then, when we have millions of people out of work, with thousands willing to retrain for better jobs, we limit unemployment benefits and make it almost impossible to get money for professional and degree programs. And I’m not just talking scholarships or sponsored training, I’m talking loans that many of these people would be willing to take, and carry for years, just for the opportunity to acquire a skill set that will see them working again. So the government is doing nothing to actually fix the situation. Governments have to guarantee loans for education and they have to subsidize living costs for workers who need retraining if their future earning benefits will limit the ability to repay very high loans. But that’s another issue for another post.

The point that needs to be harped on is that, as an industry, we’ve created our own mess, and we perpetuate it every day. As the job of Supply Manager gets more and more demanding, the response I’m seeing is “We need a talented, educated, skilled individual with a Masters Degree in Supply Management, who speaks three languages, has experience with MRP, ERP, and best-of-breed technologies, has sourcing expertise in three categories across five verticals, has managed 100 Million dollar projects, is trained in negotiation, etc. etc. etc.”. And, in the end, we have a set of requirements that maybe 6 people in the world can fill because ( a) it’s way too much for one person and ( b) the company has never bothered to train anyone internally with even half the skills it wants.

If a company instead took care to appropriately define a set of reasonable job descriptions that would cover all the necessary skills, and then identified internal candidates and trained them for those positions, they would have half the battle solved. Then, if instead of looking for someone for the role who had all of the skills, looked for someone who has the education and experience to quickly learn all of the skills with the mentorship of the people trained internally and a few focussed professional development courses, I’m convinced half of our talent crunch issues would magically disappear over night. (The logistics half would still be an issue because we have the image problem associated with warehouse and trucking jobs in this economy. Because we don’t view those jobs as highly important and an honour to hold, as the Mexicans do [which is why I’m okay with giving them our trucking jobs], convincing people to even consider those jobs will continue to be difficult.)

And then, as this recent article over on the HBR network on how workers with disabilities solved Gitanjali Gems’ talent problem, we never take the time to realize that someone else’s island of misfit toys might actually be filled with the resources we need to do the job. Now, I agree with Charles’ that Supply Management has traditionally been the island of misfit toys in an organization, and that is a big problem, but the reality is that if someone is skilled in X when organization Z needs Y, that person will be a misfit toy in organization Z. The best candidates for a Supply Management job are often people in engineering, high tech, medicine, (bio) chemistry, etc. who know the details of the category that need to be sourced, and the challenges that are involved, but who are not necessarily the best people to be building the projects or doing research. Just like some of the best sales and marketing people in high tech are people with CS degrees who learned to code, figured out that they weren’t very good at it and/or didn’t like it very much, but that they understand inherently what could and could not be done and the relative amounts of effort different commitments to a customer would carry. In IT, many R&D misfits became marketing marvels.

In the case of Gitanjali Gems’, they needed cutters. This is a skill that takes training and time to acquire, and a big money commitment from an employer. So they need to find people with interest, aptitude, and loyalty, as they’d lose big financially if they lost people to the competition as soon as they reached their productive potential. So they looked to people with real disabilities, and found that the attrition rate was 10 times lower, the productivity was 30% higher, and the overall working atmosphere became one where people “felt good” when they went to work, making them want to work even more. In my book, this far outshadows the additional benefits they received from the government (which ends up paying about 15% of the salaries), and the good press they get for the initiative. Because the company found people who wanted to work, and gave those people the training and tools they needed to be successful, the people enjoyed working for the company, worked 30% more productively, and stayed around a lot longer. Which shows that the talent crunch is solvable, if you just get up and actually do something about it.