Few of us, could have imagined, hearing the President of the United States, proclaim, if he was not reelected, there would be Civil War, the economy would be destroyed, and the nation's safety and security, would be threatened! However, since the election of Donald Trump, as President, in 2016, these types of statements, and many other, similar, unexpected / unanticipated ones, have been articulated, repeatedly! This behavior is, far more severe, and potentially, dangerous, than, simply, being, abnormal, but seems to be, aimed, at our fears, and to frighten us, rather than appeal to our more humane qualities. Calling people names, who oppose him, politically, is the antithesis of true leadership! Referring to immigrants, and other minorities, in fear – producing, unflattering, ways, and using an apparently, nasty approach, aimed at creating FRIGHT and fears, seems to be, un – American! With that in mind, this article will attempt to, briefly, consider, examine, review, and discuss, using the mnemonic approach, what this means and represents, and the risks, this presents, to the best aspects of the American Way of Life .
1. Fears; false facts; fake; future: When our national leadership, refuses to prioritize the future, and focuses on bring us, back to its perceived past, it produces a clear, and present danger, and risks a sustainable existence, to future generations! This administration's emphasis, using slogans such as, Make America Great, does exactly that! Appealing to our fears, and articulating constant fake facts, is false leadership! Shouldn't we do better than that?
2. Reality ?; rationale; reliable ?; revenge: Distorting reality, and using a false – rationale, is anything but, a reliable way to lead this nation! President Trump, often, appears to focus on getting revenge against his opponents, for his own personal / political agenda, and / or, self – interest, regardless of whether it best serves our citizens and nation!
3. Interference; influence; integrity ?: Shouldn't we demand a high degree of absolute, genuine integrity, from the leader of the nation? Instead of doing so, this President seems to use his influence, and the power of his office, to create interference, when it benefits him, and / or, his agenda, etc!
4. Greater good: The occupant of the White House, is supposed to serve and represent, all Americans, instead of, merely, his core supporters, and followers! It should be his duty and obligation, to serve on, and emphasize the greater good!
5. Healing ?; humane ?: How do we benefit, when the President, seems to care little about healing our wounds, and / or, humane aspects, needs, and implications?
6. Time – tested; timely: Donald Trump appears to care little about making the effort, or taking the time, to learn, and / or, discover, in an in – depth, detail – oriented way! This time – tested approach, must be combined, with the ability to proceed, with a well – considered, timely action plan, focused on bring us, together, for the common good!
FRIGHT must not become the focus of the leader of the free world, but, rather, we need to be served and represented, by an individual, who, puts citizens, and the nation, first! Wake up, America, because, this isn't normal, and may be, extremely dangerous, both, in the short – term, as well as the longer – run!
This article is brought to you by Kokula Krishna Hari Kunasekaran! Visit Website or Follow back at @kkkhari
The specter of NAFTA being cancelled is on many people minds since the election of President Donald Trump. Washington has pulled out of the TPP and wants a better deal for the US in the NAFTA agreement. The recent possible tariffs coming from the Trump administration is also heightening trade concerns. Is cancelling NAFTA a bad thing for Canada? There are 2 ways to examine this question.
The Current State
The first approach is looking at how things currently are and what is likely to happen using this assumption. Canada is the US's second largest trading partner and the US is Canada's largest trading partner by a large margin. The US is Canada's closest trading partner by physical location. Much of the infrastructure that is already in place caters to shipping goods across the Canada-US border seamlessly – bridges, railways, sea ports, shared production facilities etc. The culture of the US is similar enough to Canada that doing trade is fairly easy. There are no language barriers, religion barriers, or culture barriers relative to other countries. Our currencies are closely aligned, making trade easier in terms of financing, terms of payment and currency exchange. It is fairly easy to obtain US dollars anywhere in Canada. Comparing this to the Japanese Yen shows the contrast. Lastly, the assumption is that the US will protect Canada militarily so Canada can focus on producing other goods.
Using this assumption, if NAFTA is cancelled, Canada may be a big loser in terms of trade. The fears are that Canada's goods will not be exported and economic activity will suffer. We do not have any other trading partners as large or physically close by as the US The infrastructure and financing advantages also do not exist with any countries. Even Mexico who is part of NAFTA has a different currency, language, culture and different than the US with respect to trade. Canceling NAFTA looks like a disaster.
What are the disadvantages of NAFTA or trade deals in general? First, trade deals encourage specialization of industries in the lowest cost / highest benefit production of goods and services. All other production is reduced and or ceased. If you want to develop a new industry, you will have a small chance of success since your trading partners may dominate the industry or limit you from competing. If this is not the case, you may develop the industry on someone else's terms. Starting a business without free reign to experiment usually does not succeed because experimentation is necessary to optimize the market demand, efficiency and need for a given product. These limitations create a volatile economy based on a handful of sectors. In Canada, this means energy, commodities, banking and real estate. The second issue is negotiating power. Trade deals limit what you can negotiate after the deal is made, unless the entire deal is re-negotiated, which is what is happening today with NAFTA. This limits diversification of trading partners and new opportunities which may be present. Sometimes even within an established industry, different market conditions that would normally be taken advantage of would not be available because of the terms of the trade in a deal. As an example, the price of oil is fixed at $ 50 per barrel between two countries. The price of oil rises to $ 100 per barrel on world markets, but the seller will not benefit from this since they are selling the oil at $ 50. Should the price drop to $ 20, the seller would benefit, but then the question of "how often does this happen and is it worthwhile?" is going to come up. The last disadvantage is the negotiation itself. If you are negotiating with a much bigger, stronger trading partner, you will likely need them more than they need you. This means that they can argue for better terms of trade and if you want to make the deal, you will have to sacrifice more than you may realize. In the case of Canada and the US, the US has a more developed economy than Canada, and much more influence on the world stage. If the US wants to dump Canada and trade with someone else, they can do it more easily than Canada can for the US This gives the US more negotiating options than Canada – at least at the present time. The US can offer more products for sale, more options for trade and more customized terms. Let's say that Canada went to a trade negotiation and said "I will offer technology expertise." Would that be possible? Not likely, but Canada can offer mining expertise. The US can offer both.
The Opportunity
The second approach is assuming that cancelling NAFTA can be an opportunity, and changes can be made to benefit Canada more so than the current agreement. Why? Trade can be opened up to every country in the world and with open terms. Since the competition is much greater if all countries are available for trade, the opportunities may be greater. The flip side is that more competition may make it harder to trade for an advantage due to cheaper labor or better quality that may be available in other countries.
Canceling NAFTA would make Canada more independent because we cannot rely on a specific trading partner to buy our goods. This will create more resourcefulness and entrepreneurialism among Canadians. When people have to find a way to survive, there is more effort expended. This effort will create more diversification among industries since we no longer can afford to specialize in certain sectors.
This scenario has started to play out with Canada negotiating more deals with Europe and Asia. Canadian firms have global expertise in certain sectors which gives them an advantage when creating terms of trade.
This article is brought to you by Kokula Krishna Hari Kunasekaran! Visit Website or Follow back at @kkkhari
Although, historically, politics, has been somewhat, partisan, in nature, we have never, in recent memory, observed, such a degree of unwillingness, to even consider, bipartisan cooperation, even when it is the need of the American public. This behavior, which might be referred to, as, politics, over policy / people, is bad leadership, because it, unfairly favors, one's political supporters, over the rest of the public. Wouldn't we better served, if, once elected, politicians transformed into statesmen, and focused on the common good, rather than personal political agenda, and / or self – interest? With that in mind, this article will attempt to briefly consider, review, and discuss, 5 reasons, this is, both, bad policy and a lack of genuine leadership.
1. Not relevant: Empty rhetoric and promises, might garner votes, and be popular, but it's not genuine leadership, nor in the best interests of the public! America, especially with the many challenges, the world and nation, faces, today, needs relevant solutions, rather than polarization, or pitting one segment against another! Whether this is because of the unique persona, and nature, of President Donald Trump, or an undesirable trend, it does not achieve, what is best, for most Americans!
2. Unsustainable: President Trump, in an attempt to be popular, and honor his campaign promise, to change the tax system, and lower taxes, endorsed the legislation, passed towards the end of 2017, which was portrayed, as focused on the middle – class, while actually, favoring the wealthiest individuals and corporations. Claiming this would create economic growth, is based, on the often – unproven, claim, of Trickle – Down Economics. In the, less than half – year, since enacted, we have observed a huge expansion of the federal deficit, with forecasts, for ever – expanding deficits, into the future, and corporations, which Trump and his supporters, claimed, would use the additional revenue, to hire more people, and pay more, have actually, used most of this windfall, to grow their corporate gains!
3. Change should be, for the better, not just, for change – sake: When political rhetoric becomes empty promises, the change is, rarely, beneficial, to the overall good, of most Americans. Measure the results, not, by the level of rhetoric and promises, but, rather, whether it creates added benefits, for most Americans!
4. Common good, not personal agenda: Be certain, the plans and policies, are not based on personal or political agendas, or someone's self – interests! Unless / until, the focus, consistently, focuses on service to the public, for the common good, rather to a politician's supporters, and / or delegated, elected officials are not representing us!
5. Make America Greater !: When Donald Trump was a candidate, his campaign slogan was, Make America Great Again. While, this meant different things to different individuals, I resented the word, again, because it implied, we weren't already, a quality nation, and urged us, to look back, to the past, rather than, to the future. As Paul Simon wrote, in his song, Kodachrome, "Everything looks worse, in black, and white." We should, rather seek, to improve how government serves its people, rather than elected officials, and / or special interest!
Public policy should be the top priority, for our elected officials. Unfortunately, as we are presently witnessing and observing, politics and self – interest, seem to be prioritized!
This article is brought to you by Kokula Krishna Hari Kunasekaran! Visit Website or Follow back at @kkkhari
When we describe the proverbial "bad boss," we think of someone who is a poor communicator, micro-manager, unqualified or just plain absent. The list can go on and on. It's amazing the impact a poor leader can have on the climate within the workplace, as well as on our health and happiness at home. Studies show that people don't leave companies, they leave managers / supervisors / bosses (you can circle the one that applies). And for those of us who have had "bad bosses," we couldn't agree more.
Behavior aside, another career-killing reason bad bosses are "bad" is because they make easy targets for all the things we don't like at work – why we're not productive, why our team is bickering, why we did get promoted – it all gets laid at the boss' feet. When we have a bad boss, we tend to flip a switch in our heads that turns off our capacity for accepting individual responsibility and turns on our propensity to blame.
I just can't stand the word blame. If you tear it apart, to blame is to b-lame; which, in the very literal sense, means to "b" impaired or disabled. When faced with a difficult boss we too easily give away our power and become the victim. No matter what kind of work climate we're in, however, we always have the ability to decide how we'll respond. And one of the most helpful responses I've found when trying to achieve success in the workplace despite a bad boss is this:
Be Specific!
"Bad boss" is a category. We can't work with, talk to or improve relationships with a category. Instead of focusing on having a "bad boss," we need to clarify what's problematic and why. For example, changing "my boss is such a jerk" to "when my boss takes credit for my work, it really makes me feel angry" starts to move us toward specific behaviors and feelings that can possibly be addressed. Let's get even more specific. From "when my boss takes credit for my work, it really makes me feel angry" to "when" by boss mentioned my marketing idea in our meeting today without giving me credit, it made me feel invisible. " Now we're on to something. It may not be that you have a "bad boss," or even that he "takes credit for your work all the time." Rather, it may be that he doesn't acknowledge your work in a way that is meaningful to you, and that you're shut down during the meeting because of it. Once you know the problem, then you can begin to create a solution for addressing it with your boss who, quite possibly, has no idea he is doing it.
Managers are always given the advice that when they give feedback, they should be specific. The same is true for employees when interacting with their boss. Regardless of title, we're all people whose communication styles and differing perspectives require us to be willing to work on building relationships, not settle for stereotypes.
This article is brought to you by Kokula Krishna Hari Kunasekaran! Visit Website or Follow back at @kkkhari
The spectre of NAFTA being cancelled is on many people’s minds since the election of President Donald Trump. Washington has pulled out of the TPP and wants a better deal for the U.S. in the NAFTA agreement. The recent possible tariffs coming from the Trump administration is also heightening trade concerns. Is cancelling NAFTA a bad thing for Canada? There are 2 ways to examine this question.
The Current State
The first approach is looking at how things currently are and what is likely to happen using this assumption. Canada is the U.S.’s second largest trading partner and the U.S. is Canada’s largest trading partner by a large margin. The U.S. is Canada’s closest trading partner by physical location. Much of the infrastructure that is already in place caters to shipping goods across the Canada-U.S. border seamlessly – bridges, railways, sea ports, shared production facilities etc. The culture of the U.S. is similar enough to Canada that doing trade is fairly easy. There are no language barriers, religion barriers, or culture barriers relative to other countries. Our currencies are closely aligned, making trade easier in terms of financing, terms of payment and currency exchange. It is fairly easy to obtain U.S. dollars anywhere in Canada. Comparing this to the Japanese Yen shows the contrast. Lastly, the assumption is that the U.S. will protect Canada militarily so Canada can focus on producing other goods.
Using this assumption, if NAFTA is cancelled, Canada may be a big loser in terms of trade. The fears are that Canada’s goods will not be exported and economic activity will suffer. We do not have any other trading partners as large or physically close by as the U.S. The infrastructure and financing advantages also do not exist with any countries. Even Mexico who is part of NAFTA has a different currency, language, culture and priorities than the U.S. with respect to trade. Cancelling NAFTA looks like a disaster.
What are the disadvantages of NAFTA or trade deals in general? First, trade deals encourage specialization of industries in the lowest cost / highest benefit production of goods and services. All other production is reduced and or ceased. If you want to develop a new industry, you will have a small chance of success since your trading partners may dominate the industry or limit you from competing. If this is not the case, you may develop the industry on someone else’s terms. Starting a business without free reign to experiment usually does not succeed because experimentation is necessary to optimize the market demand, efficiency and need for a given product. These limitations create a volatile economy based on a handful of sectors. In Canada, this means energy, commodities, banking and real estate. The second issue is negotiating power. Trade deals limit what you can negotiate after the deal is made, unless the entire deal is re-negotiated, which is what is happening today with NAFTA. This limits diversification of trading partners and new opportunities which may be present. Sometimes even within an established industry, different market conditions that would normally be taken advantage of would not be available because of the terms of the trade in a deal. As an example, the price of oil is fixed at $50 per barrel between two countries. The price of oil rises to $100 per barrel on world markets, but the seller will not benefit from this since they are selling the oil at $50. Should the price drop to $20, the seller would benefit, but then the question of “how often does this happen and is it worthwhile?” is going to come up. The last disadvantage is the negotiation itself. If you are negotiating with a much bigger, stronger trading partner, you will likely need them more than they need you. This means that they can argue for better terms of trade and if you want to make the deal, you will have to sacrifice more than you may realize. In the case of Canada and the U.S., the U.S. has a more developed economy than Canada, and much more influence on the world stage. If the U.S. wants to dump Canada and trade with someone else, they can do it more easily than Canada can for the U.S. This gives the U.S. more negotiating options than Canada – at least at the present time. The U.S. can offer more products for sale, more options for trade and more customized terms. Let’s say that Canada went to a trade negotiation and said “I will offer technology expertise.” Would that be possible? Not likely, but Canada can offer mining expertise. The U.S. can offer both.
The Opportunity
The second approach is assuming that cancelling NAFTA can be an opportunity, and changes can be made to benefit Canada more so than the current agreement. Why? Trade can be opened up to every country in the world and with open terms. Since the competition is much greater if all countries are available for trade, the opportunities may be greater. The flip side is that more competition may make it harder to trade for an advantage due to cheaper labour or better quality that may be available in other countries.
Cancelling NAFTA would make Canada more independent because we cannot rely on a specific trading partner to buy our goods. This will create more resourcefulness and entrepreneurialism among Canadians. When people have to find a way to survive, there is more effort expended. This effort will create more diversification among industries since we no longer can afford to specialize in certain sectors.
This scenario has started to play out with Canada negotiating more deals with Europe and Asia. Canadian firms have global expertise in certain sectors which gives them an advantage when creating terms of trade.
This article is brought to you by Kokula Krishna Hari Kunasekaran! Visit Website or Follow back at @kkkhari
When we describe the proverbial “bad boss,” we think of someone who is a poor communicator, micro-manager, unqualified or just plain absent. The list can go on and on. It’s amazing the impact a poor leader can have on the climate within the workplace, as well as on our health and happiness at home. Studies show that people don’t leave companies, they leave managers/supervisors/bosses (you can circle the one that applies). And for those of us who have had “bad bosses,” we couldn’t agree more.
Behavior aside, another career-killing reason bad bosses are “bad” is because they make easy targets for all the things we don’t like at work – why we’re not productive, why our team is bickering, why we didn’t get promoted – it all gets laid at the boss’ feet. When we have a bad boss, we tend to flip a switch in our heads that turns off our capacity for accepting individual responsibility and turns on our propensity to blame.
I just can’t stand the word blame. If you tear it apart, to blame is to b-lame; which, in the very literal sense, means to “b” impaired or disabled. When faced with a difficult boss we too easily give away our power and become the victim. No matter what kind of work climate we’re in, however, we always have the ability to decide how we’ll respond. And one of the most helpful responses I’ve found when trying to achieve success in the workplace despite a bad boss is this:
Be Specific!
“Bad boss” is a category. We can’t work with, talk to or improve relationships with a category. Instead of focusing on having a “bad boss,” we need to clarify what’s problematic and why. For example, changing “my boss is such a jerk” to “when my boss takes credit for my work, it really makes me feel angry” starts to move us toward specific behaviors and feelings that can possibly be addressed. Let’s get even more specific. From “when my boss takes credit for my work, it really makes me feel angry” to “when by boss mentioned my marketing idea in our meeting today without giving me credit, it made me feel invisible.” Now we’re on to something. It may not be that you have a “bad boss,” or even that he “takes credit for your work all the time.” Rather, it may be that he doesn’t acknowledge your work in a way that is meaningful to you, and that you’re shut down during the meeting because of it. Once you know the problem, then you can begin to create a solution for addressing it with your boss who, quite possibly, has no idea he is doing it.
Managers are always given the advice that when they give feedback, they should be specific. The same is true for employees when interacting with their boss. Regardless of title, we’re all people whose communication styles and differing perspectives require us to be willing to work on building relationships, not settle for stereotypes.
This article is brought to you by Kokula Krishna Hari Kunasekaran! Visit Website or Follow back at @kkkhari
Although, historically, politics, has been somewhat, partisan, in nature, we have never, in recent memory, observed, such a degree of unwillingness, to even consider, bipartisan cooperation, even when it is the need of the American public. This behavior, which might be referred to, as, politics, over policy/ people, is bad leadership, because it, unfairly favors, one’s political supporters, over the rest of the public. Wouldn’t we better served, if, once elected, politicians transformed into statesmen, and focused on the common good, rather than personal political agenda, and/ or self – interest? With that in mind, this article will attempt to briefly consider, review, and discuss, 5 reasons, this is, both, bad policy and a lack of genuine leadership.
1. Not relevant: Empty rhetoric and promises, might garner votes, and be popular, but it’s not genuine leadership, nor in the best interests of the public! America, especially with the many challenges, the world and nation, faces, today, needs relevant solutions, rather than polarization, or pitting one segment against another! Whether this is because of the unique persona, and nature, of President Donald Trump, or an undesirable trend, it does not achieve, what is best, for most Americans!
2. Unsustainable: President Trump, in an attempt to be popular, and honor his campaign promise, to change the tax system, and lower taxes, endorsed the legislation, passed towards the end of 2017, which was portrayed, as focused on the middle – class, while actually, favoring the wealthiest individuals and corporations. Claiming this would create economic growth, is based, on the often – unproven, claim, of Trickle – Down Economics. In the, less than half – year, since enacted, we have observed a huge expansion of the federal deficit, with forecasts, for ever – expanding deficits, into the future, and corporations, which Trump and his supporters, claimed, would use the additional revenues, to hire more people, and pay more, have actually, used most of this windfall, to grow their corporate gains!
3. Change should be, for the better, not just, for change – sake: When political rhetoric becomes empty promises, the change is, rarely, beneficial, to the overall good, of most Americans. Measure the results, not, by the level of rhetoric and promises, but, rather, whether it creates added benefits, for most Americans!
4. Common good, not personal agenda: Be certain, the plans and policies, are not based on personal or political agendas, or someone’s self – interests! Unless/ until, the focus, consistently, focuses on service to the public, for the common good, rather to a politician’s supporters, and/ or donors, elected officials are not representing us!
5. Make America Greater!: When Donald Trump was a candidate, his campaign slogan was, Make America Great Again. While, this meant different things to different individuals, I resented the word, again, because it implied, we weren’t already, a quality nation, and urged us, to look back, to the past, rather than, to the future. As Paul Simon wrote, in his song, Kodachrome, “Everything looks worse, in black, and white.” We should, rather seek, to improve how government serves its people, rather than elected officials, and/ or special interest!
Public policy should be the top priority, for our elected officials. Unfortunately, as we are presently witnessing and observing, politics and self – interest, seem to be prioritized!
This article is brought to you by Kokula Krishna Hari Kunasekaran! Visit Website or Follow back at @kkkhari