Do You Believe in Polls?

A day doesn't seem to pass without my hearing what the "people" have to say. How much do you trust polls? Some are conducted by establishments that use accurate methods and systematic sampling techniques. Others are not so trustworthy. Regardless of the source, we should be critical of even the most reputable of polling organizations. Consider what follows -- from a recent New York Times article: (The entire article can be reached by clicking here.)

From the NYT:

In recent weeks, polls kept showing solid support for a public insurance option, seeming to breathe new life into its viability as a provision of the health care legislation under way in Congress. In fact, advocates of a public option, from left-leaning groups to pundits to lawmakers, seized on each new number and trumpeted the news across the 24/7 news spectrum of Twitter, TV ads, blogs and headlines.
And while those polls may have bolstered Senator Harry Reid’s decision to include the public option in the merged Senate bill this week, a closer examination shows once again that public opinion on this issue shifts and shimmies depending on how you phrase the question and what you strip away from (or add to) a compound sentence.

In nearly all recent surveys, a majority of Americans simply approve of providing coverage for the uninsured, suggesting that on an altruistic level at least, they believe people deserve health care.

But differences emerge in the details. For example, support for a public health insurance depends on the order of questions, the language and the arguments posed in favor or in opposition.

For example, in a poll that NBC News and The Wall Street Journal released on Tuesday, half the respondents were asked one question about the public option, and half were asked a different one.

Just under 50 percent favored a health care plan administered by the federal government to compete with private insurance companies, while 4 in 10 opposed. But, almost three-fourths said it was important to have a choice between a public plan and a private plan.

Comment: People aren't being stupid when they answer questions in different ways depending on the wording. But we as a society are stupid to place as much stock in polls as we do. Walter Lippmann reminded us a generation ago that polls are just a snapshot of the electorate's opinion. Why should that snapshot be given reverential treatment? That was a good question when he posed it. It's still a good question.

Social Entrepreneurship

Social entrepreneurship is a topic that is gaining momentum in the entrepreneurial
community. As indicated in this article
an increasing number of business founders are combining their for-profit motives with a social good. Would you enjoy being apart of a startup that embraced this idea? What kinds of social causes could be combined with startups (for example, book selling with literacy campaigns, ship building with anti-water pollution efforts)? Why do you think the concept of social entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly attractive to business people? If you started a business would you be willing to sacrifice some profit to engage in socially responsible initiatives? If so, which ones? Do you know of any business in your community that does this?

Laur's Lecture on Sustainability

Last Friday Joe Laur (lecturer at Antioch N.E. Graduate School, author of The Necessary Revolution, and founder of greenopolis.com) raised some interesting issues regarding his successes in teaching corporations (such as Coca-Cola and Nike) about sustainable literacy. He also spoke about some obstacles to achieving sustainable business practices? One of those had to do with “mental models.” Are we in the midst of a change in mental models, one that will radically shift the way we view ourselves and our relationship to the earth? What do you think of his strategy to rein in and focus on helping those companies that are already “on board,” that is, those that already have the inclination and "desire" to be sustainable (as opposed to targeting the worst offenders)?

I thought of some general questions about social responsibility after his lecture: What does it mean to be socially responsible if the goal is a radical shift in “mental models”? Is it really possible for corporations to be socially responsible (within a free market, profit-seeking economic framework)?

A Socially Responsible Burger Joint?

We hear news of the corrupt practices of companies everyday, but maybe Burgerville provides a counterexample. Burgerville seems to be trying to act responsibly toward their employees. They have found a way to cut costs, improve productivity, AND pay for the health care of employees. Do you think providing health care for workers is the responsibility of our government? What role, if any, should private businesses have in providing health care? Why has paying worker health care premiums resulted in increased sales and improved employee productivity? Now, if they could only come up with a new name!

To Tariff or not to Tariff...

News today that the U.S. will impose tariffs on Chinese tires coming into this country creates an outcry from the Chinese government. OBama's move is in stark contrast to his predecessor's four-time rejection of such a move. This took a lot of nerve considering our delicate relationship with the Chinese right now. What do you think the fall-out will be? Do U.S. workers in the tire manufacturing industry have a "right" to a job? If so, does that right over-ride the interests of U.S. consumers? Click here for the news article.

Capitalism: A Love Story

I'm looking forward to seeing Michael Moore's new film "Capitalism: A Love Story." Moore's candid approach always seems to create a stir. Here's an excerpt from Arrington Huffington's review.

Michael Moore has proven again and again that he has a remarkable feel for where the zeitgeist is heading. He's like a zeitgeist divining rod. Roger and Me was way ahead of the curve on the collapse of the auto-industry. Fahrenheit 9/11 was way ahead of the curve on the collapse of the house of cards the Bush administration used to lead us to war in Iraq. Sicko was way ahead of the curve on the collapse of the US health care system. And now, with his new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, he is riding the wave of the collapse of trust in our country's financial system.

….In the film, Michael describes capitalism as evil. I disagree. I don't think capitalism is evil. I think what we have right now is not capitalism. In capitalism as envisioned by its leading lights, including Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall, you need a moral foundation in order for free markets to work. And when a company fails, it fails. It doesn't get bailed out using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. What we have right now is Corporatism. It's welfare for the rich. It's the government picking winners and losers. It's Wall Street having their taxpayer-funded cake and eating it too. It's socialized losses and privatized gains.

Which is why -- although you can bet many will try -- Capitalism: A Love Story can't be dismissed as a left-wing tirade. Its condemnation of the status quo is too grounded in real stories and real suffering, its targets too evenly spread across the political spectrum.

Regulating Bankers

Here are some questions to think about regarding the Fed's new plan to regulate risk-taking financial institutions.

1. How would you feel about working for a bank if there was government oversight on how much you could be compensated?

2. Do you think that curbs on compensation in the banking industry would significantly reduce profits?

3. Do you think that curbing compensation in the banking industry in the U.S. will drive the "best talent" to other industries or other countries to work?