How much money do you need?

One of the most important aspects of politics today, is the merging of governments with companies and corporations. We can no longer see the line between public and private business – where one ends and the other begins. It seems that where governments are falling and failing, corporations are standing, ready to take over.

In looking at this development, it is not so odd that corporations are taking the lead, as they are build on the principle of profit and financial growth, only abiding the laws of the free market, which gives them power to act in ways that seem unlimited – This is clearly seen when it comes to protecting human rights of workers and in environmental issues, as well as with regards to marketing and public relations – everything and anything goes. In democracies, the governments are bound as the voice of the people and thus answer to the people, elected to provide  answers to ideological questions of how to attain and develop harmony and prosperity within our nations. It is a subject that has kept scholars busy for thousands of years. So where governments are bound by bureaucracy and borders, corporations has the freedom to move and act globally, to change at will and to follow the money, rather than the people. Where democratic governments live off votes, the corporations live off profit and these two worlds have now merged, with the introduction of the consumer-citizen as the clue that binds it all together – It is advanced survival 101.

Politics as an executive philosophy of governing reaches back in history to Plato with Socrates and the vision of ‘The Good’ and ‘The State’. The Socratic ideal of rational ruling by those who sees what’s best, is still in play in the modern democracy, however it may have been modified and modernized throughout the years – Market thinking however is commonly sourced to before the industrial revolution as ‘the new boy on the block’, where some clever men found ways to privatize land and labor and thus created the foundation for property and endless prosperity (for the few). Market thinking as an economic strategy has by those who made it a political ideology, been seen as a direct opposite to government thinking. Yet simultaneously it has been ‘The State’ that has guarded and ‘save kept’ our lives and with it various models of democracy and governments, while the market has been the playground for the private entrepreneur, the kid with the lemonade stand. The two seem to have now found a common ground where governments provides the structure for the consumption provided by the corporations – for your pleasure and entertainment.

It does however seem like market thinking is the smarter of the two, as it is coming up with solutions that are far more advanced and far more flexible than the governments, in how to maintain and develop our societies. It is in the industries of privately owned companies that bio-fuel is invented, where windmills is created, and where water purification is taken seriously, as an area of research and development (obviously as an investment opportunity towards maximum profit). It has even been said by economic thinkers of today, that when the crash really hits, the corporations will be there to pick up the pieces (that is us), from the governments that has failed to protect it’s people and thus our countries will be run by corporations, which sole purpose is to create more wealth to those already wealthy, while enslaving the rest to produce, buy and consume, justified by the idea that ‘The good life’ comes with a persistent effort to get the wheels of the economy to turn.

One could ask whether this is not already the politics that is being promulgated by our governments, and if so, do the governments not already exist as corporations or even within the corporations, only existing with the sole purpose of growing and generating profit for a select few? How is it then even relevant to talk about governments anymore from the perspective of knowing and feeling safe that: ‘it’s been taken care off’ – whether we are talking climate changes, Iraq or immigration? Who is it really that is responsible for the mess we are in?

We can see it crumbling as each government is required to take care of its own citizens, while the Global community is being neglected and overlooked, as each country is solely responsible for itself, as each man is for himself, even though the suffering of some is directly due to the exploitation by others – most often done shielded behind of corporations with no political or legal obligations and therefore with the means to do whatever is necessary to squeeze the last drop out of any oil rig or diamond mine in the world. Apparently no one is responsible – and the movement of profit is carefully orchestrated so that no one is held accountable, as each hold their piece of the puzzle and have no control over what anyone else does. This sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it is not,  because there is no ‘One’ behind it, which is exactly the point – We are all participating through having our cake and eating the other’s too, and then there are those having no cake at all.

The most fascinating aspect of all of this is that obviously behind governments and corporations are people – but because the corporations have been given a life of their own, as symbols and brands, whatever is done within them is justified because it is not personal – it is business. An example where governments do the same, is with the American government’s handling of the prisoners in Guantanamo bay. The symbol of the company brand called ‘America’, allows the CEO’s to bend their own rules and laws as far as they can, to get what they want – in this case either power or oil, but certainly not justice. In the last century it was the Commies that were the villains, portrayed by 007 heroically taking them on one by one (British by all means, but none the less – it is all ‘Common Wealth’ is it not?). Now we have Ironman battling the Arabs and so the scene is set in primetime to protect our ‘assets’.

Can Governments survive without Corporations? Can we?

Some experts say that governments are only necessary as long as the fear of the people rebelling is relevant. Once the people are pacified sufficiently, they too will become expendable. Politics is no longer about creating the best possible society for everyone on Earth (which it should be), but about protecting the prosperity of the few, while keeping the masses pacified. In a country with civil war and corruption, it is easier to get away with pollution, with exploitation of children and women, with paying unacceptable wages and keeping people from forming unions. In wealthier countries the scam is more sophisticated, as people like to think they are free, that they are doing good – which is why the bubble is created through television and media to create the illusion that we know what is going on in the world, that it is being taken care of by our governments and by a united Global community (that in reality does not exist) so that the people don’t feel guilty that they have more than the rest and thus can continue consuming, while still being encouraged to fear for their survival just to make sure that everyone keeps producing and that no one bites the hand that feed them, even though that hand is not the loving parent in the form of a caring government, but in fact the people that are being exploited and abused in the name of profit in countries where ‘we are not responsible’, because our governments are not responsible, essentially because the corporations are not responsible and so the cycle is complete. No one is Here. Man is not on Earth – he I lost in space somewhere, looking for his marbles.

Can Politicians be de-corrupted – can we?

The challenge with the idea of the governments removing power from corporations is that corporations operate globally, exploiting the land, resources, animals and people of one country, while the profit is being relocated to individuals in other countries – therefore political sanctions cannot work, without a global initiative that specifically deals with the money system as well as with supporting the countries that are being exploited. God is dead and so is politics, but money is not. The consumer-citizen has only two options, to buy or not to buy – But we would be fools to call that ‘political choice’. And because the corporations are basically running the world, a change in the political systems and thus in how we are currently managing our world, cannot happen without changing the way we deal with property, value, stocks, exchange and basically with money – as money is only thing that corporations respect and abide.

Consumption and money and resources and greed and suffering – all mixed up in a mess that seems too complicated to untangle. Yet it is excruciatingly simplistic: Consumption by definition is to use something up until there is nothing left of it. That is what we are doing to this Earth, to the animals and to each other. For some reason this self-evident fact is being completely ignored by everyone that is not directly experiencing the consequences – And those that do experience it directly, have no power to change their situation.

The conclusion is that governments and corporations and consumers are equally responsible for the conditions in the World, as we each make up a piece of the puzzle that is this mess we call Earth – We are the corporations and the governments. The point is to come up with Real Solutions to the Real Problems in this world – which is right now: ourselves. It is thus the people in the top of the (self-cannibalistic) food chain that has to Stand up – because we are the ones that directly allow it to continue, feeling powerless, even though we have the power to change – through abdicating responsibility to corporations and governments as ‘The man’ or ‘The System’ – Ignoring the fact that 1 billon people are starving, that over 60 million are living as refugees and that in the end, it is up to us who that Man or that System is.

The Business of Higher Education

In recent years, colleges and universities have encountered increasing pressure to operate like businesses. As the logic goes, businesses must survive in a cutthroat climate of unfettered competition and thus these organizations need to be leaner, more efficient and more responsive to the needs of their customers than not-for-profit organizations, such as colleges and universities. In the unforgiving crucible of free market competition, only the fittest businesses (e.g., those that deliver the highest quality products at fair market value), will survive.  Of course, the seemingly endless government bail-outs following the 2008 financial crash cast a dubious light on the above claims, nevertheless, the notion that higher education should embrace a more business-like organizational philosophy remains deeply entrenched. Colorado State University’s recent hiring of its first-ever System Chancellor offers an illuminating example of this sensibility in practice.

On May 6, 2009, the CSU Board of Governors announced the hiring of Joe Blake as its System Chancellor. It is fair to say that Joe Blake is a somewhat curious choice for CSU’s System Chancellor because, although Blake can brag of extensive contacts in the Denver business community (Blake’s most recent job was as president of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce), his resume is conspicuously absent of academic credentials. Indeed, it is noteworthy that, in assembling its search committee, the CSU Board of Governors intentionally excluded faculty and student representatives. In response to protests concerning the limited composition of the chancellor search committee, Michelle McKinney, a public relations representative for the CSU System Board of Governors, stated baldly, “Search committee members were chosen for their knowledge and understanding of complex, billion dollar businesses.” In other words, from the perspective of the CSU Board of Governors, Colorado State University is a business. Therefore, when it comes to choosing the University’s leaders, the CSU Board of Governors considers input from successful businesspeople to be more pertinent than the opinions of academics.

Viewing these events through the most optimistic lens, one could argue that vast changes are in the offing for higher education. In an Information Society, college degrees have become an ever more essential ingredient for success. Yet, indispensable as college degrees may be, with each passing year, students encounter more difficulty gaining access to and completing higher education. Escalating costs coupled with reduced public funding have shifted the burden of college finance onto the backs of individual students. As students face the prospect of accumulating home mortgage-sized debt over the course of their college careers, many gifted, but financially-strapped students will have no choice but to forgo higher education.

Somehow, some way, educators must find a way to change that dynamic: college and university leaders must find a way to make higher education more affordable–and soon! Insights from the business realm will certainly be helpful in that process. Business leaders are only too well aware of the hazards of running afoul of consumer expectations. When a valued good becomes excessively overpriced, consumers tend to take their buying power elsewhere. As a case in point, consider the Big Three automakers. Not long ago the Big Three were the titans of industrial America, but having fallen out of step with their customers, the Big Three have hit upon tough times. Once again, in a free market society it behooves organizations to deliver the highest quality products at affordable prices. Consumer loyalty is not inexhaustible.

Indeed, higher education must change in order to meet the needs of its twenty-first century students. Fortunately, I am pleased to report that higher education has undertaken a variety of initiatives to achieve precisely that goal. To begin with, most colleges and universities have implemented flexible degree programs to permit students with limited time and extensive non-academic responsibilities (i.e., full-time jobs, family obligations, military service, etc.) to progress toward college degrees at a pace that suits their lifestyles. In addition, many universities have employed the latest technologies in an effort to reach out to place-bound students. Thus, many students who lack the necessary mobility and wherewithal to pursue a traditional on-campus education can still procure college degrees via online or “virtual” higher education opportunities.

Changing times have dictated that higher education must also change. Thus far, higher education has responded admirably. Yet, as with all successful institutions, to ensure ongoing success, higher education must constantly seek ways to reinvent and improve itself. Still, as planners look to the future, I believe it is important to consider the strengths and weaknesses of higher education in as broad a framework as possible. Much as higher education can benefit from the insights of business leaders, it is essential to recognize that higher education is not a business, nor should it ever become one. While higher education can and must synergize with business in many ways, business and higher education are distinct pursuits. Elementally, business is a for-profit activity, whereas higher education is a not-for-profit endeavor. This is the case, quite simply, because education is not a commodity; one cannot purchase an education the same way that one might purchase a pair of snow tires. Education is an investment that requires years of patience, diligence and perseverance before one can hope to reap a windfall.

Certainly, education is not cheap. It has taken an enormous investment to lay the educational foundation for the Information Society. However, I think it is fair to say that, having laid that groundwork, the dividends realized thus far have been spectacular: because of its investment in higher education, the US has been able to maintain a position of leadership in the development of the Information Society.

Undeniably, one way of mitigating higher education costs might be to seek new ways of transforming education into a for-profit endeavor–one would expect such initiatives to be a topic of primary interest to business leaders. However, I wonder if it is possible to extract profit from higher education without simultaneously impoverishing it? Further, viewing higher education as a resource from which to extract profit represents the antithesis of the educational philosophy that has propelled the North America and other nations to the forefront of the Information Society. We have has achieved prominence in the global village by investing in, rather than siphoning wealth from higher education. Therefore, I believe it is possible for the us to continue reaping great rewards from higher education, but only by enhancing its commitment to access-for-all, and by maintaining its philosophy of education as a long-term investment in the future. We will continue to play a central role in the Information Society, but only so long as we recognize that the “business” of higher education is to lay the foundation upon which to build a more enlightened, democratic, and prosperous world for one and all.