Terminator, Inc. (TERM) NYSE

Public Companies are the Terminators of the American Economy

I don't mean that in the context that public companies will kill the American Economy. What I mean is that like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who according to the movie "has only one function and will not stop until you (the target) are dead", the Public Company is a government sanctioned machine with only one function: To increase shareholder value typically through increasing profit quarter by quarter. This singular function was not established for any nefarious reason, on the contrary it is heralded as one of the few objective, pure and transparent goals in our marketplace. Since the shareholder has no say in operations, the shareholder's only motivation is for increased dividends and/or value, thereby it is the public companies moral duty to achieve those singular results. But when something has only one function, one target goal,  it ignores ALL concepts that can hinder that singular mission. In the case of the Terminator, that means ignoring laws, the health and well-being of others and even the fabric of society as it attempts to Terminate its prey. In the case of a public company that means avoiding regulations, exploiting the health and well being of employees (to the extent that lowers unnecessary costs) and weakening the fabric of society (by outsourcing jobs and minimizing tax payments).

Public Companies have long been characterized as nameless and faceless machines and my metaphor would certainly suggest support for that notion. But the truth is public companies are made up of millions of fine and decent people, the vast majority of which only have the best intentions to work hard, provide for their families and produce quality products and services in the market. Many public companies are directed by well-meaning Boards and Executive Teams who believe in philanthropy, the environment and the safety and reward of their employees. It is considered "good business" for the corporation to treat its employees, society and the world around it well in order to be sustainable in the long term. These companies require benevolent leaders at the helm like Sergey and Larry at Google but just ask another American success duo, Ben and Jerry, how the public markets accommodate benevolence without growth as they saw their ownership melt away based on the current system.

Undoubtedly hierarchical organizations like public companies can often accomplish results more rapidly than companies run by committee the same way dictatorships can set a national path and accomplish change more rapidly than democracies with legislatures or parliaments. Unfortunately, like most dictatorships, absolute power corrupts absolutely and since nothing in the public company code requires malevolence, corporations MUST adhere to their prime directive... increase profits and/or shareholder value.

Although there are some interesting alternatives such as "Benefit" or "Flexible Purpose" Corporations, I don't see these dynamics changing as public companies become more and more powerful the higher up the Dow climbs. But as the U.S. Government explores ways to deal with moral hazard and "too big to fail" policies, I would suggest that instead of rating corporations alone for their balance sheet strength, the agencies should rate the companies for what they bring to the country in terms of jobs, security, infrastructure and environmental benefits. A company that scores high in these areas can benefit from the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government and count on a "bail out" if times get tough. While public companies that focus only on growth in profit and/or share price without regard for these other benefits will be free to operate as they please, but with the understanding that if the going gets tough, they will have to get going with no support from Uncle Sam.

Barack Obama - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Life imitating Art has rarely been demonstrated to a greater degree than in the comparison of Barack Obama "killing" Osama bin Laden in the vein of Jimmy Stewart "killing" Liberty Valance in the 1960's Western.  The basic story-line metaphor is so obvious, Rush Limbaugh and other comedians have jokingly conjured the analogy of an arch villain gunned down by a seemingly mild-mannered thin politician in their acts.

In 2007 the film was selected for preservation by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant". Certainly the same can be said for the killing of Osama bin Laden.
But beyond that simple story line there are at least ten other similarities between actual events and the movie.

1. Rance Stoddard (played by Jimmy Stewart) and Barack both stammered their speech
2. Rance (Hero) rhymes Valance (Villain). Obama (Hero) rhymes Osama (villain). 
3. Both men are over 6 ft. tall and thin.  
4. Rance Stoddard and Barack Obama started their career as lawyers
5. Rance Stoddard and Barack Obama both became politicians
6. Both  enjoyed the love of a good woman. Vera Miles in the Movie and Michelle in real life.  
7. Vance Stoddard and Barack Obama first attempted to remove the threat of their villains using the law as their quiver. Both failed in these attempts.
8. Both men were credited with killing the villain but neither actually shot the man.
9. John Wayne and "Mark Owen" sound exactly the same in their 60 Minutes interviews.
10. Regardless of health care reform, ending the war in Iraq along with Don't Ask Don't Tell and whatever else Barack Obama accomplishes, like Vance Stoddard, he will always be known as:

                                The Man who Shot Osama bin Laden.

Obama in Colorado - A Missed Opportunity

I attended the campaign stop by Barrack Obama today at the University of Colorado and while it included a speech by Governor John Hickenlooper (D) and a shout-out to Congressman Jared Polis (D) who is running for re-election, I was surprised that neither was heralded for their success in business as part of the presentation. More so than Mit Romney, Hickenlooper and Polis are entrepreneurs in the 18th-century sense of the word. Both started small businesses and became wealthy as Hickelooper's net worth has been estimated in the $5-10 million range and Polis over $60 million. That may pale in terms to Romney's net worth, but they didn't just invest in companies along the way, they created them from scratch. Hickenlooper succeeded in business through the (second) oldest profession as a pub owner and Polis in one of the newest professions, as an internet entrepreneur. The point I am making is why isn't the democratic party parading their own successful business people to show that you can be a democrat, successful in business and not mind paying more in taxes to support a stronger middle class and the struggling unemployed and/or uninsured.