Month: September 2008

Hospitals Lack Hospitality

SettingTheTableBK.jpg

Source of book image: http://www.simplenomics.com/wp-images/settingthetable-1.jpg

(p. R7) Most successful entrepreneurs like rattling on about how they did it.

The bookshelves have never been more crowded with such exploits from consultants, real-estate moguls and retailers. And publishers say there are more on the way. With layoffs and cutbacks dominating the headlines, demand for advice books based on true-life stories is peaking.
. . .
So what does it take to succeed?
“Pragmatic advice, [a book written by] somebody with a fairly high public profile, and a person who can hit the lecture circuit after the first rush of publicity and keep the book selling,” says Grand Central’s Mr. Wolff.
Those factors have contributed to the staying power of restaurateur Danny Meyer’s book, “Setting the Table: The Transforming Power of Hospitality in Business.”
News Corp.’s HarperCollins Publishers first published 30,000 copies in October 2006. (News Corp. also publishes The Wall Street Journal.) Mr. Meyer’s work, chatty personal anecdotes wrapped around a core message that emphasizes hospitality as the key to creating satisfied customers, proved a hit.
. . .
“The most surprising thing was the interest from the hospital community,” Mr. Meyer says. “That’s an industry in turmoil based on the absence of hospitality. They over-focus on the metrics of stays and cure rates rather than how they make people feel.”

For the full story, see:

JEFFREY A. TRACHTENBERG. “Running the Show; Me, Me, Me; So many entrepreneurs are writing books about how they made it. Their books, though, aren’t nearly as successful.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., June 16, 2008): R7.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Obama Has Doubts About Justice of Current ‘Affirmative Action’ Laws

ObamaHarvardLaw.jpg “Barack Obama at Harvard, where he was the first black president of The Harvard Law Review.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 1) Mr. Obama, a Democrat, has continued to support race-based affirmative action, calling it “absolutely necessary” when he was a state senator in Illinois and criticizing the Supreme Court for curtailing it in his time in the United States Senate. But in his presidential campaign, he has unsettled some black supporters by focusing increasingly on class and suggesting that poor whites should at times be given preference over more privileged blacks.

His ruminations about shifting the balance between race and class in some affirmative action programs raise the possibility that, if elected in November, he might foster a deeper national (p. 16) conversation about an issue that has been fiercely debated for decades. He declined to comment for this article.
“We have to think about affirmative action and craft it in such a way where some of our children who are advantaged aren’t getting more favorable treatment than a poor white kid who has struggled more,” Mr. Obama said last week in a question-and-answer session at a convention of minority journalists in Chicago.
During a presidential debate in April, Mr. Obama said his two daughters, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, “who have had a pretty good deal” in life, should not benefit from affirmative action when they apply to college, particularly if they were competing for admission with poor white students.
. . .
Ward Connerly, a crusader against affirmative action, said he believed that Mr. Obama’s remarks would buoy support for his ballot initiatives in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska in November that would ban preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity and sex in government hiring and public education.
Last week, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, Senator John McCain, announced his support for those measures. . . .
Mr. Obama opposes the ballot initiatives, saying they would derail efforts to break down barriers for women and members of minorities. But Mr. Connerly said Mr. Obama had already helped the cause. “He’s advanced the debate,” Mr. Connerly said. “He’s brought it to a new level.”
. . .
A federal judge once asked a friend of Mr. Obama’s whether he had been “elected on the merits” as law review president, Mr. Obama told The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education in 2001. He said the question came up again when he applied for a job as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
Mr. Obama has not described how he felt then. But as a state senator, he spoke with empathy about accomplished minority students at elite universities who sometimes lived “under a cloud they could not erase.”
Over the past few years, Mr. Obama has also voiced sympathy for whites who feel resentful of race-based affirmative action and questioned how long such programs need to continue.
Even as he argued that timetables for minority hiring may be necessary where there is evidence of systemic discrimination, he also warned in his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” that “white guilt has largely exhausted itself in America.”
It was 2006 then, and Mr. Obama was a wealthy senator considering a bid for the presidency. He worried that race-based preferences, while necessary, might undermine efforts at building cross-racial coalitions.
Presaging his recent focus on class, Mr. Obama argued that whites were more likely to join blacks in supporting programs that were not racially based.
“An emphasis on universal, as opposed to race-specific programs isn’t just good policy,” Mr. Obama said in his book. “It’s good politics.”

For the full story, see:
RACHEL L. SWARNS. “Obama’s Path on Preferences, Race and Class .” The New York Times, Section 1 (Sun., August 3, 2008): 1 & 16.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version has minor differences with the print version; the online version is quoted here, except for the article title. The online article title was: “If Elected … Delicate Obama Path on Class and Race Preferences.” The ellipisis in the online title was in the original.)

Medicare Pays $110 for Walker that Wal-Mart Sells for $60

MedicareSavingsFromEquipmentBids.jpg Source of table: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. C1) On Wal-Mart’s Web site, you can buy a walker for $59.92. It is called the Carex Explorer, and it’s a typical walker: a few feet high, with four metal poles extending to the ground. The Explorer is one of the walkers covered by Medicare.
But Medicare and its beneficiaries aren’t paying $59.92 for the Explorer or any similar walker. In fact, they’re not paying anything close to it. They are paying about $110.
. . .
(p. C5) In the abstract, fixing the health care system sounds perfectly unobjectionable: it’s about reducing costs (and then being able to cover the uninsured) by getting rid of inefficiency and waste. In reality, though, almost every bit of waste benefits someone.
Doctors who perform spinal fusion surgeries, despite decidedly mixed evidence that they’re effective, are making a nice living. Hospitals that order $1,000 diagnostic tests, even when a cheaper one would work just as well, are helping their bottom line. Medical equipment makers selling walkers for $110, while Wal-Mart sells them for $60, are fattening their profits.
The current fight to protect those profits is a microcosm of what you can expect to see if a larger effort to rein in health costs ever gets going. The defenders of the status quo won’t say that they are protecting themselves. Instead, they’ll use the same arguments that the medical equipment makers are using — that a change will destroy jobs, bankrupt small businesses and, above all, harm patients.
. . .
But this is a case in which the market can clearly do a better job than a government-mandated fee schedule. Just look at Wal-Mart’s Web site or, for that matter, the bids that Medicare has already received.
By standing in the way of this competition, Congress is really standing up for higher health care costs.

For the full commentary, see:
DAVID LEONHARDT. “ECONOMIC SCENE; High Medicare Costs, Courtesy of Congress.” The New York Times (Weds., June 25, 2008): C1 & C5.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Schumpeter’s Name Forever Linked to Entrepreneurship

From McCraw’s discussion of Schumpeter’s “legacy”:

(p. 496) Because of the importance of entrepreneurship, and because Schumpeter wrote about it with such insight and verve, his name will be forever linked to the idea.

Source:
McCraw, Thomas K. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007.

When Embracing Science is a Matter of Life and Death

MonsantoStockValueChangeGraph.gif

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. C1) The salad days of organic salad are wilting in favor of high-tech tomatoes.

As global food shortages threaten to ignite social and economic instability from Nigeria to India, the popular aversion to genetically modified foods is turning into more of a luxury for the wealthy than a practical option for the masses.
This trend is evident in the share price and earnings growth of Monsanto, the world leader in agricultural biotechnology by market share. Its stock has soared 22% this year, trading at a breathless 37 times estimated 2008 per-share earnings.

For the full story, see:
KAREN RICHARDSON. “AHEAD OF THE TAPE; Food Shortage Recasts Image of ‘Organic’.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., June 25, 2008): C1.

Supporters of Racial Discrimination Fear Allowing People to Vote

(p. A9) A total of 24 states allow voters to change laws on their own by collecting signatures and putting initiatives on the ballot. It’s healthy that the entrenched political class should face some real legislative competition from initiative-toting citizens. Unfortunately, some special interests have declared war on the initiative process, using tactics ranging from restrictive laws to outright thuggery.

The initiative is a reform born out of the Progressive Era, when there was general agreement that powerful interests had too much influence over legislators. It was adopted by most states in the Midwest and West, including Ohio and California. It was largely rejected by Eastern states, which were dominated by political machines, and in the South, where Jim Crow legislators feared giving more power to ordinary people.
But more power to ordinary people remains unpopular in some quarters, and nothing illustrates the war on the initiative more than the reaction to Ward Connerly’s measures to ban racial quotas and preferences. The former University of California regent has convinced three liberal states — California, Washington and Michigan — to approve race-neutral government policies in public hiring, contracting and university admissions. He also prodded Florida lawmakers into passing such a law. This year his American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) aimed to make the ballot in five more states. But thanks to strong-arm tactics, the initiative has only made the ballot in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska.
“The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place,” says Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). “That’s the only way we’re going to win.” Her group’s name certainly describes the tactics that are being used to thwart Mr. Connerly.
Aggressive legal challenges have bordered on the absurd, going so far as to claim that a blank line on one petition was a “duplicate” of another blank line on another petition and thus evidence of fraud. In Missouri, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan completely rewrote the initiative’s ballot summary to portray it in a negative light. By the time courts ruled she had overstepped her authority, there wasn’t enough time to collect sufficient signatures.
Those who did circulate petitions faced bizarre obstacles. In Kansas City, a petitioner was arrested for collecting signatures outside of a public library. Officials finally allowed petitioners a table inside the library but forbade them to talk. In Nebraska, a group in favor of racial preferences ran a radio ad that warned that those who signed the “deceptive” petition “could be at risk for identity theft, robbery, and much worse.”
Mr. Connerly says that it’s ironic that those who claim to believe in “people power” want to keep people from voting on his proposal: “Their tactics challenge the legitimacy of our system.”

For the full commentary, see:
JOHN FUND. “The Far Left’s War on Direct Democracy.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., July 26, 2008): A9.

Cubans Skeptical of Their Government

CubanCellPhone.jpg “Cubans used a cellphone to take photos in Havana recently after Cuba’s government lifted some restrictions on consumer items.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A16) MEXICO CITY — A rare study conducted surreptitiously in Cuba found that more than half of those interviewed considered their economic woes to be their chief concern while less than 10 percent listed lack of political freedom as the main problem facing the country.

“Almost every poll you ever see, even those in the U.S., goes to bread-and-butter issues,” said Alex Sutton, director of Latin American and Caribbean programs at the International Republican Institute, which conducted the study. “Everybody everywhere is interested in their purchasing power.”
The results showed deep anxiety about the state of the country, with 35 percent of respondents saying things were “so-so” and 47 percent saying they were going “badly” or “very badly.” As for the government’s ability to turn things around, Cubans were skeptical, with 70 percent of those interviewed saying they did not believe that the authorities would resolve the country’s biggest problem in the next few years.
The study, to be released on Thursday, was conducted from March 14 to April 12, after Raúl Castro officially took over the presidency.

For the full story, see:

MARC LACEY. “In Rare Study, Cubans Put Money Worries First.” The New York Times (Thurs., June 5, 2008): A16.
(Note: the order of some of the article content differed in the print and online versions; the version above is consistent with the print version.)

Do Not Apologize for Your Pursuit of Happiness

(p. A17) There is a whiff of hypocrisy here. Mr. Obama, who made $4.2 million last year and lives in a $1.65 million house bought with the help of the indicted Tony Rezko – and whose “elegant suits” and “impeccable ties” made him one of Esquire’s Best-Dressed Men in the World – disdains college students who might want to “chase after the big house and the nice suits.” Mr. McCain, who with his wife earned more than $6 million last year and who owns at least seven homes, ridicules Mr. Romney for having built businesses.

But hypocrisy is not the biggest issue. The real issue is that Messrs. Obama and McCain are telling us Americans that our normal lives are not good enough, that pursuing our own happiness is “self-indulgence,” that building a business is “chasing after our money culture,” that working to provide a better life for our families is a “narrow concern.”

They’re wrong. Every human life counts. Your life counts. You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others.

For the full commentary, see:
DAVID BOAZ. “Our Collectivist Candidates.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., May 28, 2008): A17.

Keynes Was Relying on the Invisible Hand of the Market in 1946

AusterityBritainBK.jpg

Source of book image:
http://www.tbpcontrol.co.uk/TWS/CoverImages_0/074/757/0747579857.jpg

(p. B7) As Mr. Kynaston sets his scene, what immediately becomes clear is that the recent past is not so recent. “Britain in 1945. No supermarkets, no motorways, no teabags, no sliced bread, no frozen food. … No launderettes, no automatic washing machines, wash day every Monday, clothes boiled in a tub, scrubbed on the draining board. …Abortion illegal, homosexual relationships illegal, suicide illegal, capital punishment legal. White faces everywhere.” And with all those white faces was the single overwhelming, blanketing fact of deprivation, a bare-bones existence. Britain had just prevailed in a struggle for its very survival, but victory never looked so grim.
. . .
The Labor Party won the 1945 election in a landslide on a promise of national planning. The debate now was how far to take socialism, with the Laborites divided between the hell-bent nationalizers and the more market-oriented Keynesians. In 1946 Keynes himself admitted (though privately) that “I find myself more and more relying for a solution of our problems on the invisible hand” of the market, “which I tried to eject from economic thinking 20 years ago.”
. . .
Almost invisible in Mr. Kynaston’s sparkling panorama is a sign of what was to come. One Conservative politician was out of step not only with Labor’s policies but even with the prevailing views of her own party. Margaret Roberts was just about alone in condemning the welfare state as “pernicious,” destructive of the national character. In 1951, a year after Labor’s second postwar electoral victory, she got married. Her husband’s name was Thatcher.

For the full review, see:

Barry Gewen. “Books of The Times – In Postwar Britain, the Grim Face of Victory.” The New York Times (Thurs., June 12, 2008): B7.
(Note: ellipses within the Kynaston quote are in the original; ellipses between paragraphs are added.)