Countries. Companies. And CNN

I did not think it was possible, but Davos got more interesting today. President Schroeder of Germany started off the day with the introduction of major social reforms recently undertaken within Germany. The frank reason for the reforms: the Germans are running out of money to pay for all the programs. To Americans, reforming social security, the health and unemployment insurance programs sound familiar. In Germany, these changes were even more resisted that in the US, yet they were passed and are being implemented by the German government. What a remarkable achievement.

Next, I attended a discussion of similar reforms underway in Japan. These changes in both Japan and in Germany are being driven by the resistance of their younger citizens to pay for these programs. I was surprised to find out that, in Japan, a significant number of younger citizens refuse to pay their social security taxes!

I came away from these sessions believing that the proposals of President Bush, as highlighted in his inaugural address, are seriously being considered by all of Europe. What a great day.

My enthusiasm dampened at the next session, however, as two moderate Republican senators (McCain and Hatch) debated the head of the AFL/CIO (John Sweeney), and the Mayor of San Francisco. I did not appreciate the bickering that took place, which I feel is a US internal matter, and not something to showcase to the entire world. The applause the mayor got when he called the Iraq war an "abomination" was the worst moment of the session, in my opinion. Is this really the way that liberals wish to discuss American policy on the world stage? Unthinkable.

The afternoon was spent first discussing the advantages of private businesses over public businesses, and, second, the best methods to grow great companies, regardless of their size. Both sessions agreed that the best corporate form is a public company in which a substantial minority control is held by one or more "families." Quite an interesting conclusion, in light of the fact that they reached this conclusion coming from opposite extremes. There is a lesson in there for my company, Nanofilm.

I concluded the evening being live on CNN, as I participated in a town meeting discussing democracy in the Middle East. Key political and business leaders from the Arab world were there, and I was able to chat with some of them afterwards. One of them will be meeting with me tomorrow to learn a little more about nanotechnology and what promise it might hold for them. Through all of the broadcast, I felt like I was witnessing a momentous event unfolding right in front of me. I was.

Today, I rubbed shoulders with world business and political leaders on a first name basis, and feel more knowledgeable abut how to help Nanofilm truly become a global company. Not bad for a mere 24 hours.

Scott Rickert, Tech Pioneer Award Winner

World Economic Forum

Davos, Switzerland

Friday, 28 January

Comments

[likwidshoe]

George says, "Scott, you know why everyone in the world wants to have a vote in their hand when the US presidential election took place? Because the business of US is not only US' business any more. What is decided within US is going to have huge impact on the rest of the world, no matter the latter likes it or not."

Well, you could say that about any big country.

[George]

Scott, you know why everyone in the world wants to have a vote in their hand when the US presidential election took place? Because the business of US is not only US' business any more. What is decided within US is going to have huge impact on the rest of the world, no matter the latter likes it or not.
Plus, this is only a debate.

[Kaspar]

I congratulate you for your Tech Award and for your other blog post in which you enlightened the readers a bit about what "nano" is all about. This post, however, shows that you are slightly ignorant when it comes to politics.

As for German and US social security systems and their reforms, these are hardly compareable matters. The german social security system is quasi-socialist and there weas really no way around reforming it to give people incentives to work again. The US social security, on the other hand, is quasi-ultra-liberal and there is really no way around making it a bit more equitable...

As for US politicians discussing US-internal-topics in a shameful way on world stage, it is really the best thing they can do. As in their discussion arenas at home everything is black or white, good or evil, for or against us, etc., it may be quite useful for US politicians to disscuss "their" (and in the case of foreign policy also other people's) topics with an in front of an international audience. This is likely to result in more a sophisticated and differeciated debate.