Business Blog on The Huffington Post

The drugs industry is the most profitable on earth. It has two branches -- an illegal one consisting of drug cartels and a legal one consisting of drug companies.

The huge profits derived by both branches accrue from the same source -- monopoly price gouging. The monopoly on the illegal side is enforced by guns; on the legal side by patents, lawsuits, mergers, advertising, fake research, and bought politicians.

Both markets are asymmetrical -- all the power is with the seller, the consumer is desperate to buy and therefore is price insensitive. Addiction and fear of illness are among the strongest of motivators.

The drug cartels are murderously ruthless; the drug companies only marginally less so. Twice as many people now die from prescription drugs as from street drugs, but this does not prevent the drug companies from pushing harmful products for profit.

In a previous blog, I pointed out that we are fighting the wrong war on drugs- a forty-five year losing battle with the cartels that we cannot possibly win, while neglecting the battle against the Pharma monopoly that we could not possibly lose.

I will indicate the various ways Pharma has gained and protected its monopoly power and then suggest ways of restoring restraint and price competition:

● Buying Politicians: Pharma has one of the strongest lobbies in Washington and is one of the biggest contributors to political parties and candidates, especially on the Republican side of the aisle. Its influence is also augmented by the revolving door- people who serve as legislators or staff or regulators during part of their careers become highly paid Pharma lobbyists during other parts. The crazy result- although Medicare is the world's biggest buyer of drugs, it is prohibited because of Pharma political power from negotiating their price. US consumers and taxpayers pay more than twice as much for the same pill as people in other countries.

● Toothless Regulation: Pharma increasingly dominates its regulators. Eight years ago, the FDA approval rate for new drugs was 33%; this year it jumpef to over 95%. The FDA has also pretty much lost control over Pharma marketing to the public and to doctors. And it has been deprived of the ability to consider cost in its drug approval process. New drugs that are far more expensive, but questionably safer or more effective, are legitimized by a cursory FDA approval process and then are advertised into billion dollar "breakthrough" blockbusters.

● Third Party Reimbursement: Many people have insurance that allows them to co-pay only a small fraction of the enormous prices now charged to insurance for most drugs. This has made much of the public relatively price insensitive. Those without coverage either have to go without or suffer great financial hardship. This is now changing. As co-pays and deductible limits rise rapidly, more people are feeling the pain and are pressing for government protection against exhorbitant drug company pricing.

● Disease Mongering: Pharma successfully pressured government for the right to advertise directly to consumers, something allowed in no other developed country except New Zealand. Misleading advertising allows drug companies to create artificial demand- selling the pill to sell the ill. Billions of dollars are spent on extensive 'disease awareness' campsigns that hide the wolf of Pharma greed under the sheep's clothing of patient and physician education.

● Fake Research: Drug companies pretend they must charge outrageous prices to support the research that will lead to miracle cures. Not true. Drug companies spend twice as much on lobbying and marketing than on research. And most of their "research" is no more tha a disguised arm of marketing- driven by profit motive, not concern for patient health. Pharma has been great at making profitable me-too drugs to extend patent life, not very good at finding new drugs that really make a difference.

● Co-Opting Consumer Advocacy: Drug companies heavily finance consumer advocacy groups, often making them little more than extensions of the drug company lobbying efforts to pressure legislators and regulators.

● Generic Drug Consolidation: Generics were meant to be the one refuge of competitive, rational and affordable drug pricing. Once the patent protecting the monopoly on a drug ran out, other companies would produce generic versions competing on price to attract consumers. It isn't working out that way. The price of generic drugs is now also sky-rocketing because companies are consolidating and have figured out all sorts of tricky ways to restrict access to less expensive medications. The most dramatic recent example is Daraprim, a drug sold at reasonable prices for 62 years, whose price would have been raised 5,000 percent if media and public outrage had not caused its producer to back down.

Monopolies are the cancer of capitalism. Adam Smith, the revered father of free market economics, recognized the dangers of cornered markets and endorsed the role of government in regulating against monopoly power. He would be appalled by the drug companies' ability to rig pricing.

The solution to the drug company stranglehold is simple- restore competition by reducing monopoly power. Preventing Medicare from negotiating prices is nothing less than a giveaway of taxpayer dollars to greedy Pharma by politicians who are in its hip pocket. So are me-too patent extensions, reduced FDA regulatory power, marketing directly to consumers, off label marketing, and a host of other Pharma tricks to create false demand and retain exclusive control over supply.

A free, fair, and constructive drug market would be easy to create if the game weren't so badly rigged. Pharma has purchased the politicians and diverted their loyalty away from the public good.

Fair play can be restored, but only if there is the same intense public outrage and class action suits that tamed Big Tobacco. Politicians will do the right thing only if and when they become more afraid of voters than of lobbyists.

There are some encouraging signs even this early in the current election cycle. Candidates and legislators of both parties now realize that public outrage has reached a boiling point and are beginning to suggest various ways drug prices should be controlled. Pharma, of course, is doubling down with its usual platitudinous defenses and enormous campaign contributions.

The drug industry is the most profitable on earth because it has greedily exercised to the full its monopoly power to price gouge. But the combination of mounting public outrage, frequent media expose, and the politics of this election season now provide the critical ingredients for possible change.

It will be extremely easy for politicians to make empty promises, much harder under Pharma lobbying pressure for them to deliver on them. But talking the deceptive talk will no longrt cut it- we should elect only those courageous politicians who can also walk the difficult walk. They are in office to protect us, not the drug companies.

Allen Frances is a professor emeritus at Duke University and was the chairman of the DSM-IV task force.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

This being human is a guesthouse.
Every morning a new arrival.
A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes
as an unexpected visitor.
Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they're a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still, treat each guest honorably.
He may be clearing you out
for some new delight.
The dark thought, the shame, the malice,
meet them at the door laughing,
and invite them in.
Be grateful for whoever comes,
because each has been sent
as a guide from beyond.
- Rumi

Every emotion is useful if you know how to work with it.

There are five basic competencies for working with your emotions: self-awareness, self-acceptance, self-regulation, self-inquiry and self-expression. These competences correlate with the five competencies for working with other people's emotions: awareness, acknowledgment, influence, inquiry and listening. (I will cover these in the post after next.)

Self-awareness is the capacity to apprehend what is happening within you. This capacity to experience your inner condition is a basic survival skill as an organism, but human beings enjoy a special level of consciousness. You not only experience your inner states, you can reflect on them and make them an object of your awareness. When you say, "I feel (myself) afraid," there is a part of you that is afraid (the "myself" part), but not all of you. There is another part of you (the "I" part) that notices the "myself" part of you is afraid.

You can increase the intensity of your awareness at will. Like a theater set that is illuminated with more or less intensity, awareness occurs along a continuum. You can be more or less aware, more or less mindful. The less attention you pay, the less alert you'll be, and the greater the probability of living a mechanical life governed by emotional impulses. The less aware you are, the less able you'll be to develop the objective witnessing part of yourself that can perceive and respond impartially. Awareness is the raw material of freedom and responsibility; the basic tool for working with your emotions.

"Emotions need not be acted on when we see that to do so is counterproductive, but if they are treated with respect they can become invaluable pathways to important information (...) It's a mark of wisdom and maturity to understand that we have the power to be a nonjudgmental witness to our emotions, thoughts and memories without being controlled by them or driven to act in self-destructive ways." - Nathaniel Brander

Self-Acceptance is the capacity to accept your emotions without repressing them. This implies suspending your judgment. You acknowledge that any emotion is an automatic impulse that arises beyond your control. It is impossible for you to prevent an emotion. What is possible for you, and vitally important, is to abstain from acting impulsively.

It is helpful to remember that an emotion always has a valid foundation in the thoughts that underlie it. There's no such thing as bad or unreasonable emotions. What is possible is that the thoughts at the root of an emotion are inaccurate, unfounded or destructive. Before you can analyze these thoughts, you need to first open the cocoon of the emotion with gentleness, never with reproach. Once the thoughts are revealed, you can engage them critically. To work with your emotions, you need to treat yourself with the same kindness, understanding and compassion with which you would treat your child. When judgment presides, understanding hides. If you criticize your emotions, you'll never understand them. And without understanding them, you can't manage them.

Self-regulation is the capacity to regulate your impulses, the discipline to maintain control in the face of instinctual pressures. To regulate means to give direction to your emotional energy. According to Daniel Goleman, the capacity to subordinate immediate gratification to long term objectives is the most important psychological skill: "There is perhaps no psychological skill more fundamental than resisting impulse. It is the root of all emotional self-control, since all emotions, by their very nature, lead to one or another impulse to act."

In order to subordinate your actions to long-term interests, you have to take the driver's seat. You have to use your will to choose consciously what you'll do and what you won't do. This allows you to control (without repressing) the counter-productive impulses and motivate yourself to pursue ends that are important to you. Self-awareness and self-acceptance are critical for self-regulation. In order to regulate your impulses, you need to simultaneously separate from them and "embrace" them. Once you have done this, you can explore how to respond to the situation (which includes your emotion) in ways that are congruent with your values.

Self-Inquiry is the capacity to understand the stories that give rise to your emotions. When you experience an emotion you can examine its underlying beliefs in order to separate the useful information from the neurosis. Here are some common emotions, the beliefs that underlie them and a hint about the call to action each one sends. In the next post and video, we will explore this competency in detail.

In the following video, you can see how all emotions are "useful" if you know to work with them.

11.2 Every Emotion Is Useful If You Know What To Do With It from Fred Kofman

Should you have any trouble viewing the video please click here to view on Fred's slideshare page

Fred Kofman is Vice President at Linkedin. This post is part 11.2 of Linkedin's Conscious Business Program. To find the introduction and full structure of this program, visit Conscious Business Academy. To stay connected and get updates, please and join our Conscious Business Friends group. Follow Fred Kofman on LinkedIn here.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

In light of the attacks in Paris and the end of Jihadi John, I'm guessing there will be lots of workplace water cooler talk about Muslims and Middle Easterners in the news. Inevitably, someone will go on a rant about Muslims. That person will get you sued unless you shut them down speedy quick.

A recent example is a lawsuit filed after a Muslim employee was taunted by coworkers with cries of, "Allahu Akbar" when he was on the phone and setting his password as, "BinLaden1." The coworkers claim it was all in good fun. Not surprisingly, the Muslim employee was not amused.

So yes, it is sometimes tempting in anger over a big news story to vent frustrations on someone who looks or sounds different. I've met people from the West Indies, India, and even South America who looked to coworkers or customers slightly Middle Eastern and who were subjected to horrid treatment: name calling, offensive cartoons, moving them to the back of the workplace so customers won't see them, pranks. Calling a dark-skinned person a terrorist, asking them if they are going to cut off your head, or blaming them for ISIS is stupid. It's also illegal. So is refusing to hire an applicant who wears a hijab, bowing to customer preferences not to deal with a Muslim employee, and firing an employee when you find out that they don't hold your religious beliefs.

To HR people, I would urge you to shut down any such activities immediately. You may not be popular, but you might just save the company from a lawsuit. You might remind offenders that all Muslims are not any more responsible for the attacks in Paris than all Americans are responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City bomber).

To Muslims and Middle Easterners (and people who "look" Muslim) going to work this week, don't despair. Take good notes of any incidents, with dates, locations, and witnesses. Print out any offensive emails or written materials. Then report it, in writing, to HR. Call it, "Formal Complaint Of Religious/National Origin Harassment." Lay out how you have been treated differently than non-Middle Eastern/non-Muslim employees (or Anglos, etc.) and any harassment you encountered due to your national origin and/or religion.

If they won't shut it down, contact EEOC or an employment lawyer in your state. You have the right to work in a place free of religious and national origin-based harassment.

For more information about employment law issues, check out Donna Ballman's award-winning employee-side employment law blog, Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home and her employment law articles at AOL Jobs.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

2015-11-18-1447869874-9608168-11.3EveryEmotionIsALoveStory.jpg

"The emotional brain responds to an event more quickly than the thinking brain." Daniel Goleman

In my last post we covered the first three of the five basic competencies for working with your emotions: self-awareness, self-acceptance, and self-regulation. In this post, let's cover the last two: self-inquiry and self-expression.

Self-Inquiry is the capacity to understand the stories that give rise to your emotions. When you experience an emotion you can examine its underlying story in order to separate the useful information from the false beliefs. That is, you can welcome the emotion as an appropriate expression of your thoughts while critically analyzing these thoughts to check whether they are true; that is to say, they appropriately represent reality.

For example, you may experience a jolt of fear when you see a snake on the running trail ahead of you... until you realize that it's just a piece of rope. The fear is right; the perception is wrong. The mistake is cognitive, not emotional.

Self-expression is the capacity to act appropriately in response to your emotions. When you feel the emotion and you validate its cognitive root, you can use it to guide your behavior. The natural emotional cycle is to get stirred up as feeling and then move out as action. When you acknowledge your feelings and express them appropriately, they foster emotional health.

Returning to the example of the snake, if there were a snake it would be prudent to express your fear by stopping and giving the snake a wide berth. That's what fear calls you to do, to take care of yourself and what you value. Since it is only a rope fear vanishes and you can happily run through.

The Emotion is Always Right (But The Story Behind It May Be Wrong)

If you examine a particular story beneath an emotion, you will find a series of assessments. These assessments may be wrong. They can be the product of perceptual or reasoning errors.

That's why to you emotional intelligence means to embrace the emotion and challenge the thought. Then, you can respond appropriately through self-expression. You may find it useful to have a list of some basic emotional narratives to understand each emotion's presuppositions and it's "call to action."

Happiness: You feel happy when you believe that something good has happened. Happiness is the expression of care in the face of success. Think of a time when you felt happy. You probably assessed that you attained something of value. Happiness calls for celebration. When you celebrate, you recognize the value you achieved and face the future with strength and hope.

Sadness: You feel sad when you believe that something bad has happened. Sadness is the expression of care in the face of a loss. Think of a time when you felt sad. You probably assessed that you lost something of value. Sadness calls for grieving. When you grieve, you acknowledge the importance of the loss and recover a sense of inner peace.

Enthusiasm: You feel enthusiastic when you believe that something good may happen. Think of a time when you felt enthusiastic. You probably assessed that something you valued was within your grasp. Enthusiasm calls for effort. When you turn enthusiasm into concrete actions, you increase the probability of achieving your objectives.

Fear: You feel afraid when you believe that something bad may happen. Think of a time when you felt afraid. You probably assessed that something you valued was at risk. Fear calls for protection. When you turn fear into specific actions, you decrease the probability (or the impact) of the possible loss.

Gratitude: You feel grateful when you believe that someone went out of his or her way to do something good for you. Think of a time when you felt grateful. You probably assessed that someone helped you attain something you valued. Gratitude calls for appreciation. Thanking the person who helped you, you recognize his/her efforts and acknowledge his/her impact on your well-being.

Anger: You feel angry when you believe that someone hurt you inappropriately. Think of a time when you felt angry. You probably judged that, because of some transgression, someone damaged something you valued. Anger calls for a complaint, an effort to reestablish the violated boundaries. Anger also calls for repairing what was damaged and protecting it for the future. Expressing anger productively, you reaffirm your values and reduce the chances they will be harmed again.

There is another pair of emotions, pride and guilt. Those will be the topic of the next post.

In the following video, I discuss how every emotion is based on a story about something that matters to you.

11.3 Every Emotion Is A Love Story from Fred Kofman

Should you have any trouble viewing the video please click here to view on Fred's slideshare page.

Readers: Do these stories fit your experience?

Fred Kofman is Vice President at Linkedin. This post is part 11.3 of Linkedin's Conscious Business Program. To find the introduction and full structure of this program visit Conscious Business Academy. To stay connected and get updates please and join our Conscious Business Friends group. Follow Fred Kofman on LinkedIn here.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

2015-11-18-1447870289-8688953-11.4GuiltIsHealthyShameIsNot.jpg

"Negative emotions like loneliness, envy, and guilt have an important role to play in a happy life; they're big, flashing signs that something needs to change."
Gretchen Rubin

You feel guilty when you believe you did something inconsistent with your values and, through that action, you hurt someone that matters to you.

Think of a time when you felt guilty. You probably judged that you transgressed some moral boundary and, because of such transgression, you damaged another person (or yourself).

Guilt calls for an apology, an effort to make amends and to recommit to the value you failed to demonstrate. Guilt also calls for repairing what you damaged and making the person you hurt whole.

Expressing guilt productively, you restore your integrity.

You feel ashamed when you believe you are something inconsistent with your values. When you feel you are wrong, no matter what you do.

Shame is not an emotion; it is a frozen assessment that there is something fundamentally wrong with you. Shame doesn't call for any action, since no action can change what you are. Shame just hangs over you like a black cloud that never stops raining.

There's no healthy expression of shame. The only healthy thing to do about shame is to recognize it for the harmful illusion that it is, and let it dissolve. Like the mirage of water on the road ahead of you dissolves when you approach it.

In the following video, I discuss how guilt is healthy while shame is not.

11.4 Guilt Is Healthy Shame Is Not from Fred Kofman

Should you have any trouble viewing the video please click here to view on Fred's slideshare page

Readers: Is there any guilt that you need to heal through corrective actions? Is there any shame you need to dissolve through self-awareness?

Fred Kofman is Vice President at Linkedin. This post is part 11.4 of Linkedin's Conscious Business Program. To find the introduction and full structure of this program visit Conscious Business Academy. To stay connected and get updates please and join our Conscious Business Friends group. Follow Fred Kofman on LinkedIn here.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Congratulations! Your employer just announced that you will be receiving a bonus at the end of the year. Your first thought is to begin mentally packing a suitcase for that dream trip to an exotic beachfront resort.

Although you may not want to hear it, don't book that flight quite yet.

According to a recent annual compensation study from human resources and management consultant Aon Hewitt, U.S. organizations reported the highest level of compensation spending in 39 years. However, that jump was owed mainly to "the majority of funds allocated to variable pay, such as incentives, bonuses and cash awards."

In other words, at some employers, as small as they have been on average in recent years, bonuses might be replacing traditional raises, according to Mercer.

Variable pay is a big movement at U.S. companies and it's spreading to all levels of the workforce, not only to the typical high earners in fields such as investments or finance. Aon Hewitt said that 90 percent of companies are shifting to some form of incentive model for a very important reason - a focus on traditional, annual raises simply makes long-term employees more expensive over time.

So to heck with that bonus check, right? Wrong. You've been given a good opportunity to think about your job, your annual earnings and the financial decisions you're making and might need to make in the future. Here are ways to proceed.

Make sure you understand whether this is a one-time award or whether your employer is really shifting to a variable pay system. This is not only a money question, but also an important career question. If you are going to be evaluated under new benchmarks and measurements for work you've done every day, you should fully understand these new guidelines and how you can maximize them in your best interest. Keep in mind that companies approach variable pay in different ways. Some may keep a system that preserves basic raises but steers more compensation toward bonuses and other incentives based on performance. Others might build overall division or company profits into the compensation calculation.

When clarifying any questions you have about your bonus, be diplomatic. If you have questions about a one-time bonus or a bonus that is part of a new compensation system, go to a designated human resource representative or manager directly. If there is explanatory material, study it, plan any questions in advance and be polite when asking questions face-to-face. Take notes to remember what was said.

Get qualified advice. A one-time bonus or a long-term change in the way you're compensated is an important financial event. Consider speaking with a qualified financial planner or tax expert about any bonus news you receive and see if they have questions or guidance relevant to your individual financial situation. Keep in mind that the Internal Revenue Service generally considers bonuses as supplemental wages that can be taxed at a higher rate than regular weekly wages. Check IRS Publication 15 for more detail or speak with a qualified expert for more guidance.

Be practical, but don't forget the fun. Consider treating your bonus like your paycheck - evaluate how to pay expenses and put aside savings first and then figure out what you can spend for fun. Maybe diverting more of your bonus to essentials this year will give you more money for fun next year. However, do find a way to enjoy at least a part of your bonus -- after all, you earned the money.

On the subject of earned income, never forget how important your basic wage level is to your lifetime benefits and preparation for retirement. If you earn a nice bonus each year but your actual salary level doesn't rise significantly over time, that's important for a number of reasons. For one, your salary level - not extra money you get from bonuses or other incentives - provides the basis for calculating the employer and government benefits you'll receive in retirement. Also, lenders look closest at your actual wages when deciding whether to grant you a mortgage or other credit. In other words, you might want to consider saving or investing that bonus instead of spending it.

Finally, if you can't accept change, be ready to make one. Companies like performance-based pay systems for another important reason - they can help weed out individuals who might be poor performers. As more employers adopt variable pay and performance grading systems organization-wide, you should consider important issues beyond the money. For example, if you are doing work you love, will meeting new performance targets change how you feel about your job? Are you ready to take on the challenges of a workplace where you're graded and evaluated in a different way than you're used to? In some environments, new employee compensation methods can be liberating and financially rewarding; in others, it can make it tougher to stay. Certainly keep an eye on all pay, tax and financial planning issues as you accept or compete for bonuses, but above all, make sure you're happy with your career. If not, consider looking for a better opportunity.

Bottom line: A bonus is always great news, right? In most cases, definitely. However, any workplace awards or incentives you receive can have a long-term impact on your finances. Getting qualified investment or tax advice on bonuses can be helpful.

Nathaniel Sillin directs Visa's financial education programs. To follow Practical Money Skills on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PracticalMoney

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

"Followers unite!" And just like that established leaders like Timothy Wolfe, President of the University of Missouri, and Martin Winterkorn, CEO at Volkswagen, are gone.

While there is much talk about developing stronger leaders, what seems a more present reality is that followers have become much more empowered to actively - and sometimes passively - reject leaders they no longer are willing to follow.

Sometimes it appears to be warranted and long overdue. Other times it looks like an angry torch-carrying mob with pitchforks and knives. Either way, flash mobs of dissident followers armed with iPhone cameras, social media, threat of class-action lawsuits and backed by a drama-addicted media - are the new leadership normal. Distrust of institutions and their leaders are like a fuse one spark short of igniting. It is the newest form of organizational risk and it often goes undiagnosed and untreated.

Mostly leaders have not changed but the tolerance of their followers - employees, customers/students/patients/voters, and partners - has. Leadership, power and authority are viewed suspiciously and even contemptuously by increasingly intolerant followers. Trust in leaders is down nine percent since 2011 and only one in five trusts leaders to tell the truth when confronted with a difficult issue.

There is truth in this lack of trust. As former NFL coach Bum Philips said after a lop-sided loss, "The film looks suspiciously like the game itself." The actions of followers look suspiciously like the relationships they have with their leaders. When leaders and the shareholders/donors they report to fail to recognize this revolt against leadership, they risk their positions and their organizations.

We can debate whether the growing disregard for organizations and their leaders is a good thing. I have discussed the dysfunction of our rising victim culture here. But it is difficult to deny the new reality and that that the trend is likely to grow. The 92 million Millennials (vs.77 million baby boomers) represent our largest workforce demographic beginning in 2015 and their distrust of leadership and strong self-assured opinions about work-life, transparency, and purpose, will only add to the demands on leaders. I recommend three key steps for leaders:

Relational Risk -- Name it: Leaders must begin by identifying and naming Relational Risk as a new, compelling component of risk management. Often the signs are present but ignored. The New York Times reports "Volkswagen's command-and-control structure probably made it difficult for Winterkorn to escape responsibility, even if no direct culpability. Critics long faulted a company culture that hampers internal communication and discourages mid-managers from delivering bad news." Millions of customers threatening class-action lawsuits were a product of a leader's unidentified Relational Risk.

Of the University of Missouri, the New York Times wrote, "Wolfe didn't do himself any favors. A former corporate executive, Wolfe possessed a command-and-control style that didn't jibe well with campus life. And he clearly didn't know how to respond to the protests."

Relationship crisis does not devolve from a single incident but from a series of episodes where relationship damage accumulates because it is ignored or handled ineffectively - incubating risk. Spineless acquiescence or reactive overkill are traps for leaders who fail to name and respect relational risk.

Relational Leadership -- Lead it: Relational risk demands relational leadership. I define Relational Leadership as the ability to deliver and sustain productive engagement with widely different groups. It means being engaged with your employees, your customers, your shareholders and especially with outspoken groups that feel powerless - that may seem oppositional or even hostile. Yesterday's wisdom was: Hold your friends close and your enemies closer.

Today's wisdom requires leaders with the humility to recognize that those who oppose them constitute one of their most valuable resources. Competitors push leaders to perform better; philosophical opposition introduces differences that may reveal blind spots or opportunities for innovative improvement. Critics push them to get clearer on what they believe and why. A recent study found that highly regarded CEOs were six times as likely to be viewed as humble when compared to least-highly regarded CEOs.

Leaders coddled by uncontested power are often unprepared to lead during a relational crisis. In fact coddled leaders often unwittingly make coddled followers stronger. Today like never before, in both selecting and developing leaders, Relational Leadership skills must be a priority for successfully addressing this new risk of highly critical, sometimes entitled followers.

Relational Metrics -- Measure it: The growing relational risk that leaders face is changing the metrics that boards, key shareholders and regulators pay attention to. I recently spoke at a Relational Risk conference at Cambridge University in England with attendees from about 20 countries. A fellow speaker addressed a growing movement requiring more integrated reporting from public companies beyond just financial information to include metrics regarding social and relational capital - a Relationship Scorecard, you might say. This broader reporting is now mandated in Brazil and South Africa and voluntarily being addressed in 20 percent of the FTSI 100 companies in the UK. Governments and shareholders recognize that financial reporting is a pretty narrow, after-the-fact instrument for understanding and anticipating relational risk with customers, employees, communities and the environment.

Instituting a Relationship Scorecard to track and understand the strengths and weaknesses of key constituent relationships is an important step to proactive Relational Leadership. If we want a more accountable, less-entitled society, it must start with leaders competently and plan-fully addressing follower dissonance. Simply blaming the "victims" will not be a viable strategy. In medicine it often leads to medical malpractice. In leaders it risks leadership malpractice. Leadership is similar to medicine where what most often gets you sued is not substandard medical treatment, but callous relationship treatment.

The risk of followership revolt is real. Self-righteous dictators, Pharisees, and command-and-control leaders are no more attractive than self-righteous followers. Relational leaders must be the grown-ups that engage proactively, productively, and relationally; anything less fuels revolt. Relational leaders will view these challenges as opportunities to strengthen leadership, build relationships with dissident groups and grow their relational currency. The time to build Relational Leadership is not in the midst of a crisis - it is now!

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

We often discuss how to be better stewards of time, money, and resources, but have you ever considered the importance of stewarding criticism? How can we become better stewards of the reviews, opinions, judgments, or feedback of others regarding our work? To steward means simply to "thoughtfully manage." How do you manage criticism? What is your attitude toward scrutiny? Nobody likes scrutiny, and everyone's a critic right? Our biggest fans tell us not to give criticism another thought, and encourage us to blow it off. We're told by many it doesn't deserve our time. But does it?

How we receive and respond to criticism no matter where it comes from makes a difference. And while criticism should never consume our lives, it does have its place. Our response to criticism reveals more about our leadership, and self-awareness than one might think.

Chances are we may need to hear all or some of what our critics have to say. Below are 5 crucial considerations to help you better steward the feedback and criticism of others.

Criticism may be legit. Face it. The criticism may be fair. It may not be your best work. Be careful not to completely disregard other's thoughts. Criticism is sometimes exactly what we need. Be honest with yourself and work to find the nugget of truth in what your critics are saying. Your critic's ideas could help hone your message, your product, or improve your bottom line. Listening to our critics may reveal new messages or potential new products or ideas to meet the needs of other people, even the critic.

Criticism teaches. Criticism helps us grow, and stretches us, sometimes more than we wish. Life is not always comfortable and that's OK. We can learn from the comments, sentiments, and observations of others. Even if we ultimately determine our critic's opinions to be less than useful, each time we experience the discomfort of criticism, we become more approachable, more understanding, and gain better insight into how we receive, respond, and provide criticism. Criticism causes us to consider other people's point of view, or ideas. We learn every time we do that.

Criticism keeps us grounded. Sometimes we take ourselves too seriously. Criticism reminds us we're only human, and that we're all different and we're not perfect. Neither are our critics. But when we approach criticism in the right spirit, it gives our critics and opportunity to appreciate our hearts, even if they don't like our product. Thank your critics and get to know them. After all our critics are putting themselves out there too. Some don't mind so much, but others risk a lot to share their opinions. If you disagree, or you're alarmed by their bullet points of your shortcomings, breathe. Ask your critic to help you understand where they're coming from, then show them you value their honest by asking how they might have approached things differently.

Consider the source of the criticism. Give criticism a moment to settle. Then consider where the criticism is coming from. Some believe we should only listen to criticism from our closest friends or family, but criticism from those within your inner circle can go two ways. Suggestions from those you love may seem harsh, or it may be insignificant or watered down. It's important to keep it in perspective. The value of criticism from family or friends depends on your level of trust and how "real" they believe they can be with you. Our level of connectedness and freedom to share determines our level of appreciation, and our level of offense.

On one hand, the opinions of people you know will carry an element of bias, and a bit more encouragement. Sometimes people we are closely connected to are reluctant to verbalize our inconsistencies or our shortcomings. Some people are blessed to have rare people in their inner circles who are honest and comfortable enough to hold uncomfortable conversations. The best leaders and creators develop tolerance for those situations.

On the other hand, people you don't know, may not fully understand your intentions or your message. There may be an element of envy or jealousy from outsiders that creeps into how they express their opinions. Outsiders hold less emotional connection, and are much less reluctant to verbalize our inconsistencies and or directly list our shortfalls. People who don't know you can hit you hard with an overzealous truth. Because we cannot know their motivations, we sometimes digest the opinions of outsiders or unknowns as an attack. Because we don't have the benefit of relationship, we are often suspicious, and disregard the criticism. Wise leaders or creators don't take criticism personally. Often it's just not.

In either case, sometimes we're unwilling or unable to view criticism from its purest motive or ideal context, but truth is truth. Process but don't obsess. Neither your identity nor your acceptance is defined by criticism of others.

There's a difference between feedback and criticism. Criticism often comes unsolicited and free of charge and can knock us off our game, while we seem to accept "feedback" a little better because we ask people to tell us what we think. Neither is less valuable and both are worthy of our time and thoughtfulness, just not all of it.

Creators can sometimes be touchy because of our level of ownership. We don't want people questioning our creation. We want everyone to enjoy it, to love it, to tweet it, pin it, or post it for the masterpiece it is. Yet sometimes we invite feedback, but can't handle what we hear, so we disregard the opinion as invalid or the critic as a hater. Not every opinion is invalid. Not every critic is a hater. To simply cast aside feedback or criticism without reflection is irresponsible, unwise and even disrespectful to those we invited to review our performance. Also, you get what you ask for. If you only want observations, then say that. If you want guidance say that, and if you want the brutal truth, free your critics to provide that too! Whether it's invited feedback or outright unsolicited criticism, do not allow it to consume you. Opinions are just opinions and everyone has them.

Finally, when you throw something out there for the world to consume, then the world becomes your audience. Of course, not everyone is your target audience, and not everyone will be your biggest fan, but as long as people are considering your work, they are a part of the audience at large. And if you're doing things well, they may invest enough in you to provide some feedback, whether good or bad. With the right approach, you may be able to connect and transform your critics into fans, and that's how creators, and leaders steward criticism.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

The holiday shopping season is upon us (earlier than ever, of course!) and for those of us mindful of our credit and finances it can be a tricky and difficult season, unless you have a good solid plan before you hit the stores. Here are my best tips for surviving the season with your credit and finances intact.

1. Make the best of Black Friday and Cyber Monday deals. To find great deals and save money on your shopping you need to be organized. Have your list of gifts to buy and a written Holiday budget. Then, when Black Friday and Cyber Monday deals come around you'll know exactly what you're looking for and be able to capitalize on the deals, stretching your gift-giving dollars even further.

2. Pull out your store cards. Shop in the stores you have store cards for because often they offer coupons and extra deals to cardholders. Use your credit cards that offer reward points, which you may be able to redeem for gift cards, which also make great gifts. Remember to keep your receipts, record the purchases in your budget and make sure you pay the bill on time, especially for cards you rarely use.

3. Shop Local on Small Business Saturday. The Saturday following Thanksgiving is Small Business Saturday, which is a great chance to get some holiday deals by shopping local. Take the chance to enjoy the season walking around your town and discovering unique retailers. Hate to wrap presents? Many local retailers offer gift wrapping services, another good money and time saver you get by shopping local.

4. Think about the New Year. It's easy to forget during November and December that the New Year is right around the corner. Do you want to start the New Year with extra debt? If not, buy gifts you can afford. No one you're buying for wants a gift if you need to go into debt for.

5. Review your statements. Make sure during the busy holiday season you not only check your statements once, but twice to confirm they are all correct. Keep your receipts so you have proof of your purchases. Even if it is a $2.00 fee you do not remember, take the time to figure it out or call the bank or creditor. The holidays are prime time for theft and fraud.

6. Keep paying all your bills on time. Take time to take care of business, even during the holiday hustle and bustle. Remember, by staying on top of your bills and your budget you will feel good and organized to fully enjoy the season.

7. Plan now your review of credit reports. The beginning of the year is a great time to get your credit reports and examine them for any errors. So, put it on your New Year's task list now.

Cheers to a joyous holiday season!

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

TORONTO -- Feeling French today is not about being a citizen of France or having French identity; it's not even only about sharing sympathy with the families of all those brutally murdered around Paris. No, being French today is to believe in the true value of civilization. The true value of a civilization is embodied by the process of taming violence. Without it, any society would fail to be recognized as dialogical and civilized.

The idea of dialogue has been at the heart of French society for centuries. Its omission or oblivion simply means that French history, and beyond it human history, has lost all its meaning for us. Civilization, like democracy, is an unfinished project. We are deluding ourselves if we claim to have arrived at an achieved human civilization. Civilization is not about imposing one's cultural or religious identities on others. Each culture or religion may have its strong and significant particularities, but this does not justify their being imposed on others. Even more, to impose one's religious or cultural identity on others implies that one does not concede to that other the same human dignity one grants to oneself. The constitution of a "we" and a "they" as a distinction between the "authentic self" and the "unauthentic other" is the key for understanding the violent self-protecting response of a decivilized terrorism.

As in the case of the recent killings in Paris, where we are left with only the two concepts of "might is right" and "the survival of the fittest," we are not talking anymore in terms of "civilization," as a dialogical mode of living together, but in terms of "decivilization," as a mode of destroying one another. As such, the civilizational approach to the central values of human dignity is based on the basic conviction that all cultures and traditions are imperfect and corrigible, that humans see the world differently and that violence denies the civilizing process of humanity.

Violence denies the civilizing process of humanity.

More than a hundred years ago, in his foundational book, "Hind Swaraj," Mahatma Gandhi expressed the idea that the measuring rod of civilization is moral progress. When Gandhi refers to moral progress, he understands spiritual advancement, which should help mankind reach the goals of compassion, righteousness and living together. For that matter, civilization is considered by Gandhi as a path of progress toward the respect of human dignity. Respecting human dignity is respecting the otherness of the other without forcing everyone under the same cultural, religious or political banner. Civilization is when one thinks and acts in terms of the otherness of the other. The barbarian, therefore, is not someone who rejects me and my cultural values. It is someone who rejects humanity in general. Here is where the decivilizing process resides, and it does not depend on the strategic positioning of a religion or a culture in today's world, but on the total absence of empathy for the otherness of the other human being.

In 1550, the King of Spain, Charles V, ordered a group of jurists and theologians to meet at Valladolid in order to hear the arguments in favor and against the use of force to incorporate the "Indians" into Spanish America. On the one side was Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, a prominent humanist and scholar who justified conquest and evangelization of indigenous peoples of the Americas. On the other was Bartolomé de Las Casas, who advocated for the rights of the Indian nations and was in favor of a peaceful conversion. Las Casas managed to represent the Indians at the royal court, and thus, to call the attention of the Church and the Spanish government to the terrifying disparity between the missionary purpose of the encounter between Christians Europeans and Native Americans and the brutal exploitation of the second by the first. Las Casas succeeded in proclaiming the humanity of the indigenous peoples, their rationality and their collective freedom. For Sepúlveda, the Indians were a barbarian race, whose natural and inferior condition entitled the Spaniards to wage war on them. On the contrary, Las Casas came to conclude that since the Indians were rational and civilized human beings, Spaniards had no right to subject them to slavery or to war. Therefore, the effect of the Valladolid controversy was to keep the human rights of the Indians in the minds of the Spaniards.

theodor de bry

Hernando de Soto committing atrocities against Native Americas. DeAgostini/Getty Images.

From this perspective, thus, the Valladolid controversy had a great impact on the theoretical attempts by Europeans to understand the diverse native cultures of the New World and inaugurated a new debate on the concept of "civilization." Its legacy lies in the idea of "civilization" as understanding and addressing the conditions of the "other" from the other's perspective.

Today, after the tragic events in Paris, humanity is faced with the same value of civilization as opposed to decivilizing violence. Should we follow the argument of Sepúlveda, as the members of the Islamic State do, and place our civilizational arguments in the context of a polarized framework, where those considering themselves to be part of the civilized world find themselves in war with the uncivilized? Or should we ask the morally legitimate question, which is: "who is to say who has human dignity and who does not?"

Empathy is a sensibility that allows us to recognize the particular avenues of human flourishing.

Six thousand years of human history haven't produced very much "civilization." We still confront poverty, tyranny and fanaticism behind civilized facades of our cultures, religions and modes of being. But there is one "civilizing force" that has always brought humanity together: "empathy." Empathy is a sensibility that allows us to recognize the particular avenues of human flourishing. Being "civilized" is not only about tolerance, but also about a moral of empathy that is opposed to homogeneity and exclusivism. Despite their vast differences of values, cultures can grasp an understanding of one another, by "empathy." This "empathy" is universally shared not only because it is humanly recognizable but mainly because it constitutes a moral standpoint for human interactive plurality. It's our "shared human horizon" which avoids moral anarchy and relativism while acknowledging the plurality of modes of being human. Being French today is the belief in this shared human horizon of empathy.

If Muslims feel involved in the French destiny and France has nothing to fear from Islam, the result of this shared human horizon of empathy could be the acknowledgement of the "otherness" of each other, and the acceptance of the fact that the price of a plural and democratic France is neither a strategy of fear nor a politics of hatred. It is the affirmation of the empathic nature of French civilization and the criticism of the monist stance of a group like the Islamic State. As such, we are all French today, because we still have the potential to make of our empathy for the victims of Paris attacks a powerful weapon against the monisms of our time.

Also on WorldPost:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

In January 1980, a week before the New Hampshire primary, The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page article about a focus group it had assembled to assess the prospects of Ronald Reagan. Not one of the 14 participants, including six who had voted for Reagan four years earlier in the primary, said they planned to vote for him. A week later, Reagan won that primary convincingly.

Today, 35 years later, the polls show Donald Trump and Ben Carson leading the crowded GOP presidential pack in Iowa and other early-primary states. But don't bet the house that either will do as well as expected.

Why? Credit the phenomenon of false proxy power - and it has far more serious consequences today for corporations and other organizations than it does in the political arena. Especially in the crisis-communications arena, false proxy power can trigger companies to follow a course far more disruptive and dangerous than one they would have taken if only they had looked at a situation with far more scrutiny and hard data. Too frequenlty, organizations aren't examining situations close enough before taking action. And this is only complicated by the fact that there are no voting booths set up to provide immediate findings on winners and losers.

So what exactly is it? Let's look at another recent example - again, a political one. In Houston, voters earlier this month handily defeated a controversial equal rights ordinance that offered broad nondiscrimination protections. Backed by the White House and the state's top officials, the ordinance was expected to be supported or lose by a slim margin. Why did it fail by a wide margin? Because supporters didn't gauge or examine closely enough the extent of the opposition to it from conservative voters.

Not acting as expected

When push comes to shove, people don't always do what they say they intend to do. They don't vote for the candidate or issue that they indicated they would. As for critical issues, for instance, they might voice support for climate control initiatives and then do the opposite. Consider the auto industry. Car makers make costly bets that electric cars will gain much more popularity. They assume buyers today prefer a greener car. But then sales disappoint - just look at sagging sales of the hybrid Toyota Prius. Indeed, as gasoline prices sink to $2 a gallon, sales again surge for gas-guzzling vehicles.

In brief, what you see isn't always what you get - so don't accept things at face value. Too often today, CEOs and their leadership teams aren't heeding that advice. Far too frequently, they accept the radical transparency of social media conversations and crowdsourcing and simply assume that consumers will base decisions on that explosion of conversation.

Call it the digital chattering class. So when 56 percent of Americans surveyed rank climate change as one of the two most critical issues, along with income inequality, these organizations make decisions based on assumptions gleaned from that high percentage.

Those assumptions can prove disastrous for companies. What's missing - and it's vital - is the extra step of conducting research on the ground. Companies must, and pardon the cliché, peel back the onion with hard and consistent spade work and research to really grasp what the consumer outcome is really likely to be.

Needed: Much deeper research, exploration

They must explore much more deeply if the proxy of expression gleaned from, say, social media will match the behavior of their customers or others at the cash register - or the voting booth. They must take the extra steps to determine if their customers or prospective customers will vote their heart or their pocketbook.

Many companies are taking this extra time and research. Some airlines, for instance, are looking at weather patterns, not just diesel emissions, to determine their greenhouse gas footprint and strategies. Increasingly, corporations must go well beneath the surface winds to grasp what's truly going on with issues most important to them and society. Corporations must do a much better job. If it is food scarcity, they must do the extra research beyond the headlines to determine where it's an issue and how it's manifesting itself. They must employ calibrators to determine the scale and proportion of an issue.

Otherwise, they're creating a false sense of scale and paradigm - indeed, a false proxy power. Get used to that term. You're bound to hear much more about it.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

I've been watching college football for years, but it was only at the end of last season that it dawned on me that for a number of those years I've been watching field goals and PATs fly between the uprights and into the "good hands people" net of Allstate Insurance. When that happens, the sportscasters are mandated to say something about Allstate contributing about $3+ million towards scholarships since 2005. Even Allstate's own website boasts:

Allstate has been involved with college football since 2005 when Allstate's The Good Hands appear on the field goal nets of 82 colleges and universities as well as during championship bowl games across the country. For every field goal kicked into these nets, Allstate donates to the school's scholarship fund. Since 2005, Allstate has contributed over $3.4 million to collegiate scholarships through this program.

It then goes on to list all the 2014-2015 Good Hands Field Goal Net Program Schools to which Allstate contributes, many of which come from major athletic conferences. One doesn't know how much money Allstate has raised for Allstate in that same period of time, but we'll get an idea soon enough.

So, for a decade, since 2005, Allstate has contributed $3.4 million dollars to scholarships across the United States. Apparently, that figure is supposed to make me "ooh and/or ahh" about Allstate's largesse. Well, it doesn't. As a matter of fact, that amount is shameful. That enormous amount of scholarship money comes to about $340,000 per year over ten years, which is paltry in relation to what the cost of college actually is. According to CollegeData, "In its most recent survey of college pricing, the College Board reports that a 'moderate' college budget for an in-state public college for the 2014-2013 academic year averaged $23,410. A moderate budget at a private college averaged $46,272."

The cost of a college degree in the United States has increased 12 fold over the past 30 years, far outpacing the price inflation of consumer goods, medical expenses and food. According to Bloomberg, college tuition and fees have increased 1,120 percent since records began in 1978. So, as college costs have risen exponentially, Allstate has essentially appeared stagnated in its college contributions.

Even at the "moderate" level of $23,410 per year, that total would amount to $94,000 for four years at an in-state institution, and around $185,000 at a private institution for the same amount of time. So, in real dollars, what is Allstate contributing at a "staggering" $345,000 per year over ten years? Even if Allstate were contributing $10,000 in scholarship aid per student that would only amount to 34 scholarships a year, so why should I be so excited about their contributions especially when one considers just how much Allstate earns in a year? And how much does Allstate earn?

According to Allstate's 2015 Annual Report, revenues exceeded $35 billion and returned $2.8 billion to shareholders through a combination of common stock dividends and the purchase of 8.7 percent of the beginning-of-year outstanding shares. Allstate reported a 25 percent rise in its 2014 net income over the prior year to $2.85 billion. So, I'm wondering from what revenue pool they're doling out all that scholarship money. If my math is correct, the amount of money Allstate gave in scholarships based on their net income comes to a staggering 0.0001210526315789 percent! That's right, 0.00012 percent of their net income has gone for scholarship aid to students. The question one has to ask at that point: is one supposed to get excited over that kind of largesse? It even poses the bigger question: am I really in such good hands with Allstate to begin with? Just how many students are being advantaged by that rather paltry amount of money? As college costs rise every year, Allstate seems to be fine with their paltry $3+M donation to scholarships regardless of how much their net income increases.

But actually, their apparent largesse is really disingenuous. It's bad enough that one has to watch each and every PAT and field goal be metaphorically collected by the "good hands of Allstate," but for Allstate to pretend they are really contributing to the needs of university students is patently fraudulent. As a matter of fact, it seems that this year someone in the "good hands people" marketing department must have "crunched the numbers" since broadcasters no longer give a specific figure anymore, but now say Allstate has given away "millions." Yes, 3 million can be considered "millions" (since it's more than one), however, by not really stating how many millions they've given, I can only assume it's the same 3+M they've been touting for years which results in the same paltry amount they've been doling out to students in the past. The difference is that by stating millions rather than the rather insignificant amount they do "award," it makes Allstate appear more generous than they are. Kudos to the genius in the marketing department for making Allstate appear as if without that scholarship money students would walk around campus barefoot and hungry. Really?

Unfortunately, there are no penalties for that sort of "offsides."

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Will Amazon Handmade be the end of Etsy? originally appeared on Quora: The best answer to any question.

Answer by Annika Schauer, Etsy app developer, on Quora.

I've been watching Etsy and Amazon Handmade closely over the last few months, and I definitely think that Etsy has more to lose in this equation than Amazon does. Here's some stuff I've heard from my ear to the ground. First, the obvious risks that Etsy faces:

Seller churn. Etsy sellers in the midranks of Etsy (over $100 USD/year of sales, under $10,000/year) are very interested in the promise of Amazon Handmade, but remain skeptical of its impact on their shops. It's a common refrain among Etsy sellers not to "put all your eggs in one basket." Many look at Amazon Handmade as a hedge against unwelcome changes at Etsy, and are at least interested enough to A/B test it for traction, if not abandon ship at Etsy altogether.

Brand dilution. Amazon Handmade was an unexpected brand expansion for Amazon (although perhaps not entirely unexpected, once you take into account just how many disparate pies Amazon has its fingers in). Over the past two to three years, Etsy has been accused of undertaking a brand dilution. "Handmade" on Etsy doesn't exactly mean what it used to. A cursory glance at listings results will show many items that appear to be drop shipped from the Chinese mega-marketplaces Alibaba and AliExpress. Etsy's lack of enforcement on what handmade really is, is a bête noire of Etsy's bread-and-butter seller, the midrange micro-entrepreneur. Etsy has done very little to address this concern.

Legal worries. Etsy has been slow to address is the large amount of counterfeit goods listed in its marketplace. This gave rise to a recent lawsuit, and a precipitous drop in share prices immediately after its IPO.

Shareholder confidence (or lack thereof). Another, not wholly unexpected, hiccup in Etsy's slow upward trajectory was the increased scrutiny of its business model, post-IPO. Etsy, like many web startups, has never turned a profit. Its listing fees and transaction fees have not changed substantively in the 10.5 years since it was launched. Traditionally, shareholders like to see a business pass on earnings for its stocks, although that model has changed somewhat with the advent of huge, non-profitable tech companies, like, yes, Amazon.

Apparently counterfeit Louis Vuitton canvas wallet, listed as a "handmade item"

A Marilyn Monroe pocket watch pendant, listed on Etsy

Identical item, listed wholesale, on Alibaba

What does Amazon have to lose?

Not much, at first glance. If Amazon really wants to go into a war of attrition with Etsy, there's no doubt as to who will win. Amazon has nearly 100 times the cash to throw around that Etsy does. It doesn't matter if the stone hits the pitcher, or the pitcher hits the stone. You know how it's going to end.

Amazon could easily lose interest, though. Its foray into the handmade marketplace might end up feeling a little too much like herding cats, with too little ROI to keep Amazon's enthusiasm whetted. Handmade retailers can be curmudgeonly about higher transaction fees and Amazon's stricter rules about order turnaround. Amazon has already made big changes to their initial offer, which was considered by most Etsy sellers to be too costly to even think about trying. If sellers' initial foray into the Amazon marketplace doesn't fill them with confidence, it's unlikely that Amazon would take extraordinary measures to keep these sellers onboard. Etsy depends on handmade sellers for the bulk of its profits. This is not the case for Amazon.

But can Amazon actually kill Etsy? It depends.

Amazon's two biggest "pull" factors for sellers emigrating from Etsy are its strict enforcement of only selling truly handmade goods (something that Etsy, for all practical purposes, stopped enforcing in mid-2013), and a perceived decline in the quality of seller relations on Etsy's part.

It's unclear whether Amazon's planned enforcement mechanisms to separate the uncouth chaff from the wheat of truly handmade items will be any more effective than Etsy's. Etsy has been at this game far longer than Amazon, and it's entirely possible that Amazon doesn't know it's bitten off more than it can chew.

The most important thing is whether the sellers drifting from Etsy to test the waters at Amazon see any overall improvements to their brand reach, traffic, and sales. If they don't, they won't bother hanging around Amazon for long. This is not to imply they'll stay exclusive to Etsy (history tells us they won't--they're constantly on the lookout for the magic bullet that Etsy has never provided), but the stability and "friendliness" of Etsy's marketplace is something that many handmade sellers have come to rely on and expect. If anything, Amazon has a reputation for being extremely unfriendly to its merchants.

Amazon's chances of surviving the next 3-5 years are extremely good, whether or not they do it with Amazon Handmade as part of their service suite. Etsy is far more "on the bubble" than Amazon, but it's not clear whether Amazon's handmade will be the coup de grâce, or whether it would be another of Etsy's (many) vulnerabilities.

The thing is, Amazon Handmade doesn't even really have to succeed in order to kill Etsy. It could be wholly ephemeral. Amazon could abandon it next year. It hardly matters to the question at hand. Amazon simply needs to be good enough to reveal the existing chinks in Etsy's armor.

If Etsy is to survive the next few years, there's really only two viable options. They can dilute their handmade credo even further, and brand themselves as a quirkier, more user-friendly version of Ebay. To my mind, this would be extremely unwise.

The other option for Etsy is to return to a business model more similar to its pre-2013 approach, where sellers are strictly vetted before market entry, but gently cared for thereafter. It's incredibly hard to imagine how Etsy might begin to roll back some of the changes that alienated sellers, but it's clear that without the loyalty of sellers, Etsy's marketplace is not likely to survive. Whether Amazon is what kills Etsy, or Etsy's own haphazard strategic planning, remains to be seen.

Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, I'm reminded of my friend Michael Peacock's beloved "Mama Cat" who used to collect maimed field mice in our house in Ft. Ord. She would catch them outside, bring them in, "play" with them until they were at death's door, and then go out and catch another, friskier one. I'll leave it to you to guess who Mama Cat is, and who is the mouse in this analogy.

References:

Etsy's counterfeit problem is getting worse

Does Etsy Have A Problem With Fake Goods?

Etsy Sued by Investors Alleging Firm Hid Products' Trademark Risk

Etsy Vs. Amazon: Different Ideas Of What Is 'Handmade'

Why Isn't Anyone Talking About the Most Frightening Part of Amazon Handmade?

Why Amazon Has No Profits (And Why It Works)

Amazon is now worth WAY more than Walmart

Is Etsy Dying? - A Closer Look Behind the Numbers

Etsy reworks guidelines: sellers can now hire outside staff and manufacturers

Etsy completes its IPO, valuing the craft marketplace at over $3.5 billion

How Etsy Alienated Its Crafters and Lost Its Soul

How to make a million dollars on Etsy -- buy from Alibaba and run your store like eBay

The myth of Three Bird Nest and making $1M/year on Etsy

Calling Out Etsy Resellers

This questionoriginally appeared on Quora. Ask a question, get a great answer. Learn from experts and access insider knowledge. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

More questions:

Etsy: Why is Etsy struggling to grow?

Amazon: How can I make a living selling on Amazon?

E-Commerce: What are some tips for starting an Etsy shop?

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

To prevent toxic work, would you give your manager a letter like this?

I recently asked for feedback on a survey, with the key question: What makes a workplace "toxic" for you?

In just two days, nearly 75 people answered the question. A few days after, I sat down at a cafe for three hours to pour over your responses.

My heart ached. I read about the hostility, chaos, internal competition, bullying, lack of clarity, and a host of other toxic situations that many of you are facing.

I wanted to fix your toxic work problems. But how?

I imagined myself in your place, as the employee.

And I felt inspired to write this "Dear Manager" letter.

If you are an employee, I wonder how this "Dear Manager" letter impacts you? Would you send it to your manager? As is? Or would you modify it in some way? If so, how?

And if you are a manager, how would you feel about receiving this "Dear Manager" letter? Inspired? Angry? Something else?

Comment below, and let me know what you think of this "Dear Manager" letter.

Dear Manager,

I want to share with you the real reason I joined this organization, so you know how I'd like to be managed.

Naïve as it may sound, I want to make a meaningful difference in the world. I'm here because I like waking up in the morning, knowing that my actions can bring some ease or joy in the world.

So please avoid giving me little piecemeal projects, especially without enough context. Show me where the activities I'm doing fit into the bigger picture. I care about the impact of my work. I'm not one of those people who can silently be a "cog in the wheel," nor am I content to mindlessly "go through the motions" here at work.

Along those lines, when the strategic focus is either unclear or keeps shifting, then the work I'm doing changes day to day. That feels dizzying and unsettling. Please work with the senior leadership to clarify and focus on a few sustainable goals and objectives. I'd like to work towards those for at least a few months or quarters. That way, I and my colleagues can all know what our targets are -- and feel more united in meeting them.

Otherwise, when your senior managers keep changing your minds about where we're headed, it's hard to trust you. Who wants to pour out their heart and soul into a project (not to mention giving up our personal lives to work long hours) only to discover a few days or weeks later, that that a once "monumentally important effort" is suddenly being terminated? It's so disheartening.

When you want me to do something, please give me clear guidelines about what success looks like, how my work fits into the bigger whole, and the date by which you need the finished product. And then give me the latitude to do it, my way. When people micromanage me and pester me about every tiny detail, I feel angry and incompetent.

Trust me. Coach me. Show me how to see strategically. When you give me the lay of the land, instead of the narrow view, I see how to make my greatest contribution.

I commit to doing excellent work. I'm more prone to do it faster, more accurately, and more creatively when you and your fellow managers voice your appreciation. Please don't hold back. I'm more inclined to give my utmost when your praise outweighs your criticism. Sure, I like hearing you say "way to go!" I'm much more energized and uplifted when you point out the specifics of what makes my work valuable, like "those graphs you a suggested and created made a very persuasive point in the meeting." Then I know what excellence looks like, and I've got the fuel to do more.

In the same vein, almost nothing brings me down faster than when managers reward people on factors other than the merits of their work - like their appearance or their chummy relationship with senior executives. When you award bonuses based on those arbitrary conditions, how can I measure up? It's a disincentive to do my best.

Worse, when your fellow managers encourage me and my coworkers to compete against each other, that's soul crushing. I crave camaraderie and collaboration -- not nasty, unnecessary conflict and drama. it's also frustrating when you tolerate any form of shaming or intimidation from my colleagues or your fellow managers. That kind of unfairness makes me angry enough to stifle my creativity and talents.

Help our organization to avoid the kind of confusion, competition, negativity, and nastiness that make for an unhealthy, toxic workplace. Please foster caring connections and positive contributions.

Like so many of my co-workers, I'm eager to excel. To access as much of my potential as possible. To reach for the next rung on the ladder of success.

Are you strong enough to be "for" me and develop my talents?

Because if you're too weak, or afraid, imagining that by growing me you'll somehow be threatened - well, I'll have to go.

Actually, the biggest factor impacting whether I stay or go is my relationship with you, my manager.

Like it or not, you exact a lot of influence in my life. If you were to take on an angry demeanor, start scheming in ways that go against our organization's stated values, or stop looking out for me, that would bring me down.

I hope you consider that the way you treat me colors many vital aspects of my life -- including how relaxed and kind I feel in all my relationships, the ways in which I'm able to spend my leisure time, and even what I feel confident enough to purchase. No matter how strong I try to be, the quality of my interactions with you impacts my self-esteem.

Bottom line: Give me context, set an achievable plan which does not change day to day, develop my trust and respect for you, offer praise, improve the organization, and understand the impact you have in my life. When you look at me, please see the positive contribution I want to make - - to out team, to our organization, to our clients, and yes, even to the world.

You have the ability to support me in bringing out my best. When you do, I'll do everything possible to delight you.

Let's foster a continuous and open dialogue about how I can serve our organization while developing my skills and talents. When we keep the lines of communication open, honest, and authentic in both directions, I trust we'll have a stellar relationship that makes both of us happy to come to work.

I want you to feel so proud to tell anyone and everyone "this is one of my very best employees."

So, let's get started! I'm raring to go.

With care,
Your Employee

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Not long ago, I sat with a colleague and technical assistance provider to small businesses in a major southern city. As she told her story, she broke down in tears of frustration and grief. She had been working against the clock to help a committed group of small black-owned plumbing businesses meet all contractual requirements so they could bid to serve the city's new airport and nearby hotels. African-American owned businesses are the number one employer of black workers nationally, and securing these contracts would have grown these businesses and enabled the owners to hire more workers in a city where more than 50% of black men are unemployed. The city had been touting their commitment to these small businesses, yet, on the eve of the announcement, someone in power decided to award the entire contract to one company that included no locals and was owned by an old Ivy League business school classmate.

This exact same scenario plays out in towns across our nation. All too often, community tax dollars benefit the few at the great expense of the many. Our economic development decisions are maintaining a system of inequality.

In a "new economy" how would economic development create real community prosperity?

Dozens of studies presented in publications that range from Harvard Business Review to Economic Development Quarterly to the Federal Reserve now show us that incomes rise faster in places with more small businesses than in those dominated by big businesses, that counties with the highest density of local and small businesses do the best job of reducing poverty, and that economies of small-scale businesses have greater community well-being, including lower rates of crime and better public health. Further, according to the SBA, from 2004 to 2010 U.S. micro-businesses created a net of 5.5 million jobs while large businesses over 500 employees lost 1.8 million jobs. Very small businesses -- as in under 20 employees -- created all the net new jobs in this country.

Today, the literature is clear -- an economy with fewer big players does a good job of funneling wealth into few hands, but the best path to the most jobs and the most wealth for the most people is directly correlated with the density and diversity of local ownership per capita. Economic development is defined as "policy interventions with the aim of economic and social well-being of people" and should thereby strengthen local and community ownership. Unfortunately, less than a quarter of local governments are currently pursuing local and community-owned business development activities.

Instead, state and local governments have dramatically increased their use of "retention and recruitment" incentives -- from 56 percent using them in 2004, to close to 90 percent by 2009. Mainstream economic development chases Boeing, or Marriott, or Dell with tens of millions of dollars from town to town. Local governments may pay the equivalent of $200k per job only to have the company lay everyone off and move away after a few years.

In fact a new study from Good Jobs First shows how economic development incentives simply help the "corporate rich get richer." Top recipients include companies like Shell Oil, Dow Chemical, Amazon, Volkswagen and Wal-Mart. To top it off, less than one third of the dollars gifted to these companies are tracked. We only know from investigative watchdogs how common it is for millions of dollars to be awarded to companies that never hire any additional people. Some actually eliminate jobs. The nonprofit group Institute for Local Self Reliance notes that, "by privileging large firms, these programs award taxpayers' dollars where they're least needed, and put another way, make it so that small businesses have to watch a portion of their tax dollars go to subsidize their biggest competitors."

These incentive dollars come from us -- we the people -- and they are being used to drive inequality to levels not seen since 1928. We are funneling our own money into the private hands of the few.

I think it needs to be said clearly -- if we want more equal societies then local governments should not subsidize, provide tax breaks, or in any way provide concessions and support for large corporations with centralized ownership. It results in neither economic nor community development. It is simple wealth extraction and harm.

The Opportunity Ahead

"I did then what I knew how to do. Now that I know better, I do better."
-Maya Angelou

Shifting up to $80 billion (the money spent annually on economic development incentives) presents a massive, ready-made opportunity. Doing better would mean new eligibility rules for community economic development incentives. A community's dollars should be used to support its own people, with particular focus on the areas with the greatest need. If we want the majority of people to receive the maximum return on their community's investment then small businesses must be strengthened at every turn. Minority and women ownership should be prioritized to level the playing field. Bigger businesses should be supported in their efforts to transition to employee ownership.

Here are five ways to start the shift tomorrow:

1. Use incentive dollars to instead back local business hubs and networks that are focused on place, health and equity. These systems of support for locally owned businesses nurture local supply chains, enable peers to support each other, and foster the kind of collaboration necessary to make local food distribution viable or renewable energy locally affordable.

2. Re-direct corporate subsidies to organizations that provide technical assistance to micro enterprises. Groups like Rising Tide Capital are adept at strengthening these businesses to create jobs, and they generate nearly $4 in economic impact for every $1 invested. The Association for Enterprise Opportunity has shown that if just one in three microenterprises was strengthened to hire a single employee, the US would be at full employment.

3. Invest in shared infrastructure for local "economies of scale." For example, a foundation in Maine invested in a local grain mill, providing needed processing that made the resurgence of regional grain farmers viable.

4. Purchase land for the community. Agricultural and community land trusts preserve affordability for residents, farmers, and local business owners in contrast to speculative gentrification. Use land banks to bring vacant and blighted lots under the control of a public authority to redevelop the land for productive uses.

5. Support the creation of worker owned businesses, and support larger businesses, particularly those going through founder transitions, to become employee owned through ESOPs. Businesses from Dansko to Eileen Fisher to New Belgium Brewery have traveled this path in recent years. Said New Belgium CEO Kim Jordan, "One of the things that we think is a big societal issue is this widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. And we realized that we had an opportunity to support people owning something that was increasing in value. Shared equity has been an incredibly powerful engine for us."

Former Mayor of Kansas City, MO, and current publisher of Governing Magazine Mark Funkhouser says, "for several decades we have been conducting an economic-policy experiment in state and local governments, and now it's time to stop the testing because the results are clear: the dominant paradigm, incentive-fueled competition among these governments, does not create economic prosperity." Instead he argues that now is the time for "testing and developing a new paradigm for economic development, one that channels capitalism's strengths while protecting the commons and producing a more broadly shared version of prosperity."

Indeed.

We know better -- let's do better.

This piece appears as part of New Economy Week 2015: From Austerity to Prosperity, a week of online and in-person events being convened by the New Economy Coalition, Nov. 9-15.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

2015-11-20-1447979118-5146086-Adviceforwomenentrepreneurs.jpg

By Teddy Nykiel

Saddled with student debt and less-than-perfect credit, Ayla Bystrom-Williams is hesitant to take on small-business loans to finance her kombucha beer company, HoneyMoon Brewery. The Santa Fe, New Mexico-based entrepreneur is relying on a less expensive but more time-consuming financing method: a small-business grant.

"We're really trying to not get into any sort of debt or give away any equity at this stage of the business," Bystrom-Williams says.

Although free cash to start or grow a business sounds like the dream solution, small-business grants are difficult to obtain because there just aren't many available. But if you're determined to try for a grant, there are some earmarked for women entrepreneurs.

Below, to mark Women Entrepreneurs Day, are four tips to maximize your chances of getting small-business grants for women.

1. Apply widely.

Getting grants to fund your small business is a numbers game: You have to apply to many in hopes of actually getting a few. Bystrom-Williams says she has spent up to 30 hours a week researching grant opportunities and attending networking events she hopes will lead to grant money.

"It was definitely like a part-time job," she says.

It took persistence before her work paid off. Bystrom-Williams got denied for a large local grant, but the sponsoring organization told her about possible funding through Los Alamos National Laboratory near Santa Fe. She got a $25,000 grant through the lab's technical assistance program, which paid a lab researcher to help her develop her kombucha beer. In August, Bystrom-Williams won a $500 Amber Grant from WomensNet, an organization that awards that amount to a different business each month.

2. Look locally.

Finding a small-business grant is perhaps the most challenging aspect of securing one. The federal government doesn't offer small-business grants, but state and local governments do. You can search for them using the U.S. Small Business Administration's Loans and Grants Search Tool.

Get to know business advisors in your area who can point you in the right direction. There are hundreds of SBA-sponsored Small Business Development Centers and Score chapters around the country, both offering free business consulting. (Find your local SBDC here and your local Score chapter here.)

3. Research the organizations.

Once you identify a grant you're interested in, spend time researching the organization, says Cathy Kellon, founder of Portland, Oregon-based Ivalieu, which makes "modern pettipants" for women to wear underneath skirts and dresses. She suggests building relationships with the people who work at the organization funding the grant.

"Some foundations will not respond to general inquiries," she says. "So you have to [know] someone."

Kellon, who won the $500 Amber Grant in September, also suggests looking at businesses that have won the grant in the past to learn about what types of ventures the organization is looking to fund.

4. Pursue non-cash prizes.

Participate in business plan or pitch competitions that offer business services, office space and other non-cash resources as prizes.

Bystrom-Williams was a finalist in BizMIX, a business plan competition in Santa Fe. For making it to the last round, she won time with an accountant, bookkeeper and a lawyer -- expenses that would have come out of her budget otherwise.

Additionally, Bystrom-Williams "didn't see a dime" of the $25,000 from Los Alamos National Laboratory, which instead paid the researcher she worked with in the lab. But that was OK with her.

"Sometimes grants that target specific aspects of your business can be way more valuable than actual capital," she says.

Can't get a grant? Consider small-business loans.

If you can't get your hands on a small-business grant, you might have better luck with loans. For alternatives to grants, check out our small-business loans for women page, where you can compare seven different loan options based on your needs.

It's not free money; you'll have to pay fees and interest, which can be high. Traditional bank loans are your best bet if you can qualify for them. Otherwise, online small-business loan annual percentage rates range from 7% to 113%. But there are more small-business loans available than grants, so you're more likely to succeed at getting funding.

Photo credit: iStock

Teddy Nykiel is a staff writer at NerdWallet, a personal finance website.
Email: teddy@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @teddynykiel

To get more information about funding options and compare them for your small business, visit NerdWallet's small-business loans page.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

By Maureen Conway

Maureen Conway is a vice president of the Aspen Institute and Executive Director of the Institute's Economic Opportunities Program (EOP). Ms. Conway founded EOP's Workforce Strategies Initiative and has headed up workforce research at the Aspen Institute since 1999. She leads a team of researchers and consultants in a variety of initiatives to identify and advance strategies that help low-income Americans gain ground in today's labor market.

The American workforce started out as the goose that laid the golden egg for American business, but now it is suffering a death of 1,000 cuts. Americans work harder than almost anyone else in the world, putting in more hours per week and more weeks per year than workers in most other developed countries.

This hard-working, well-educated workforce contributed to successful and prosperous American businesses in the post-war period and beyond. But from the late 1970s into early 1980s, the economic growth America's workforce powered stopped benefiting many workers.

Market forces that normally kept prices in check were now helping to drive down wages.

Businesses used a range of strategies to hold down wage growth -- outsourcing, subcontracting, avoiding union organizing and more. Technology allowed companies to pit workers in disparate locations around the globe against each other.

Work was and is increasingly organized in ways that add stress to working people's lives. Companies often tightly control hours, leaving working people with erratic and unpredictable schedules (and incomes). Employers sometimes reclassify segments of their workforce as contractors in order to avoid the costs of disability and life insurance, paid sick or vacation time and other benefits that can be critical sources of economic stability for a working family.

As corporations lower their compensation costs by holding down the cost of employee benefits, they increased employee alienation, weakening trust and dampening enthusiasm for the work. Research bears this out, noting that an "easy hire, easy fire" policy leads to diminished worker productivity and innovation.

It doesn't have to be this way. First, there is a range of research that is now getting attention that looks at how investment in workers can pay off for companies in the long term. Zeynep Ton's book The Good Jobs Strategy details how four retailers -- who compete fiercely in their segments and seek to keep prices low -- succeed by investing in their workers. This investment can mean:

• Training workers so they are well-prepared to contribute
• Offering compensation packages and schedules that workers perceive as fair and that give their employees a measure of economic stability and security
• Empowering workers to make decisions, solve problems for customers, and contribute to the business in meaningful ways.

The Hitachi Foundation has documented many firms, especially in the healthcare and manufacturing sectors, that outperform their peers but still manage to provide quality jobs. These firms believe in the old adage that people are their best assets, and in turn they invest in their people. As a result, they see a strong return on that investment.

The founder of Kyocera Corp., Kazuo Inamori, entrepreneur, management guru and Buddhist priest, believes in putting employees first. "If you want eggs, take care of the hen," he says. "If you bully or kill the hen, it's not going to work." Inamori's success is based on a view diametrically opposite the prevailing business philosophy on Wall Street. "At times company management has to say no to shareholders' selfish requests."

Meanwhile in Seattle, Dan Price, the CEO of Gravity Payments, turned heads when he announced that the minimum wage at his company would be $70,000. Six months after the announcement, revenues have grown at double the previous rate. Profits have also doubled. Gravity's customer retention rate rose from 91 to 95 percent.

Even in the restaurant industry, a bastion of low-wage work, an alternative business model centered on maximizing human capacity, rather than minimizing labor cost, can produce great business results. Paris Creperie in Brookline tripled its operating margin when it adopted a business strategy that engaged employees, trained them in the business, and shared the success.

These "case studies" demonstrate that human-centered strategies can build long-term value for a firm. These business models offer the kind of benefits Americans believe in: the businesses are profitable and prosper, they provide opportunities for their employees to develop their skills and potential, they innovate and provide important products and services to customers, and they create the kinds of jobs that support individuals, families and communities.

We need more of these "pioneer employers" to lead in business. We need a sea change in business practice aligned with a more vigorous public policy and an engaged effort from our social sector to put America on the road to sustained growth that lifts the fortunes of companies and the people who make them run. We're seeing now that we can't have one without the other.

Related Posts:

- Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The MBA of the Future

- Greed! A Video Contest from Econ4

- Can Marketing Improve Capitalism?

- Challenging the Corpocracy: When Art Confronts Capitalism

- What is a Conscious Business? An Interview with Raj Sisodia

- How Thin Political Markets Undermine Democracy: An interview with Harvard B-School's Karthik Ramanna

- Move to Amend: We the People, Not We the Corporations

- The Decline of the Middle Class: Stealth Governance and Income Inequality

- Can We Fix Income Inequality?

- Fix Capitalism - Join Us!

FIXCapitalism.com is dedicated to "saving capitalism from itself." Visit us at www.fixcapitalism.com to join the debate. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Sign up for our newsletter to get more insights.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

The ISIS attack in Paris was an attack on our global community. This will not end. We have to face this fact. The target of these attackers was non-combatant innocents. They will attack again. As much as we abhor the idea of more ground action in the Middle East, this is going to take concerted, long-term international military and civil action. It will involve major forces committed long-term in the nexus area encompassing ISIS root areas predominately in Iraq and Syria.

This will not end. We have to face this fact.

If asked to give advice as a recently retired military officer, this is what I'd suggest:

1. Back France. Fully support France if it invokes NATO Article 5 (an attack on one member is an attack on all). Though unlikely, if it were to do as such, it would pull the considerable military and moral power of NATO's 28 nations together to focus indivisibly on this emergent existential threat. Article 5 was last invoked on behalf of the U.S. after 9/11.

2. Build a global force. If NATO Article 5 is not invoked, then under a U.N. Security Council Resolution (but unilaterally as a coalition of the willing if vetoed or blocked), build an international expeditionary force, including the U.S., Russia, France and a coalition of the willing including separate NATO allies, Arab, regional, some G-20 and other supporting partner nations. Asian and African nations with ISIS-linked challenges should also participate. This force would move into ISIS-dominated areas and crush the obvious ISIS fighters. Always with Arab entities in the lead, it then would remain in the region with strong civilian-military presence (U.N., NGOs etc.) for as long as it takes to create the conditions for credible governance that include providing security, stability, justice, education and jobs, all seeding the ground for religious and social moderation. This would surely be a difficult, initially nasty, expensive and unpopular decade-long endeavor. As one who has deployed, I can tell you that our military is tired, and ideally would not want to return to this region in force, but current events make it imperative as long as it is with allies and partners.

3. Work with Moscow. Make Russia an integral part of the coalition despite its support for Assad and aggression in Ukraine. Despite our complete disapproval of its initial targeting focus against non-ISIS rebels, Russia is squarely and aggressively in the region and also suffered a major tragedy with the destruction of its civilian Metrojet over the Sinai. Here, despite Assad, we have core concerns that converge. This could bridge us toward much needed, better cooperation in the future.

4. ISIS and the hate it spawns is the #1 threat emanating from this region. It also is a huge driver for the major refugee/migrant flow engulfing Europe that must be staunched. While never condoning the Assad regime's ruthless actions against its own population, eradicating ISIS, and drying up its violent, exported hate-filled swamp should be our #1 priority. Finding a way to moderate the Baathist regime and easing Assad out should be a dual track. Killing the Syrian regime would create even more chaos in the region -- what, who would fill the vacuum? The anti-Assad rebel factions have to understand this fact despite the terrible combatant and civilian losses they have taken. ISIS, and any other faction that joins in its deranged actions, is now our #1 priority.

5. Unambiguously tell the several Sunni nations playing the conflict both ways that simply, ISIS is our #1 threat. The same goes for Iran -- with its support for Hezbollah -- that is also fighting ISIS and engaged in a proxy Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict with Sunni nations, with Iraq, Syria and Yemen as its focal points. This all is devilishly complex and defies clean, easy solutions, however, the transnational aspect of this crisis warrants decisive international action. It can't be solved regionally.

6. Support Kurdish statehood. Even with their competing factions, the Kurds have repeatedly proven that they deserve their own state that should be carved out of broken, obsolete Iraqi and Syrian borders. Our important allies, the Turks, also attacked by ISIS and caught in this regional horror, have to understand this and would need international border security guarantees, including from any new Kurdish state, to even remotely consider such an option. Iran also would have a major stake in this.

7. Remain moderate and inclusive. Finally, and crucially, while firmly protecting borders and maintaining internal security, our nations must strive to remain domestically moderate and inclusive.

ISIS has declared war on all of us. We have to take decisive collective action now.

‪Bottom line: To do any of this will require a fresh, "realpolitik" look at the region. We wanted out of the region. The region has come to us, as shown by the ghastly attack in Paris, and recent others, including Ankara and Beirut. ISIS has declared war on all of us. We have to take decisive collective action now with the global mechanisms available to us and aggressively meet this existential challenge to our core belief systems and way of life.

Recently retired Brigadier General Peter Zwack‬ is a visiting scholar at Georgetown University and served as the U.S. Defense Attache to the Russian Federation from 2012-2014.

Earlier on WorldPost:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

For many, the allure of bargains around the holidays of Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year are enough to work us into a frenzy. And with good reason! Retailers large and small get into the spirit of things with deep discounts on all kinds of merchandise.

But according to a recent survey of retail chief CMOs conducted by BDO, this year's bonanza of savings might not be quite as tempting as previous years. According to the findings, American retailers are planning for less-aggressive discounts to close out this shopping season.

What Does the Survey Reveal, Exactly?

BDO's methodology for this surprising study involved reaching out to 100 retail chiefs from a variety of American companies in various industries. Responses to the survey indicate retailers will be targeting discounts roughly on par with their offerings in the 2014 holiday season.

Doug Hart, a partner with the Consumer Business practice at BDO, helped give some context to the findings:

Many retailers are feeling less compelled to initiate heavy discounting because doing so can diminish their brand value ... that's not to say, however, that they won't ultimately implement a discounting strategy in reaction to pricing pressures from competitors or clearing inventory throughout the holiday season.

In other words, American shoppers should expect fewer aggressive, proactive discounts when heading out this season -- although, as we saw earlier this year when Walmart and Amazon went head-to-head with a sort of Christmas in July sale, they're not above engaging in some price-driven fisticuffs.

What Does This Mean for the American Shopper?

For those of us who train for Black Friday with the willfulness and determination of an Olympian, this might come as disheartening news. The door has not closed on steep discounts, mind you -- not by a long shot -- but in a time when we've been effectively conditioned to expect deeper and deeper discounts, this news might not be welcome for many.

Still, it reveals something striking about the way American culture is evolving, albeit slowly, when it comes to shopping frenzies during the holiday seasons.

Take, for example, the increasing number of retail giants that will pointedly remain closed on Black Friday this year. The list already includes REI. Other stores, such as GameStop, have taken the opportunity to remind employees and customers alike that they've never been open on Thanksgiving Day.

It's enough to raise the question: What's more compatible with American values? Rampant, and sometimes violent, consumerism or a quiet holiday spent at home with the family?

Online Shopping Is Here to Stay

Nevertheless, even if we're seeing a minor cultural shift away from overhyped shopping events at brick-and-mortar retailers, it's clearer than ever that online shopping -- including Cyber Monday, the Internet equivalent of Black Friday -- is here to stay.

According to Google, 78 percent of shoppers used the Internet for holiday shopping research in 2014, which strongly underscores just how important e-commerce has become to our spending habits. Additional findings reveal 28 percent of all physical retail sales -- that's $1 trillion in total -- were "influenced by shopping-related mobile searches."

And why shouldn't they? Online retailers such as Amazon are already known for adjusting their prices regularly -- sometimes even hourly. Our gradual shift from the physical to the digital saves stores from committing to a particular posted price; instead, they can adjust pricing according to numerous factors, including the type of device a customer uses, where they're located, as well as more traditional data points like supply and demand.

In other words, personalized commerce is the future of shopping.

In returning to BDO's survey before we close, about 41 percent of retail CMOs expect their Black Friday sales to increase this year, and roughly a third expect their Cyber Monday revenue to rise as well. It's a rosy picture for holiday earnings, despite the expected dearth of ever-deeper discounts.

What this all means is shopping seasons are alive and well in the United States, and probably will be for the foreseeable future. But where they happen? And how? These are the questions yet to be answered.

Image by Daria via Epicantus

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Roger Dow is at it again, attacking the U.S. carriers and tens of thousands of aviation workers who are urging the U.S. government to enforce Open Skies agreements and level the playing field for American businesses. Roger Dow's recent op-ed on the Gulf carriers in the Huffington Post titled "On Competition, Not Even US Airlines Agree With US Airlines" is misguided in its facts, and uninformed in its conclusions.

Mr. Dow continues to ignore the facts around the subsidies that the governments of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar have provided to their state-owned carriers, which have been indisputably proven even in the Gulf carriers own submissions to the U.S. government. These subsidies, which violate the Open Skies agreements that the U.S. signed with these nations, are allowing the airlines to grow without stimulating new passenger demand, causing real harm and costing jobs now. Just last month, Delta canceled its non-stop service to Dubai from Atlanta after losing $5 million on this route during 2015. For every route ceded by a U.S. airline to one of the Gulf carriers, more than 1,500 jobs are lost. And it is not just Atlanta. Following Emirates' entry into four key markets, bookings on U.S. carriers and their joint venture partners dropped an average of 10.8 percent in Boston, 7.6 percent in Dallas-Fort Worth, 21.4 percent in Seattle and 14.3 percent in Washington, D.C.

While Roger Dow implies that American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines are alone in this fight, that couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, 21 U.S. Senators, 262 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, mayors and other state and local officials and business groups have all weighed in to urge the government to act and express concern over the impact of the subsidies on service and jobs in their communities.

In a letter, 21 Senators wrote, "it is important to ensure that Open Skies agreements protect and enhance fair and open competition. In fact as a matter of policy, the U.S. government should proactively be working to ensure that where government owned or sponsored entities are operating in the competitive marketplace, that they act in such a way as to not distort competition."

Similarly, over 30 regional and local airports have expressed concerns about the impact on service and local jobs if the government fails to act. One of these airport directors, Dan Mann, the executive director of Columbia Metropolitan Airport, noted in a letter: "If allowed to continue, this will lead to service cuts to both regional and international airports, as many domestic routes serve as feeders for larger, more profitable flights to international destinations, ultimately resulting in substantial job losses throughout the country in a variety of different sectors."

Additionally the U.S. Conference of Mayors, representing 1,400 mayors from across the country passed a resolution calling for the U.S. government to address the subsidies. These are just some examples of the more than 4,000 comments that were submitted to the Obama administration requesting that the U.S. government begin consultations with the governments of Qatar and the UAE.

These are people who have experienced the economic benefits from competition in their communities and they know exactly what is at stake if service is lost.

Importantly, seven unions, representing aviation workers across the nation, are urging the Obama administration to act because the jobs impact is so severe. Now is the time to stand up for the U.S. aviation industry and American jobs, not undercut them. Instead of standing with American workers, Roger Dow is aligning himself with highly subsidized foreign airlines that devalue their workers and are known for significant human rights abuses.

The U.S. airlines continue to strongly support Open Skies agreements. The U.S. has 117 agreements with nations across the globe and all but two of those agreements are providing the economic benefit and fair competition that is their hallmark. In the recent Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, the White House lauded the agreement for the way it "protects American workers and businesses from unfair competition by State-owned companies in other countries," and seeks to ensure that these companies do not receive unfair subsidies. These are the exact concerns that have been raised about the Gulf Carriers. We are simply asking that the U.S. government apply a consistent policy toward Open Skies and follow it up with enforcement.

It's time for the Obama administration to stand up for U.S. businesses and their workers by enforcing these bilateral agreements with the UAE and Qatar. American jobs are on the line.

Jill Zuckman of SKDKnickerbocker serves as the chief spokesperson for the Partnership for Open and Fair Skies. Before joining SKDK, Jill was an award-winning political correspondent and served as assistant to the secretary and director of public affairs for Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Why Are Drugs So Outrageously Expensive?

Every Emotion Is Useful If You Know What to Do With It (11.2)

Those Anti-Muslim Rants Are Going To Get Your Company Sued

Every Emotion Is a Love Story (11.3)

Guilt Is Healthy, Shame Is Not (11.4)

Think Twice About Spending That Bonus

The Follower Revolt: What's Eating Leaders for Breakfast?

5 Crucial Considerations to Help You Better Steward Criticism

Holiday Survival Checklist

How to Combat Decivilizing Terrorism

False Proxy Power

Allstate Insurance; or, Deception and Student Scholarships?

Will Amazon Homemade Be The End Of Etsy?

Dear Manager: A Manifesto for Conscious Employees

Doing Better: The $80 Billion Shift We Need Now for Economic Democracy

4 Tips for Women Looking for Small-Business Grants

The Long-Term Failure of Short-Term Thinking

With Paris, ISIS Has Declared War on Us. Here's How We Should Respond.

BDO Survey: Retailers to Offer Fewer Savings This Holiday Season

Thousands of Leaders Agree: It's Time for the U.S. Government to End the Unfair Gulf Airline Subsidies