Too bad you have not provided real insights or original analysis. Most of this coverage has already been given elsewhere.
And it's a stretch to link PM Erdogan's stance to the risk of civil unrest in these 4 countries.

I find all the talk about "new capitalism" and a "new relationship between government and business" to be over-inclusive and distorts what really occurred over the past 24-36 months. The principle problem is a finance system that does not function properly. There is a "new relationship" between government and finance, not between government and business. With the exception of the auto industry (whose problem have been well documented), American businesses are competitive, self-sustaining, and completely undeserving of a "new relationship" with government.

Think relocalization rather than protectionism. If the grassroots economy isn't healthy, Wall Street will never be.

I think advertising destroys trust and causes cheating. Let's just kick the habit.

Gender parity would mean paying mothers more than plumbers.

Thanks for the post, Richard. I'm receiving many emails in my inbox regarding the latest PR conference on how to "tweet," Facebook and bring more bling to company profiles. Social media is a terrific PR tool, but I'm wondering why there's not more discussion, as you're offering, about how comms experts can help in the current economic crisis. As we watch institutions fail, people lose their money, homes and jobs, is the comms industry doing its part? Seems there's a lot of excitement in PR circles about the medium, but not the equivalent emphasis on how we can help in these tough times with a good message. We're in a position to help our clients broadcast responsibility, engender trust and encourage consumer confidence -- but are we doing so? Would love to hear your thoughts.

Richard,

Regarding Protectionist Threat you mentioned in “A Different Davos”, the U.S. using buy American provisions to retaliate against unfair trade practices, real or imagined is comparable to using a water pistol against a flame thrower.

The text of my response to the Bloomberg article "China's Power Erodes Free-Trade Support in Developing Nations"(http://forum.themarkettraders.com/read-m/9/5730) published over 22 months ago, follows:

Your article "China's Power Erodes Free-Trade Support in Developing Nations" was
of great interest to me, as I am very interested in seeing trade issues properly vetted.

The article causes me to suspect that China’s short-circuiting the laws of economics has a pervasive adverse effect beyond the U.S.-China trade issue.

As the Chinese currency is being held relatively steady versus the U.S. Dollar while most other currencies are rising much more against the U.S. Dollar, relative to Non-U.S. Counties, the Chinese are:

- Keeping China’s exports to the U.S. cheap relative to exports from other counties with rising currencies, thereby depriving Non-Chinese Exporter of fair-trade.

- Keeping China’s exports to Non-U.S. Counties also cheap, since the Chinese currency is not permitted to rise to an equilibrium level against any currency.

- Causing China’s imports from Non-U.S. Counties to be expensive, again thereby depriving Non-U.S. Counties of fair-trade.

While the U.S. Legislative and Executive Branches are focusing on the urgent and important issue of Iraq, China is using the distractions of 9/11 and Iraq to gain an unfair and perhaps irreversible advantage over all its trading partners, bar none!

If the Chinese ultimately monopolizes trade on too many fronts, the neglect of the China Trade issue may overshadow Iraq and become the number one political and economic issue of the 21st Century.

Unfortunately, the events since April, 2007 have substantially reduced the U.S.’s ability to remedy China’s currency policy. If my hypothesis is deemed credible and enough trading partners exert pressure before the WTO, perhaps China will not ultimately monopolize as many industries as they otherwise could have.

I am unhappy with the thought of using the stakeholder model.

What Freedman came up with long after the model by Grunig and Hunt is not up to the job needed now.

Indeed, the stakeholder model may be as much part of the problem as the solution.

The idea that the stakeholders approach is a wide enough corporate response to the broader constituency is a clumsy tool.

In a time when user generated social groups form 'on the fly' and 'user generated brand values' are evident online (very often at odds with brand managers' perspective), the model that is closer to the needs of organisations is one that begins by identifying 'publics that form round issues' as Grunig and Hunt would have it in their excellence model.

As a model it also offers more to shareholders in that it identifies issues, brands values and interests in natural discourse.

It is these publics and their insights, opinions and recommendations that are the real drivers of relationships and trust.

We have to take the broad view and include the experts, media and word of mouth into consideration. It is a tough call for the PR industry but one that it has to take on as it shrugs off its media agentry milch cow in favour of broader, more professional, public relations consul and services.

I am always struck by how organisations have detractors of many hues who, when a catalytic issue occurs, focus in on it and blow it up, often out of proportion. Such events are a reflection of broader reputation more than the issue itself with a coalition of diverse publics coming together in focused criticism and or direct action.

This type of interaction is not of stakeholders but of many and divers publics.

Most people use banks and many have small niggling issues with them. Having burned up goodwill on the niggling issues, most banks now face huge reputation and trust issues (even among themselves) that will forever change their structures and how they trade. This will affect core business and traditional banking as well as the financial trading side at huge cost to shareholders but cheered on by a mass of disaffection coming from many quarters and over many issues. Yet, customers will, day by day, use the services of banks.

Transparently managing the small issues is really important and right now, for bank shareholders, the only chance they have of getting any serious return on their investment. It is the only way they can re-build effective two-way relationships and through them, trust.

Banks also have to resist the political smart fixes if they are going to detract from this work and from, admittedly a comparative position of strength, Barclays has this decision today.

I hope their PR advisor's are up to the job.

Not glamorous, no big headlines, not beneath the attention of main board members, not a vote catcher for the politicians, but great PR.

Richard,
Many thanks for sharing this.
Some thoughts as I read:
“…We must prove that markets have not failed and acknowledge that there was not sufficient regulation…”
I agree with the first half of Mr. Lambert’s statement, but might disagree with the second half. One could argue that the chief problem was that regulations that were in place had few, if any, teeth, and the people in charge of enforcing them were either 1) asleep at the wheel, or 2) willfully ignoring the transgressions for various political reasons.
In the U.S. alone, the Federal Register is at an all-time high at 78,000+ pages. There’s certainly no lack of regulation, though there is apparently a great desire to have more.
The number of regulations costing $100M or more has risen 70% since 2001. The cost of regulatory activities during the Bush administration (inflation adjusted) increased 62% from the beginning of his term to the end, cresting at $42B+. (This during a period loudly proclaimed as an era of excessive deregulation.) Bush also added 91,000 people to the regulatory enforcement payroll; Clinton actually shaved almost 1,000 – figures that are quite in contradiction with the stereotypes ascribed to each president’s party.
(I need a hobby. Clearly. My source for the above is an article by Veronique de Rugy of George Mason U.)
In a comment almost too comical to be on Saturday Night Live, Russian Prime Minister Putin warned the US Government of the evils of excessive state intervention in free markets.
Indeed!
Even funnier, I thought, was the toe-to-toe that he had with Michael Dell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMR1BZ9aYM8
Another is a German auto supplier which stopped providing free beer in the canteen to workers, who subsequently lost weight and their general health improved.
Well, yeah, but do they have as much fun? *8-)
Again, many thanks for sharing. The Trust Barometer has also ignited a fascinating email discussion with Thomas Zengage, whom I had the great pleasure of meeting last November.
Best,
/pmg

Dear Richard,

I am Aditya from IndoPacific Edelman, Jakarta. Hope you remain optimistic despite the dissapointing Davos'.

I just have a few comments if you don't mind after reading your observations:

1. Nooyis' comment that main street companies are guilty by association is most intriguing. I believe there is not one type of main street companies, in terms of business moral and responsibility. Companies like Pepsi, Unilever, and Nestle for instance must be praised for their belief that their worldwide growth hinges on their ability to grow with the local people, in the local way, for the local economy. Unilever goes a long way indeed when it decided to list local Unilever units at local stock exchanges. When I attended the Young Leaders Forum of the World Economic Forum in Tianjin November last year - a satelite event to Davos - Unilever APAC CEO surprised the audience when he said "THINK LOCAL, ACT LOCAL, THEN ONLY ONE IS GLOBAL". Many mistakenly "THINK GLOBAL, ACT LOCAL".

2. Growth vs Development. The world economy must admit that it has overlooked the importance of national developments in each member country and it has overvalued collective growth. The latest book by Boston Consulting Group "GLOBALITY" rightly recognizes the emerging trend that emerging market companies will not only become global players but also very strong and more sustainable ones because they keep building the distinct capability from winning their respective "tough" local markets. Arcelor Mittal, Tata, San Miguel, BUMI Resources are only a few examples.

The next growth cycle for world economy will be Asia driven combined with the opening of more African markets. Yet the voice of Asian and African were hardly heard in Davos, which I believe is a crucial misstep.

A real discussion must begin about trade for development and investment for development, replacing trade and investment for growth. For this to be effective a new relationship must be charted not between government and businesses, but between gov, business and multilateral organizations.

World leaders shouldn't start with asking what we have done wrong, but just ask what we have not done.

Sorry to get over excited with my comments. But that's just what I think.

Thanks Richard,

Regards

Aditya

Always finding your rather neutral summary of Davos worth reading Mr. Edelman. Thank you. Just wondering, did someone from your company cover the Belem conference as well ? Is so, could we read a feedback ?