ErnieGray.com

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman recently opined that the global economy is in a freefall, and that it could get much worse.  He also noted in his regular column that deficits be damned, the government should spend its way out of the problem: that a protracted deep recession is ultimately worse than debt.

A return to Keynsian sensibilities is probably the right posture to take here: let’s not forget that those who have been trumpeting the sanctity of the infallible free-markets are those who were not yet born when similar circumstances dealt a crushing blow to our country in the 1930s.  There is a knee-jerk reaction by people (including myself) who don’t quite understand all the nuances of debt and deficit spending to deride it, largely thanks to hearing the chorus of deficit hawks over the past 30 years.

But if anything, this situation points to something more fundamental: that our economic behavior for the past 10-50 years is unsustainable. Not only is it “economically unsound” in terms of the very system we use to define it (”free-market capitalism”) but destructive and short-sighted in terms of limited global resources.

At some point in our history, the idea of humanity intervening with public policy to prevent self-destruction has fallen out of favor and labeled socialist, or communist.  This argument is founded on the premise that once power is focused, it tends toward corruption and oppression.  While this is true some of the time, it would wrong to assume that it is a universal truth.  This would be like saying that any form of discipline is child abuse.

The merits of deregulation and laizzes faire are deeply ingrained in our culture, but the champions of this dogma have fallen silent in recent months.  As there are no athiests in foxholes, there are no free-market champions in a severe financial crisis.

In truth, the popularity of free-market mythology is a recent fad.  For most of the 20th century, during her golden age, when the boomers were enjoying unprecedented prosperity, the US was governed by mixed bag of socialist and capitalist policies.  The balance between these has been an ongoing experiment.  During the past 30 years the trend has been the dismantling of regulatory structures.  With it brought more flexibility for growth and more risk. There is an excellent argument that the problems of our overheated economy were the result of the wrong intervention (low interest rates and subsidized financial sectors gone awry), however without this artificial bubble, what would the US and world economy look like today?

Now the reaction is to again impose control and artificially stimulate a continuation of the same flawed system.

While we certainly don’t want a retraction so severe that our economy is crippled for years, it is time that our nation returns to sensible behavior of personal savings and consumption.   The lifestyle and patterns of consumption of the United States have to change, and in order to continue we will require intelligent solutions to replace mindless destructive consumption as the basis of our economic growth with creative work and sustainable practices.

As I wrote in my previous blog, Paulson’s bailout package was the wrong move.  Today, he announced that he will scrap the “buddy bailout” plan and will do what makes sense: capitalize the banks directly.  This is a good move, but I sincerely hope the treasury considers the option of matching private investment for a non-controlling stake.  This would avoid possible conflicts of interest that might come with outright nationalization.

It has also come to light that Bernanke privately preferred this approach all along.  Bernanke spent most of his career studying recessions, and as I pointed out previously, the majority of leading economists were also behind this strategy…

According to Paul Krugman (who just won the Nobel Prize):

But when Henry Paulson, the U.S. Treasury secretary, announced his plan for a $700 billion financial bailout, he rejected this obvious path, saying, “That’s what you do when you have failure.” Instead, he called for government purchases of toxic mortgage-backed securities, based on the theory that … actually, it never was clear what his theory was.

This raises an interesting point, however.  Krugman, and most other experts suggested the remedy that has now been accepted, yet also agreed that the Paulson plan be approved by congress.  The reasons usually provided were “something is better than nothing.”  This means that even though they knew the right course of action, they approved the wrong course of action, for the sake of decisive leadership.

This once again illustrates an interesting dynamic of how human beings instinctively rally behind a leader when a crisis presents itself, even if that means following that leader down the wrong path.  Paulson is an MBA with a lot of management experience on Wall Street, and has great leadership skills.  I think the solution he devised speaks volumes about the differences between a Wall Street insider and an economist/technocrat like Bernanke.

This, along with the strong leadership exhibited by Gordon Brown in England is good news for the global economy.  England is directly capitalizing an array of banks, on the strict condition that they maintain 2007 lending policies.  The rest of the world is rank and file behind Englands lead.

Bravo.

Hindsight is 20/20, but it’s high time that Hank Paulson gets his act together or steps aside before the next administration chooses his successor. The US markets are gyrating wildly to the hastily cobbled together ‘bailout’ that was supposed to dampen things down.

Kudos to Paulson for proposing something, but now it’s clear that his proposal amounted to, “give me unlimited power to act until I figure something out, and in the mean time I’m going to bail out my buddies in the business sector I worked in all my life by buying all their junk assetts.”

The original Treasury plan — which called for the transfer of virtually unlimited taxpayer dollars and unlimited spending discretion to Treasury with no judicial or congressional oversight — sent a very bad signal to the markets. Instead of restoring confidence, this approach to the crisis instilled more fear and panic in the markets.

Because of the complexity of the derivatives market, and all the abstractions of the modern financial sectors, banks are dealing with too many known unknowns.  The banks themselves are not sure of their own balance sheets, so they are unwilling to trust other banks, which is the very foundation of the way that banks operate through a system of overnight loans.  This is the underlying problem of the credit freeze…

As Barry Riholtz points out:

“Under these circumstances, the original Paulson rescue plan is unlikely to accomplish much. Buying up risky assets from the banks, which is what Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is set to do, is like slapping a coat of paint on a house infested with termites. It may pretty up the banks for a short period of time, but it is unlikely to solve the underlying problem.”

Every economist in the world right now seems to be calling for the same prescription, but not Paulson’s: capitalize the banking system directly and do it yesterday.  Their are numerous methods of doing this, ranging from the effective european model of outright nationalization, to government matching private investment dollar for dollar for preferred stock, where the government owns a non-voting stake in the company.  This keeps the private sector in control of the market, while amplifying the purchasing power of private capital.

To put it bluntly, we need a no-holds barred approach to restore liquidity.  If capitalization of banks doesn’t work, then the government needs to provide, not free money, but loans loans loans to every public and private institution that wants them immediately. Everybody needs money.  So give it to them.  As far-fetched as this sounds, this idea is already in the play: the government is lending money directly.

We CAN stop the feedback loop from taking hold of the world economy, but it’s going to take a bold and dramatic move sooner than later.  Most importantly, we need some positive headlines from the Chicken Little Media.

If I were a head of state in a western style “free market democracy” right now, I would probably secretly resent constitutional clauses that would restrict my government’s ability to censor the media.  Faith, which is the essence of our financial system, had a fighting chance before our media outlets doggedly reported that we were in a financial crisis. The confidence of our populace has been shaken, and that confidence might have saved us from the abyss.

Just two months ago, your average person understood that there was a deteriorating situation in the financial and housing sectors, but that did not change their deeply ingrained consumer habits.  It was this resilience of behavior that astonished many economists: despite setbacks in many aspects of the systemic capital, the US and European consumer confidence, which is the very soul of the 21st century economy itself, was buoyant and purring along smoothly.

Thanks to the media, all that is ruined. For the past month, there has been nothing but doomsday prophecies coming out of all the major news outlets. Now we will see a dramatic and precipitous spiral caused by a feedback effect of unemployment and consumer spending.  The average person’s willingness to carry on as normal: eating out, buying consumer goods, financing cars, and using services, etc constitutes 75% of our economy.  It is this sector that provides the majority of employment in the US.  We are already seeing dramatic cuts in per-capita spending in just the past month.  This trend will lead to higher unemployment, and a general collapse of much of our consumer sector.

The New York Times reports:

“The last few days have devastated the American consumer,” said Walter Loeb, president of Loeb Associates, a consultancy, who said he worried that the constant drumbeat of negative news about the economy was becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. “They all feel poor.”

It is this constant drumbeat from local and national news that will lead to a consumer-driven recession, which is potentially a much more dire situation than the so-called ‘recessions’ of recent memory.

Granted, much of the media’s reporting was a reaction to the posturing of our administration’s campaign to grant the treasury with unlimited power to purchase up bad assets, etc.  Dow Jones numbers also deserve headlines.  However, the prognosis coming from so many talking heads is one of panic, crisis, and doom.  With 24 hour news, the visual loops of “economic crisis…,” “Are We In A Recession?”  “Is Your Job At Risk?” have a powerful impact on people’s willingness to continue their normal habits of spending, and revert to a “stay home a hoard cash under the mattress” mentality.

Of course, the underlying problems of our economy are really quite simple: we, as a society have been spending well beyond our means.  The individual consumer is, as many people have pointed out over the past decade, in over their heads with debt.  But it has been this debt-driven economy that has kept ‘the fundamentals’ as Bush et al sees them, ’strong’, and sustained a much larger capitalization scheme globally, especially for export driven economies like China and other Asian markets.  In that respect, they are absolutely right: demand was strong for affordable goods and services… until now.

I blame this on government.  Most importantly Alan Greenspan’s absurd decade long cheap money policy, among various other interventions.  But I will save that rant for another post.

If the government wants to curtail a dangerous Hobbsian disaster, it would certainly help if they could show some real focused leadership, curtail the naysayers in the media, pump the lines of information full of tempered outlooks on the economy, and then set about recapitalizing our markets and then gently raising interest rates in a disciplined long-term pattern, the same way that Paul Volcker did during his tenure as chairman of the Federal reserve from from August 1979 to August 1987.  That tough love was to fight inflation of the 70s. But this time around, the inflationary indicators that would have historically led the fed to raise interest rates were offset by globalization and the booms of export driven economies.  Greenspan would talk about “froth” and “overheating” at his little pow-wows, but was not disciplined enough to stop the good times from rolling when they were headed for an obviously immanent train wreck that scores of economists saw coming.

There were multiple regulatory factors that contributed, but Greenspan’s unwillingness to consider alternate indicators in uncharted territory are certainly going to be the muse for a lot of spilled ink in the next 50 years.

It would also help if we could dismantle this disgusting quasi-socialist financial system that has evolved out of the misplaced policies of elected bureaucrats.  From my research, one can draw a line straight back through a chain of government interventions in the credit and financial markets that started as “good ideas” to help out people in get affordable homes, but had latent long term effects that now have come to a head: the socialization of a large portion of our financial system.  But just keep in mind that socialization of capital by capital interests is what led us to this hole in the first place.

I of course, don’t support censoring the press, but it sure as hell would help right now.  Of course, as we’ve seen, tyranny often begins as an exception.

Hate is hate. I don’t condone it in any fashion.

The Knoxville man who opened fire on a children’s playing of “Annie” at a Unitarian church was clearly a man looking for someone to blame for his hardships. His conflation of “losing his government subsidies (food stamps)” and “hating liberals” belies his misunderstanding of the political landscape in the US. This man was terribly confused both emotionally and intellectually.

Is it possible that his choice of target was fueled by the growing chorus of sensationalist radio personalities on the right?

The language he used in his open suicide letter points to something that a lot of people are getting wise to: the conservative media’s movement to vilify some categorical political class as “the liberals” is becoming increasingly insular and hateful. One only need to turn on a variety of talk shows to hear the growing chorus of radio and television conservative pundits say things such as, “liberals are the reason why this country is falling apart,” or “the only good liberal is a dead one,” or “San Francisco should get hit by a terrorist attack.”

This rhetoric is the kind of name calling and hatred that should be marginalized to the more radical sectors of our political discourse, not some of the most popular talk radio and television shows in the country.

In an attempt to appropriate the largely successful radicalizing techniques of the Marxists and leftist radicals of the 60’s, the sensationalist right-wing has become increasingly bold with their propaganda. This is not because these folks really believe in that kind of hate: but because it sells.

Name calling is intellectually lazy. It allows dependent thinkers to adopt a set of basic generalized principles such as “Freedom” from a political pundit, and then whenever new information presents itself that cannot be easily synthesized into the existing framework, it is labeled “liberal.”

Instead of synthesizing the many nuances of a socio political situation, all you have to do is hear your favorite talk show host tell you how this new information fits into our overarching theme of “liberal” bashing, and you can walk away and feel like you have your very own political position you can agree with, and don’t even have to understand the details.

On the other hand, you have traditionally exhilarating forums such as crossfire, Meet the Press, Washington week, Talk Of The Nation, etc. These shows at least attempt to bring together diverse viewpoints from individuals who are equipped with good information. These may points of view are free to disagree. You decide.

Unfortunately, these forums pale in comparison to the ratings of Rush. Why? Because multiple competing viewpoints with complex variables require both a high degree of background information, and intellectual rigor to comprehend. It’s much easier to have someone tell you what to believe about a variety of issues and provide only the information you need to argue the status quo the next time you want to talk politics at the water cooler.

It’s a different situation when you have a polite dinner with well-educated guests in a restaurant or at your home. If you dare choose to discuss politics, you realize that name calling, generalizations, and other intellectually lazy positions won’t make much of an impression on your well-informed and discriminating guests.

What does impress is when you present new qualitative facts that alter the logic of a situation or a convincing line of reasoning.

Hate is not proactive political discourse in this country. As we’ve seen, the weak-minded attach to emotions and over-simplify complex subjects. The individuals who are exploiting this for the fame and ratings (profit) should think twice before they get what wish for. Rush, Hannity, and co are very intelligent people capable of making excellent arguments when they want to, but they realize that the majority of their listeners are sycophants. When they tire of hearing themselves talk for 2-3 hours and become intellectually lazy, they can resort to the name calling that the millions of dependent thinkers who listen to their show rely on.

It’s a win-win situation: They more they do it, the better the ratings.

Let’s get back to the task at hand: discussing the facts.

This must be the month of government bailouts:  Bear Stearns, Fannie & Freddie, and locally, a one million dollar cash infusion from our tax coffers to the STAR commuter train from Lebanon to Nashville.

While many would argue that Fannie & Freddie are too big to fail, a commuter train that is losing money may be a different story. The one million dollar giveaway would only be to keep them operational for the rest of the year, and hinges on an agreement of additional funding from Lebanon and a new management by MTA officials.

When an operation is failing, or has a budget shortfall of 1.7 million dollars, that usually means you need:

• a line of credit for the short term
• to raise prices
• cut costs
• find additional income streams
• hire better business and logistics talent

You don’t need an MBA to figure that one out.  But really, 1.7 million dollars is not a discraceful sum for an operation like a railway. A government handout is certainly more preferable to a company than a line of credit.

Here are their problems:

• Ridership projections that the project was counting on are not being met - people are not using the train. However, usage is increasing with fuel prices soaring.  Lifestyle changes take time for a culture that is completely unfamiliar with the idea of public transport.
• a series of accounting mishaps caused some problems in book-keeping (please)
• Fuel costs are going up

Well, I’m glad to hear that management will be replaced, because it sounds like there has been a degree of inexperience or ineptitude on the part of the current folks who are running the show.  Perhaps the logistics experts at MTA will offer a better handle on this.  Metro Bus lines is not a small fry operation.

Let’s also keep in mind that the STAR is really more of a public service than a private enterprise, even though it is running as a private company.  If you consider the STAR a quality public service, think of it as a temporary subsidy for a public good that will run on its own, in the black.  I’m sure that there are plenty of tax and spenders out there who would argue that metro should build even more trains, and raise taxes to do so.

I don’t agree with the subsidized transport, but do like the idea of commuter trains: IF they are profitable and being used. Otherwise don’t waste the tight budget we’re working with in a city that already has budgetary issues of her own. I would offer the following recommendations:

• Replace management, and invest in experienced logistics pros (MTA is good, but are they as good as pros from the Rail industry?)
• Maximize alternative sources of funding (I would recommend my friends at Advertising Vehicles who now run MTA advertising).
• Invest in personnel to attract grants and other donation from private sector
• Hedge against fuel costs through futures (ok that is a little too big for one little train line)
• Invest in PR once financials are on track
• If budget is not balanced by 2010, scrap the whole thing.

Trains are a wonderful idea in a perfect world, but let’s face it: Southern Americans love their cars like nothing else, even if that means standing in traffic, like today where hundreds of cars were sitting at a veritable standstill on I-24 because of a stalled car (that probably ran out of gas).

Perhaps the biggest mistake was running a bus from Lebanon.  It should have been established from Murfreesboro or Smyrna.  A simple analysis of traffic patterns would demonstrate the viability of that project…

The future of the American energy crisis is clean electricity. With clean electricity we can power our current interstate infrastructure, keep our car culture, and continue to enjoy our transportation independence. We can move goods around the country, and actually do it cheaper than ever before.

Ethanol, clean coal, and hydrogen are expensive distractions that oil, coal, and agriculture interests have somehow pushed on us via public relations campaigns and government lobbyists. I see right through it, and although each will have it’s day in the sun, the ultimate solution is already being determined by our marketplace.

Why is electricity the solution that the market will prefer? Several reasons:

1. Electricity is domestic: Watts must be generated nearby at your local energy station, which can be just about anything, from collective community solar grids, to nuclear reactors. Domestic energy means energy independence from the rest of the world, more jobs at home, and greater control.
   
   
2. Electricity can be converted from the most wide range of energy sources: solar, wind, nuclear, gas, coal, water, and the list goes on. Electric cars that use fossil fuels as their original energy source (at the power plant) actually have double the ‘well to wheel’ efficiency of popular hybrid cars, while generating one-third of the carbon dioxide.

3. Our current infrastructure already supports electricity: we have the infrastructure we need to deliver the goods. No need to add hydrogen tanks and pipelines.
   
   
4. The transition will be seamless - cars and trucks are already coming to market featuring electric/gas hybrid technology. Even the Nashville MTA has hybrid busses on the way. Current hybrids don’t require charging, but new “plugin-hybrids” are on the way from Honda and Toyota that allow owners to charge them at home, and run on pure electricity for shorter trips, and switch to a gas moter only on longer excursions.
   
   
5. The transition has already begun

The innovations in battery technology, solar technology, and beyond will give the US a new industry to sink her teeth into, and provide our people a long overdue upgrade in the transportation we use. The American marketplace has been toying with electric cars since the 19th century. It is only now that the reality of our limited oil supply has hit home that we are getting wise to the advantages.

However, there are some significant obstacles to overcome. Pundits of other alternatives criticize electric transport based on the following myths:

1. Your trading one form of pollution for another: tailpipe emissions for increased smokestack emission to generate the electricity.False: You will be hearing a new buzz-phrase in the next year: well to wheel efficiency. What this means is the amount of energy or pollution from the original energy source (coal power plant, hydroelectric dam, solar/wind farm) to the car your driving. All electric cars beat gas cars and hybrids two to one or better in both efficiency and carbon emissions. As our country aggressively invests in clean sources, this argument will be moot.
2. Our Grid Can’t Handle the Load: plugin hybrid demand will require as many as 160 new power plants.True & False: Our current terribly outdated electrical infrastructure is already overtaxed as American households have demanded more electricity in the past 30 years. During peak hours, or business hours, if everyone charged their Prius at the same time, the grid would go dark. However, if regulations required charging overnight our current grid could handle it.Investment in our power infrastructure is long overdue, and regardless of who wins the next election, you can be sure that we will see Washington creating incentives and programs to promote clean energy and expand our electrical capacity. Bring back Nuclear power.
3. Electric cars use too much water: huh? Maybe it’s just a function of living in Tennessee, but last time I checked, non-potable water was practically free.

One of the best headlines in recent memory was the Onion’s, “Recession-Plagued Nation Demands New Bubble To Invest In.”  The article lampoons the artificial wealth cycle of US capitalism, but also points to a more important question: what’s the next big thing that is going to pull us out of this hole?

And my oh my the hole is big and getting bigger…  Two years ago I wrote about the immanent bubble bursting, but I had no idea how big the fallout would be in the financial sector: $300 billion in writeoffs this year by various banks and expected to hit 1 trillion and beyond.  Fannie and Freddie alone will likely be bailed out by you the taxpayer to the tune of $300 million.

I often like to joke that this wealth was never real in the first place, but for those people who were irresponsible enough to lose their house, or whose 401k was decimated because of not-so-clever financial products built on bad loans, it sure does seem real.  Money is an abstraction, and our particular brand of capitalism depends on a constant cycle of spending and capital liquidity to convert the momentum of our culture of crazy ideas, products, services, and technology into financial wealth.

Greed got the best of our financial sector and now everyone is paying for it.  If this is isn’t an argument for better market regulation (or absolute deregulation), then I don’t know what is.  Maybe Alan Greenspan’s ideas of low interest rates fueling growth in real estate and construction would have been tenable if:

1. The fed would have known when to say when and raise rates.  In every case, the fear is always that it will impede growth and is unnecessary if inflation is at bay.  Maybe the fed should stop being a one-trick pony and start considering other factors besides GDP and inflation: if the market is too hot, as Greenspan kept saying again and again at the points when both the .com and housing bubbles were already precariously inflated, then why not raise the rates?
2. If the growth had been bridled by wise regulatory choices.  There are a variety regulatory measures that could have been implemented during the bubble that could have helped to control irresponsible lending, and the invention of unsound financial products based on bundles of junk loans.

   However, even with regulation, enough cheap money leads to unrealistic valuation of assets, and regulation almost always ends up causing problems for market systems.  Cheap money for too long was the fundamental cause, and the washington reaction to add red tape is missing that point.  Furthermore, massive investment into Fannie and Freddie by global capital, and the subsequent amassing of most of the country’s mortgage debt would never have happened without the implicit backing of the US Government.  Both are Government Sponsored Enterprises.

   See what government intervention leads to?

So what now?  We do indeed need a new growth cycle, and it needs to be green.

The reasons for investing in green innovation are growing daily.  National security, global warming, lower energy costs, etc etc.  With enough competition and reward, we will see incredible leaps forward in energy technologies, the most important being electric.
We need an incentive program that is so attractive to capital, that the energy sector will explode with growth in alternative energy such as wind, solar, and beyond.

Think about how effective Bush’s 100k tax deduction on large vehicles was for the completely irrational SUV boom.  The Bush administration knew exactly what they were doing with that little piece of legislation: helping the domestic auto industry and oil industry while screwing the environment and import auto manufacturers.

Using tax cuts alone, we could spurn a huge rally in our economy to develop our electrical infrastructure with solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.   This grid of clean energy could fuel the growing demand for hybrid plugins that use little to any gasoline.

Solar panel roofing tiles on old homes, new factories to build electric cars or plugin hybrids, new charging stations cropping up at gas stations everywhere, private and public development of better electrical infrastructure.

The future of the United States is a bright one, and it is powered by clean green electricity.  Despite the setbacks we are facing right now, there is one important factor that will help us continue to lead in the world: the American spirit of enterprise and innovation.

Detachment as it relates to daily practice is probably one of the most misunderstood aspects of zen discipline. People often ask, “if my goal is to reach a state of detachment, then why wouldn’t I just go hide in a cave somewhere?” After all, isn’t the lazy pot-head or drunkard on the side of the road detached? Isn’t the lazy mother who cares nothing for her children detached? Indeed, detachment is translated as disengagement or disinterest by some dictionaries, which leads people to believe that to practice this “detachment” means to be useless or lazy.

Unfortunately, this misunderstanding of detachment in zen stems from a lack of a better word in English. A better way of describing detachment in zen practice is, “a detachment from outcomes in a state of positive being.” In fact, detachment is a key aspect in success and abundance. This was understood by Jesus, and is a common characteristic of some of the most successful people you may encounter. To experience and enjoy a life of abundance, you must learn detachment from outcomes.

“Give and gifts will be given to you; a good measure, packed together, shaken down, and overflowing, will be poured into your lap.” (Luke 6:38)

Attachment to outcomes is the enemy of abundance and success. Many people want to achieve a state of success in whatever social or subjective game they may play, but are sabotaged and rendered inept by their intense attachment to outcomes.

Let’s take a woman who has a lifelong dream to own her own business grooming animals. She talks about it with friends, and says to her husband, “if only I could start that pet-grooming business I would be really happy!” She continues to go about this charade for years and years, making little steps here and there, but never really does anything.

Practical and logistical considerations aside, what is preventing her from making her dream a reality is not “detachment” but in fact, “attachment to outcomes.” The fear of the eventual outcome is so debilitating, that she is incapable of focusing her energy in a positive direction to reach her goal.

One thing I have noticed about the successful people I have met along the way is that they put forth a great deal of energy to reach their goals, but when you ask them what will they do if they fail, they have a positive and detached attitude. They say, “oh well, it isn’t the end of the world, at least we gave it a shot.”

This is the essence of the healthy detachment that zen practice helps us nurture.

Abundance, as Jesus taught, is a state of positive being. If you give forth in abundance, whether it be attention, interest, work, money, or even a smile, it will come back to you. This also applies to the directed and focused energy toward your goals and outcomes. The more sustained positive energy you can give, the more abundance and success you will receive! However, if you are too attached to the outcome, you will find that it stifles you and sabotages your efforts.

There was once a big contract that we were trying to win for my web development company. It was a lucrative deal, we needed the money badly and I was very nervous about meeting with them. I could not stop thinking about the outcome: I was obsessed with saying the wrong thing, saying too much, bidding too high, not providing the right solutions — in short, I was VERY attached to the outcomes.

My partner, who is older and more experienced, with years of sales under his belt could tell that I was nervous. Before we went in to the meeting he said, “you can’t go into a negotiation wanting it too badly. You have to put it in God’s hands and let Him take care of it. If we don’t get it: no big deal, it’s just another day at the beach.”

I took his advice to heart and remembered my insights from zen practice. We walked into the conference room and I remembered my “center” from meditation practice. I detached myself from the outcome and my fears faded. I thought about the people I love and the great abundance and joy throughout my life. We proceeded to consult with a very rich and powerful group of people. My ease and relaxed energy must have given them them the impression of confidence. We already had everything we needed, we had gifts of abundance, and they were willing to and eager to pass more where that came from.

These people were not intimidating, they were interesting and beautiful. We shared positive energy and we all walked away from the deal with greater abundance!

Years later, I see this element in business dealings again and again. The party who is too attached to the outcome is not only unable to make the right decisions, but is unable share their wealth and opportunities with others, which is a critical part of business on both sides of the table: you must be willing to give in order to receive. When a business deal gets caught up on principles or minutiae that have no real bearing on the big picture, then there are problems. I am always willing to concede things when necessary, but at the same time, I am never so attached to the outcomes that I am afraid to walk away and pass.

Business aside, this applies to just about every aspect of life I can think of. And as you can see, is completely compatible with hard work and a goal-oriented life.

When the Buddha was asked why he bothered to come back to be with others after he reached enlightenment, he said that the game of life brought him great joy. The only way you can truly enjoy the game of life, and succeed is when you don’t become to attached to the outcomes.

After all, it’s just another day at the beach!

I have more or less been interested in the teachings of the Buddha since I was a teenager. I don’t recall precisely what my introduction to to the tradition was, but when I read the core concepts of Buddhists, I identified with them immediately. Throughout my life I may have gone through phases where I may have considered myself a “Buddhist,” but I usually return to an opinion that it is pointless because identification and self-concept are antethical to the fundamentals of Zen.

People who are aware of my interest in Buddhism often ask how it relates to Christianity. For a Christian, it is wrong to worship false gods, or to find any “way” to the “father” beyond Christ, since he is “the only Truth and the only way to the Father.” Thus, it is common for many Christians to assume that no Christian should follow Buddhism beyond a cursory understanding of it in an academic manner.

This is not necessarily the case. First of all, Buddhism is not an orthodox religion, and perhaps is not even a religion at all by some standards. By that I mean that there is no proper or right way to follow or subscribe to the teachings and traditions of the Buddha.

Furthermore, one could argue that there are no concrete beliefs in core Buddhism about God or what kind of conceptual relationship you should have with Him. Any mythological attributes are usually cultural adaptations and additions by others over the millenia. Therefore the objective of Buddhist practice is not to find or follow God in any manner that is comparable to Christian tradition.

There are Buddhist traditions that have created social norms around these ideas. There are Buddhist traditions that believe in particular interpretations of Karma and reincarnation, etc. However, I would argue that these are particular manifestations of tradition that became reified over time for the sake of tradition. These are most always preserved as culture rites and in my opinion have nothing to do with Siddhārtha Gautama and the insight he achieved.

A tradition of non-tradition exists in Zen Buddhist circles around the world, particularly in the west, that adopt or appropriate the core ideas of Buddhist practice without the historical baggage or theology. To simplify matters, lets just say that these people are not “Buddhists,” they are simply engaged in a practice that leads them toward a general “awakening of conciousness,” which gets to the core of what Buddhism is all about. This would be a sufficient description of what I try to do.

This awakening of consciousness, if anything, will only aid a Christian in his or her understanding of Christ’s teachings. From the perspective of an person who has been in Zen practice for some time, the scriptures that have been most tightly attributed to actual sayings of Jesus of Nazareth by top theologians bear an explosive and remarkable similarity to the insights of awakening, and the saying of Siddhārtha Gautama.

I personally would not consider the word “prayer” as it is translated from the eastern practices to be equivalent to “prayer” of the Christian Judeo traditions. A buddhist monk does not pray to God, nor do they appeal to Buddha or anybody. A more apt description would be that they “meditate.” Meditiation is not an appeal to a god, or anything or anyone. It is a practice of controlling the mind to lead to awakening, and understanding.

Meditation is also part of very advanced forms of prayer used by Christian monks. Utilizing techniques of meditation, a Christian can open themselves to better channel the Holy Spirit and commune with God. Any Catholic or Russian orthodox monk will tell you that many advanced techniques of prayer utilize the same techniques of mind-honing used in Zen Practice. When introduced to Zen, they are instantly familiar with it.

We must also recall that Jesus’ own ascetic lifestyle was common in his age by those who were seeking to clear the mind and commune with a higher power.

So, I would say that a Christian can’t really be a Buddhist, if you define Buddhism a particular way, IE as a religion. However, if you consider the practice of meditation and core teachings of the Buddha as a technique to better hone your mind and body to the teachings of Christ, I believe it will be very fruitful to you.

Enjoy!