It is absolutely right that the press and the media should bring to the surface the social issues that we face, particularly one as worrying as the collapse of the financial system. I can see why MPs would wish to take the line of blaming greedy and selfish bankers and an insensitive press and media. The reason we have such problems is that both corporation and government had a powerful and implicit understanding to continue taking a derivative position in the market that would ultimately lead to the collapse that we are now experiencing.

Heads of State meeting at Davos still seem to believe that we can go back to the way we were before, if only we could get rid of the right wing neoliberal influence that stimulated the current phase of greed. However, we can no longer afford to have liberal economics as the basis for our global way of working. Our concern is to have a much more sensitive social democracy that allows for cosmopolitanism, sustainability and investing for a long term future. Why for example should be continue with quarterly reporting?  Why do we not have a much closer relationship between citizen, corporation and state, ensuring that the wealth creation process does not focus on shareholder value but on stakeholder benefit?

On this basis we need a balance of power whereby smaller countries can better represent themselves on a global stage. The only way forward is for a region to become a country. If we take Europe as an example, Europe becomes a country and the former countries of Europe become states of Europe. By having a European Parliament where emphasis will be placed on the lower house, the forum of the citizen, social policies can be created which will prevent the old Anglo American boom and bust cycles and allow for long term growth and investment.

The recent reporting on what we need to do to get ourselves out of this global downturn has largely concentrated on the economic levers that we need to pull in order to dig ourselves out of the present crisis. What needs to be understood is that we face a global political problem and not just an economic problem. Europe in particular needs to politically reposition and allow a mass market of 480 million consumers to influence the world in very different ways from the Anglo Americans of the last century.

The shareholder value philosophy of pedalling management techniques to literally thousands of students, and by so doing limiting their horizons to units of three months, is seriously flawed. The alternative is stakeholder value thinking and practice, which requires delving deep into concerns of corporate responsibility, the future role and contribution of boards, and the nature of the business/government interface. Such considerations have been given minimal attention.

So far, I am with Martin Parker. Think broader, dig deeper and see beyond quarterly profit targets. Yet, Martin Parker argues on behalf of Business Schools promoting a new capitalism. Why? It is this point that has to be challenged for it is completely unclear as to what is meant by a new capitalism.

Rethinking about what lies in the public good versus what aspects of an economy should be exposed to market forces is a critical consideration. The last thing we want to learn about is redundant financial instruments and techniques involving share swaps and trading schemes. The integration of management application with policy design, history and philosophy should be the basis of the Business School curriculum for the future.

We also cannot forget about geo-political analysis, the other important element of this curriculum platform. We are not just entering a new form of capitalism, but we are about to embark on a very different geo-political journey triggered by the collapse of short-termist capitalism. How nation states are going to position themselves for supremacy in a world of debt and diminishing resources is going to be interesting to observe. Those with the capacity will draw on their military strengths to control markets and take ownership of ores, often minerals and carbon based fuels. This is going to be our future. All of this is conveniently forgotten in Business School teachings.

Faced with a dynamic if not turbulent future, should we not be preparing our executives to both understand and meaningfully converse about the corporate/government interface? I believe we should, particularly as nation states will continue to confront each other, fundamentally redesigning the business landscape.

For all CEOs, the likelihood of being dismissed for poor performance in a given year is only 2.1 percent. Given this data, it is not surprising that the correlation between stock performance and dismissal is generally not significant. Indeed, the very worst-performing chief executives – those in the bottom decile, whose companies’ two-year stock price had fallen by 25 percent in absolute terms and whose companies had under­performed their regional industry peers by 45 percent – had only a 5.7 percent probability of termination.

These findings are not a huge surprise to me. CEOs need time to adjust to their new role and develop the vision it was the chairman’s job to steward. Perhaps boards are becoming more willing to give the CEO more time, or, as Karlsson, Neilson and Webster hypothesize, there isn’t a large enough pool of candidates to take over the top spot.

But it’s interesting to note how now that he’s the democratic candidate, he’s moved back towards the center the way American candidates often do to appeal to the greatest percentage of the electorate. One example: in the past Obama made a large issue of campaign finance reform and limiting the amount of public funding a candidate can use-however there isn’t a limit if you only use private funding and Obama has decided to go that way. His supporters say he’s doing what it takes to win; others more cynical believe his message of change is being diluted and he’s just a traditional politician after all.

Obama became a master of conveying a vision and getting people on board during the primary season. If traditional Washington politics force him to abandon his vision, he may suffer for it in the general election.

What Heinz had done was come up with a condiment that pushed all five of these primal buttons.  The taste of Heinz’s ketchup began at the tip of the tongue, where our receptors for sweet and salty first appear, moved along the sides, where sour notes seem the strongest, then hit the back of the tongue, for umami and bitter, in one long crescendo.  How many things in the supermarket run the sensory spectrum like this?

I wonder if this was as intentional as the vision that changed Heinz from an unromantic pickle and ketchup company into a multi-dimensional, international corporation.