Editor's Note: Edward Alden is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he writes the blog Renewing America. The following is reprinted with the permission of CFR.org.

By Edward Alden, CFR.org

I am rarely surprised when I go to Starbucks. The coffee is always about the same (good), and the menu of pastry items is thoroughly predictable (and not so good). But the other day, amidst the CDs and other miscellany at checkout, I noticed a small badge asking for a $5 donation. “Let’s Create JOBS forUSA” it implored, offering a snazzy red, white, and blue wristband in return.

I was taken aback.  I have donated to help poor children, to end famines,  to cure and prevent diseases, to help the homeless, to build bike trails, to save wild animals and wild places, and dozens of other causes. But it had never occurred to me to make a charitable contribution to “create JOBS.” Have we as a country really sunk this far? Must we now rely on charity to employ Americans? FULL POST

Editor’s Note: Dinesh Moorjani is the Founder and CEO of Hatch Labs, a mobile startup incubator creating new platforms and applications to improve mobility for the wireless generation.

By Dinesh Moorjani – Special to CNN

It’s often perceived in the business world that pursuing an MBA degree is analogous to buying career insurance, especially if you attend a top program.

What many aspiring entrepreneurs have found, however is that earning an MBA can actually momentarily slow down an upward career trajectory, considering the degree typically requires a two-year job hiatus at a full-time program.

The real benefit of this advanced degree may be the parachute it serves in times of economic distress.  But for those assessing the risk vs. reward opportunity, the need to consider the likelihood of that parachute opening properly remains paramount.  And perhaps the best indicator of that is how well the parachute is packed, or without the laborious analogy, how talented the individual is and how those talents are channeled toward meaningful professional endeavors. FULL POST

Editor's Note: Laura Tyson, a former chair of the U.S. President's Council of Economic Advisers, is a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. For more from Rogoff, visit Project Syndicate's excellent new website or follow it on Facebook and Twitter. 

By Laura Tyson, Project Syndicate

At a recent conference in Washington, DC, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said that US policymakers should focus on productive activities that take place in the United States and employ American workers, not on corporations that are legally registered in the US but locate production elsewhere. He cited research by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who, more than 20 years ago, warned that as US multinational companies shifted employment and production abroad, their interests were diverging from the country’s economic interests.

It is easy to agree with Summers and Reich that national economic policy should concentrate on US competitiveness, not on the well-being of particular companies. But their sharp distinction between the country’s economic interests and the interests of US multinational companies is misleading. FULL POST

Editor's Note: Bruce Katz is the vice president and founding director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution (follow him on Twitter @bruce_katz). Jessica Lee is a senior policy analyst at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Bruce Katz and Jessica Lee.

By Bruce Katz and Jessica Lee - Special to CNN

Two hundred and twenty years ago today, Alexander Hamilton presented his Report on Manufactures to the U.S. House of Representatives. This report, commissioned by Congress almost two years earlier, urged legislators to regard manufacturing as an integral component of the emerging American economy.

In stark contrast to the Jeffersonian vision of an agrarian democracy led by virtuous yeoman farmers, Hamilton envisioned a national economy strengthened through diversification and immigrant talent, with a vibrant manufacturing sector complementing the nation’s already sizable agricultural productivity.

Arguing against those who insisted that the government should “leave industry to itself,” he insisted that deliberate government encouragement was needed to ensure that American manufacturers continued to thrive. FULL POST

Editor's Note: Alastair Smith is a professor of politics at NYU, and is co-author of The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Alastair Smith.

By Alastair Smith – Special to CNN

Wall Street executive bonuses are expected to be down by about a quarter this season. After two months of occupying Wall Street, can the 99% take credit for reining in the excesses of corporate America? In a word: No.

Even in the wake of 2008’s financial crisis, bonuses remained “shamefully” robust.  The perceived injustice of executives rewarding themselves while their firms were propped up by the public purse helped create much of the anger that prompted the Occupy Wall Street movement. Even though many companies are expected to cut bonuses this year, Wall Street remains tone deaf to the cries of those outside their offices. FULL POST

Editor's Note: Rahilla Zafar is working with a team of writers at Arabic Knowledge @ Wharton on a book highlighting female entrepreneurs and leaders in the MENA region. She is also a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania researching solar and water innovations in developing countries. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Rahilla Zafar.

By Rahilla Zafar – Special to CNN

Editor's Note: Gary Hufbauer  is Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Martin Vieiro is a research analyst at the Peterson Institute. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors.

By Gary Hufbauer and Martin Vieiro, Foreign Affairs

Even though the Occupy Wall Street protests seem incoherent at times, one main theme is clear: anger at big business. On this count, the occupiers are aligned not only with Hollywood portrayals (predating even the 1941 classic Citizen Kane) but also with mainstream Americans. A majority of respondents to a recent Gallup survey said that they believe big business has too much power. The sentiment held across party lines. The reasons seem simple enough. Business leaders often rank in the top one percent of income earners. Meanwhile, unemployment remains over nine percent - and is much higher among minorities and young people - yet corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in unspent cash.

But this backlash is based on three common misconceptions about major U.S. corporations. The first is that Wall Street and big business are the same thing. When asked separately about "major corporations" and "financial institutions," the same percentage of Americans, 67 percent, agreed that each cluster had too much power. Discontent with Wall Street is understandable. Its practices led to wild lending and the sale of trillions of dollars' worth of toxic assets to unsuspecting investors. When the house of cards crumbled in 2008, the George W. Bush administration was forced to bail out Wall Street. FULL POST

Editor's Note: Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, is co-founder of a leading economics blog, BaselineScenario.com, a professor at MIT Sloan, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and co-author, with James Kwak, of 13 Bankers. For more, visit Project Syndicate or follow it on Facebook and Twitter.

By Simon Johnson, Project Syndicate