The question - have consistently raised over all these years is: how long will the German taxpayer continue to pay for the Euro?
It looks as if the Germans are finally going to withdfraw the carpet from under the Euro
Expect initially a devaluation of the Euro, then of the PIGS currencies as well as of the Chinese
Expect all commodities (including gold) to decline substantially following the Chinese currency down, and loss of demand
At present, it is difficult to see where stability is to be found.
What comes to mind, as - have said rarlier, is the dollar, the Swiss Franc and perhaps the Indian Rupee (possibly also the British Pound - though the decline of the Euro may happen too fast to really benefit it).
Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Dr Arun Gadre wins this year's Maanav Adhikaar Paaritaushik (Human Dignity Award)
NEWS RELEASE
The winner of this year's Maanav Adhikaar Paaritaushik (Human Dignity Award) of Rupees One Lakh in memory of Professor M. M. Guptara, is:
Dr Arun Gadre, of Pune, Maharashtra.
Arun Gadre is a doctor and a writer.
The citation reads:
"Dr Gadre worked for some 20 years in a rural part of Maharashtra as a gynaecologist: instead of working in a major city where he would have received a reasonable income and a comfortable quality of life, he chose rather to invest the best years of his life to helping rural women. As the only MD within a radius of 50 km, in a draught prone and poor area, with much more irregular electricity than in our cities, with scarcity of water, paucity of trained assistants, no blood transfusion facilities, and no one to assist, he conducted around 5500 deliveries as well as other major surgeries.
"In spite of his heavy duties in the challenging environment, Dr Gadre somehow found time to exercise his gift for writing, to produce in fact many different books. Two of them are due to be published soon, one on ante-natal care and one on HIV/ AIDS counselling. However, he has 14 books which are already published - three for semi-literate people on medical subjects, two medical textbooks, one on premarital counseling, one is a work of philosophy, one is autobiographical, and six are novels.
"Many of the books have won awards. His philosophical work, BHAVA PESHI, won the Shenolikar Puraskar for the best book of the year in philosophy from the Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad Pune, as well as the Marathwada Sahitya Mandal Puraskar. His novel, EK HOTA FENGADYA, won the Shankar Patil Puraskar for the best novel of the year, from the Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad, Pune. His novel GHATACHAKRA won the H. N. Apte Puraskar from Maharashtra State as well as the VS Khandekar Puraskar for the best novel of the year from the Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad Pune. His latest novel, VADHASTAMBH, won the Vikhe Patil Puraskar, as well as the Vaman Malhar Joshi Puraskar for the best novel of the year from Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad Pune. His latest book, a biography of the (now practically unknown) founder of modern India, William Carey, has just been published under the title: “Ase Hote William Carey” (Rajhans Prakashan, Pune).
"We probably have many people in our country who have put in decades of medical work in poverty-stricken, resource-poor and ill-connected rural areas, but there are hardly any who have combined that with outstanding literary work– and all of Dr. Gadre's works, whether philosophical, biographical, fictional or medical, provide evidence of a deep commitment to humane values which seem to be under threat in our world. We hope that the award will inspire many people to follow Dr Gadre's example of self-sacrice, and of the triumph of the human spirit over adverse circumstances, and that it will therefore inspire even more people to serve our rural areas with distinction".
Dr Gadre is the second winner of the Maanav Adhikaar Paaritaushik (Human Dignity Award). The first winner was Dr John Dayal, a Member of the Indian National Commission for Minorities.
Recognising that the award is only a token, the Guptara family deeply appreciates Dr. Gadre's lifetime of outstanding service to our country.
Dr Gadre is available for interview. Please email Professor Prabhu Guptara for contact details. Sphere: Related Content
The winner of this year's Maanav Adhikaar Paaritaushik (Human Dignity Award) of Rupees One Lakh in memory of Professor M. M. Guptara, is:
Dr Arun Gadre, of Pune, Maharashtra.
Arun Gadre is a doctor and a writer.
The citation reads:
"Dr Gadre worked for some 20 years in a rural part of Maharashtra as a gynaecologist: instead of working in a major city where he would have received a reasonable income and a comfortable quality of life, he chose rather to invest the best years of his life to helping rural women. As the only MD within a radius of 50 km, in a draught prone and poor area, with much more irregular electricity than in our cities, with scarcity of water, paucity of trained assistants, no blood transfusion facilities, and no one to assist, he conducted around 5500 deliveries as well as other major surgeries.
"In spite of his heavy duties in the challenging environment, Dr Gadre somehow found time to exercise his gift for writing, to produce in fact many different books. Two of them are due to be published soon, one on ante-natal care and one on HIV/ AIDS counselling. However, he has 14 books which are already published - three for semi-literate people on medical subjects, two medical textbooks, one on premarital counseling, one is a work of philosophy, one is autobiographical, and six are novels.
"Many of the books have won awards. His philosophical work, BHAVA PESHI, won the Shenolikar Puraskar for the best book of the year in philosophy from the Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad Pune, as well as the Marathwada Sahitya Mandal Puraskar. His novel, EK HOTA FENGADYA, won the Shankar Patil Puraskar for the best novel of the year, from the Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad, Pune. His novel GHATACHAKRA won the H. N. Apte Puraskar from Maharashtra State as well as the VS Khandekar Puraskar for the best novel of the year from the Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad Pune. His latest novel, VADHASTAMBH, won the Vikhe Patil Puraskar, as well as the Vaman Malhar Joshi Puraskar for the best novel of the year from Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad Pune. His latest book, a biography of the (now practically unknown) founder of modern India, William Carey, has just been published under the title: “Ase Hote William Carey” (Rajhans Prakashan, Pune).
"We probably have many people in our country who have put in decades of medical work in poverty-stricken, resource-poor and ill-connected rural areas, but there are hardly any who have combined that with outstanding literary work– and all of Dr. Gadre's works, whether philosophical, biographical, fictional or medical, provide evidence of a deep commitment to humane values which seem to be under threat in our world. We hope that the award will inspire many people to follow Dr Gadre's example of self-sacrice, and of the triumph of the human spirit over adverse circumstances, and that it will therefore inspire even more people to serve our rural areas with distinction".
Dr Gadre is the second winner of the Maanav Adhikaar Paaritaushik (Human Dignity Award). The first winner was Dr John Dayal, a Member of the Indian National Commission for Minorities.
Recognising that the award is only a token, the Guptara family deeply appreciates Dr. Gadre's lifetime of outstanding service to our country.
Dr Gadre is available for interview. Please email Professor Prabhu Guptara for contact details. Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Having seriously damaged its own economy, the UK ....
is now being encouraged to resist global initiatives to prevent continuing such damage, both in the UK and in other countries:
in a report published today, the European Union committee of the House of Lords (the upper chamber of the British Parliament) has urged the UK to withhold its consent to European Union rules regulating the hedge fund and private equity industries!
I hope that the House of Lords will have the good sense to reject such moves, which will only add to pressures that are steadily taking us towards increasing the likelihood of wars around the world, if globalisation continues to unravel. Sphere: Related Content
in a report published today, the European Union committee of the House of Lords (the upper chamber of the British Parliament) has urged the UK to withhold its consent to European Union rules regulating the hedge fund and private equity industries!
I hope that the House of Lords will have the good sense to reject such moves, which will only add to pressures that are steadily taking us towards increasing the likelihood of wars around the world, if globalisation continues to unravel. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, February 06, 2010
visit to Shanghai and Changxing
Shanghai: the temperature is only 7 degrees but does not feel too cold as there is hardly any breeze
We landed, were greeted, whisked through customs, and escorted to a small 11-seater bus, two side-by-side, with an aisle down the middle, each seat with a foldaway tables, except for the front seat which has a spacious fixed desk in front of it to signal the importance of the Leader
The smooth and swift drive to Chongxing takes about 2 hrs though we are fogged out throughout - maximum visibility about 400yds, but most of the time more like 150yds
Our translator is from another province, with the first foreign language French, but quite competent English
In the translator's generation there is the beginning of a move now away from the larger cities to smaller cities, on the basis of better quality of life in the smaller cities, but I wonder whether the rwality in China is not rather that everyone has to work equally hard in every part of the country
In any case, I am interested to learn that the translator orders clothes on the internet and gets them 2 or 3 days later; and that, according to the translator, one should be able to get delivery evem in the remotest parts of China in 4 days: the delivery cost is about 6 Yuan in this part of the world, and about 10 Yuan for the remotest parts
Apparently, two months ago a drunken driving rule was introduced throughout the country - penalty 2 weeks jail - but perhaps the rich may still find that money facilitates a way out?
On arriving in Chongxing, we are taken to a huge hotel of the sort that one might have in Delhi or Agra: it is almost empty
the Tea Tribute Tea House from the 8th century, restored to its former glory recently, has to be specially opened for our small delegation - the advantage of being official guests!
Why is everything so deserted? Partly because this is winter: most Chinese and most foreigners prefer Chongxing between Spring and Autumn. And yes, they do get plenty of national and foreign visitors apparently. The newly built Exhibition Cente is very appropriate both for its scale and for its technical wizardry in view of the purpose for which it is designed: impressing foreigners so as to attract investment as well as impressing the best-qualified Chinese so as to attract them here as workers. The descriptive plaques here are in Mandarin, though the Tea House has everything in English as well
I am interested that in the hotel's welcome fruit basked there is a rather outsize (from the Indian point of view) version of a wild fruit that we call "Baer" in Hindi; this Chinese version may be cultivated?
On the tour of the Exhibition Centre, there is more than one reference to a "golden spike" which, I discover, refers to "the only standard of global stratigraphic division and correlation in in chronostratigraphic research". It is not golden, and it is not a spike in the normal sense of that word....
Changxing is still a relatively sleepy little town becuase most of the land around was occupied by the army. For some reason the army appears to have relinquished this land and moved elsewhere, when leases were taken by unknown (to our colleagues) parties, who developed the land in cooperation with the government which built the school, hospital, administrative centre, roads and high-speed railway (the last to be completed end-2010). The privately-developed houses, buildings and flats are available for sale to private individuals or western companies (though land itself cannot be sold in most or all of China). How much of these developments in China have actually been sold or rented cannot be discovered so far with any degree of reliability.
This applies also to the highly-impressive area of Pudong in Shanghai, which continues to become even more impressive each year. Though rumour has it that the buildings here are sinking because the land is marshy, that rumour is also impossible to establish or refute. Perhaps, to play safe, anyone who is interested in seeing this modern wonder should haste here in case it becomes like Venice. We don't get much time to be tourists, but the Bund is certainly a most interesting viewing platform to look on to Pudong. However, we do have time to look at one of the more fashionable bars and one of the most impressive restaurants, and I can assure my readers that Shanghai is as "cosmopolitan" (or "decadent", depending on one's point of view) in terms of culture, design and lifestyle
The city bustles away, very much on the make, with a population that apparently tops 20 million. In spite of that, traffic moves impressively swiftly on all the new roads that have been built.
There seems to be some competition between Shanghai and Beijing, in the same way as there is between Oxford and Cambridge, or between New York and Washington DC: when the 2008 Olympics were held in Beijing, there was no reference to them in Shanghai; and there is no reference in Beijing to the 2010 World Expo being held in Shanghai!
We visit one university, which is most impressive for its size and facilities. The city as a whole appears to be doing its best to maintain green spaces inside the city (much better than the smaller Swiss towns seem to be doing on that matter!).
Fascinating mixture of architectural styles, from some (too few!) traditional buildings, through the lovely the French-style colony called the French Concession, and early 20th century buildings (e.g. the neoclassical HSBC Building and the art deco Sassoon House) to the more eccentric modern buildings.
Too short a visit, but it is always most interesting to return to a city that has grown and grown since the 90s, and seems to be continuing to grow apace inspite of the current crisis. Sphere: Related Content
We landed, were greeted, whisked through customs, and escorted to a small 11-seater bus, two side-by-side, with an aisle down the middle, each seat with a foldaway tables, except for the front seat which has a spacious fixed desk in front of it to signal the importance of the Leader
The smooth and swift drive to Chongxing takes about 2 hrs though we are fogged out throughout - maximum visibility about 400yds, but most of the time more like 150yds
Our translator is from another province, with the first foreign language French, but quite competent English
In the translator's generation there is the beginning of a move now away from the larger cities to smaller cities, on the basis of better quality of life in the smaller cities, but I wonder whether the rwality in China is not rather that everyone has to work equally hard in every part of the country
In any case, I am interested to learn that the translator orders clothes on the internet and gets them 2 or 3 days later; and that, according to the translator, one should be able to get delivery evem in the remotest parts of China in 4 days: the delivery cost is about 6 Yuan in this part of the world, and about 10 Yuan for the remotest parts
Apparently, two months ago a drunken driving rule was introduced throughout the country - penalty 2 weeks jail - but perhaps the rich may still find that money facilitates a way out?
On arriving in Chongxing, we are taken to a huge hotel of the sort that one might have in Delhi or Agra: it is almost empty
the Tea Tribute Tea House from the 8th century, restored to its former glory recently, has to be specially opened for our small delegation - the advantage of being official guests!
Why is everything so deserted? Partly because this is winter: most Chinese and most foreigners prefer Chongxing between Spring and Autumn. And yes, they do get plenty of national and foreign visitors apparently. The newly built Exhibition Cente is very appropriate both for its scale and for its technical wizardry in view of the purpose for which it is designed: impressing foreigners so as to attract investment as well as impressing the best-qualified Chinese so as to attract them here as workers. The descriptive plaques here are in Mandarin, though the Tea House has everything in English as well
I am interested that in the hotel's welcome fruit basked there is a rather outsize (from the Indian point of view) version of a wild fruit that we call "Baer" in Hindi; this Chinese version may be cultivated?
On the tour of the Exhibition Centre, there is more than one reference to a "golden spike" which, I discover, refers to "the only standard of global stratigraphic division and correlation in in chronostratigraphic research". It is not golden, and it is not a spike in the normal sense of that word....
Changxing is still a relatively sleepy little town becuase most of the land around was occupied by the army. For some reason the army appears to have relinquished this land and moved elsewhere, when leases were taken by unknown (to our colleagues) parties, who developed the land in cooperation with the government which built the school, hospital, administrative centre, roads and high-speed railway (the last to be completed end-2010). The privately-developed houses, buildings and flats are available for sale to private individuals or western companies (though land itself cannot be sold in most or all of China). How much of these developments in China have actually been sold or rented cannot be discovered so far with any degree of reliability.
This applies also to the highly-impressive area of Pudong in Shanghai, which continues to become even more impressive each year. Though rumour has it that the buildings here are sinking because the land is marshy, that rumour is also impossible to establish or refute. Perhaps, to play safe, anyone who is interested in seeing this modern wonder should haste here in case it becomes like Venice. We don't get much time to be tourists, but the Bund is certainly a most interesting viewing platform to look on to Pudong. However, we do have time to look at one of the more fashionable bars and one of the most impressive restaurants, and I can assure my readers that Shanghai is as "cosmopolitan" (or "decadent", depending on one's point of view) in terms of culture, design and lifestyle
The city bustles away, very much on the make, with a population that apparently tops 20 million. In spite of that, traffic moves impressively swiftly on all the new roads that have been built.
There seems to be some competition between Shanghai and Beijing, in the same way as there is between Oxford and Cambridge, or between New York and Washington DC: when the 2008 Olympics were held in Beijing, there was no reference to them in Shanghai; and there is no reference in Beijing to the 2010 World Expo being held in Shanghai!
We visit one university, which is most impressive for its size and facilities. The city as a whole appears to be doing its best to maintain green spaces inside the city (much better than the smaller Swiss towns seem to be doing on that matter!).
Fascinating mixture of architectural styles, from some (too few!) traditional buildings, through the lovely the French-style colony called the French Concession, and early 20th century buildings (e.g. the neoclassical HSBC Building and the art deco Sassoon House) to the more eccentric modern buildings.
Too short a visit, but it is always most interesting to return to a city that has grown and grown since the 90s, and seems to be continuing to grow apace inspite of the current crisis. Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
President Obama's Proposals for a Second Fiscal Stimulus
President Obama's budget for 2010-2011 proposes a US$200 billion fiscal stimulus focused mainly on small businesses.
Does the proposal stand up to scrutiny?
Well, if one considers that it will put the American government (and therefore the American citizen) deeper in national debt, it is of course not a good idea.
However, the fact that such a "second stimulus" package has been proposed acknowledges that the first stimulus has not worked.
As I had predicted, it has placed a "floor" under the crisis so that there is not a complete collapse, but it has not and it cannot sort out the mess, let alone provide a substantial basis for growth; meanwhile, the propoganda machinery is in full swing trying to pretend that real growth is taking place in China - when that bubble is pricked, it will be terrible; but let us return to the topic of this post.
My reading of the situation is that the US Government now recognises that the effectiveness of the earlier stimulis package is coming (or will soon come) to an end, and that is why this second stimulus is needed.
The problem is that President Obama and the US Congress are focusing on the buzzwords "job creation" and trying to get the 2nd package through on that basis.
Job creation is of course very good in itself in nearly all circumstances, provided it is the creation of *real* jobs and not merely make-believe jobs.
The problem is that the 2nd stimulus package is unlikely to lead to the creation of even make-believe jobs.
What the 2nd stimulus package will do (assuming that the President can get at least this proposal successfully through the labyrinth of government) is that the package will provide at least some further minimal stabilisation for the economy, and particularly for that very important part of the economy (small- to mid-size companies) which have already suffered so hugely and will come under even more pressure before there is any chance of this current crisis passing.
So the package is at least some minimal good news for the economy and for the small business sector.
The package is, however, bad news for the small-business sector as a whole, bad news for the economy, and bad news for President Obama.
Why bad news for the sector as a whole? Because it is not enough to prevent the sector going down, and because it will therefore politicise the sector: if there is not enough money to go around, someone (read: someone in political power, and therefore a political appointee) will have to decide who gets the money and who does not, with consequences that are clear to see (politicisation of the small business sector)...
Why bad news for the econmy as a whole? Because increasing the public debt sizably while not really sorting out the crisis means that its net contribution to sorting out the crisis will be pretty close to zero.
And finally, why bad for President Obama? Because he is already being perceived as an "empty suit", having ducked the opportunity for genuine global leadership with the issue of climate change, and having failed with the issue of healtcare reform, he has now nailed his flag to the mast of job creation - which is precisely what will not be delivered by a mere 200 billion.
Of the 8 million jobs which have been lost during this recession in the US alone, President Obama would have to "bring back" if not all 8 million, then at least 4 million, or even 3 million to claim any reasonable degree of credit.
The $200bn in the 2nd stimulus package should certainly staunch the losses, so that the rate of loss does not get any worse. It may even improve that, so that the further losses will not be steeper. Will the package actually "recover" any of the jobs? Perhaps. I certainly hope so. Will the package recover 8 million jobs, or 6 million jobs, or 4 million jobs, or even 3 million jobs? I seriously doubt it.
Most small companies which get any financing as a result of the 2nd package are going to do exactly what the big companies have done as a result of the 1st package: in order not to run into bankruptcy, they are going to bolster their credit position and their ability to trade; adding jobs will be their last priority.
I seriously hope that I am totally wrong and the President Obama's will be able to add not merely 3 million jobs, or 4 million jobs, but 8 million jobs, or even more.
But if any of that happens, it will happen not because my (rather superficial) analysis above is wrong. It will happen not because the 2nd stimulus package has been up to the job. It will happen only because of a divine miracle.
As a follower of Jesus the Lord, I pray for a divine miracle, which is the only thing that can save that many jobs.
I pray for a divine miracle which is the only thing that can prevent the slow slide into much worse economic, social and political trouble (which I have written about elsewhere).
And I pray for a divine miracle which is the only thing that will save Obama's term as President from becoming wholly ineffective and at least partly tragic.
Is there anything short of divine miracles which will be good for job creation, good for the small business sector, good for the economy as a whole, and good for President Obama?
Yes, the creation and implementation of global standards in health and safety, pensions and environmental standards for industry and commerce. That will mean the creation of a genuinely level playing field at least in these matters.
A fully level playing field may be too much to hope for, because that would also involve imposing fiscal and monetary guiidelines for admitting countries to the WTO - and that may be too much to hope for. But if at least the minimum can be achieved, there is some hope.
Failing even that minimum, it does not matter how many "stimulus packages" are produced out of the thin air, the US will continue to lose investments and lose jobs - at present, primarily to China. Sphere: Related Content
Does the proposal stand up to scrutiny?
Well, if one considers that it will put the American government (and therefore the American citizen) deeper in national debt, it is of course not a good idea.
However, the fact that such a "second stimulus" package has been proposed acknowledges that the first stimulus has not worked.
As I had predicted, it has placed a "floor" under the crisis so that there is not a complete collapse, but it has not and it cannot sort out the mess, let alone provide a substantial basis for growth; meanwhile, the propoganda machinery is in full swing trying to pretend that real growth is taking place in China - when that bubble is pricked, it will be terrible; but let us return to the topic of this post.
My reading of the situation is that the US Government now recognises that the effectiveness of the earlier stimulis package is coming (or will soon come) to an end, and that is why this second stimulus is needed.
The problem is that President Obama and the US Congress are focusing on the buzzwords "job creation" and trying to get the 2nd package through on that basis.
Job creation is of course very good in itself in nearly all circumstances, provided it is the creation of *real* jobs and not merely make-believe jobs.
The problem is that the 2nd stimulus package is unlikely to lead to the creation of even make-believe jobs.
What the 2nd stimulus package will do (assuming that the President can get at least this proposal successfully through the labyrinth of government) is that the package will provide at least some further minimal stabilisation for the economy, and particularly for that very important part of the economy (small- to mid-size companies) which have already suffered so hugely and will come under even more pressure before there is any chance of this current crisis passing.
So the package is at least some minimal good news for the economy and for the small business sector.
The package is, however, bad news for the small-business sector as a whole, bad news for the economy, and bad news for President Obama.
Why bad news for the sector as a whole? Because it is not enough to prevent the sector going down, and because it will therefore politicise the sector: if there is not enough money to go around, someone (read: someone in political power, and therefore a political appointee) will have to decide who gets the money and who does not, with consequences that are clear to see (politicisation of the small business sector)...
Why bad news for the econmy as a whole? Because increasing the public debt sizably while not really sorting out the crisis means that its net contribution to sorting out the crisis will be pretty close to zero.
And finally, why bad for President Obama? Because he is already being perceived as an "empty suit", having ducked the opportunity for genuine global leadership with the issue of climate change, and having failed with the issue of healtcare reform, he has now nailed his flag to the mast of job creation - which is precisely what will not be delivered by a mere 200 billion.
Of the 8 million jobs which have been lost during this recession in the US alone, President Obama would have to "bring back" if not all 8 million, then at least 4 million, or even 3 million to claim any reasonable degree of credit.
The $200bn in the 2nd stimulus package should certainly staunch the losses, so that the rate of loss does not get any worse. It may even improve that, so that the further losses will not be steeper. Will the package actually "recover" any of the jobs? Perhaps. I certainly hope so. Will the package recover 8 million jobs, or 6 million jobs, or 4 million jobs, or even 3 million jobs? I seriously doubt it.
Most small companies which get any financing as a result of the 2nd package are going to do exactly what the big companies have done as a result of the 1st package: in order not to run into bankruptcy, they are going to bolster their credit position and their ability to trade; adding jobs will be their last priority.
I seriously hope that I am totally wrong and the President Obama's will be able to add not merely 3 million jobs, or 4 million jobs, but 8 million jobs, or even more.
But if any of that happens, it will happen not because my (rather superficial) analysis above is wrong. It will happen not because the 2nd stimulus package has been up to the job. It will happen only because of a divine miracle.
As a follower of Jesus the Lord, I pray for a divine miracle, which is the only thing that can save that many jobs.
I pray for a divine miracle which is the only thing that can prevent the slow slide into much worse economic, social and political trouble (which I have written about elsewhere).
And I pray for a divine miracle which is the only thing that will save Obama's term as President from becoming wholly ineffective and at least partly tragic.
Is there anything short of divine miracles which will be good for job creation, good for the small business sector, good for the economy as a whole, and good for President Obama?
Yes, the creation and implementation of global standards in health and safety, pensions and environmental standards for industry and commerce. That will mean the creation of a genuinely level playing field at least in these matters.
A fully level playing field may be too much to hope for, because that would also involve imposing fiscal and monetary guiidelines for admitting countries to the WTO - and that may be too much to hope for. But if at least the minimum can be achieved, there is some hope.
Failing even that minimum, it does not matter how many "stimulus packages" are produced out of the thin air, the US will continue to lose investments and lose jobs - at present, primarily to China. Sphere: Related Content
Euro breakup chances
I am interested to see that Professor Nouriel Roubini has now joined the debate regarding whether the Euro might break up.
Someone who has been following my lectures, broadcasts and writings may perhaps care to inform him that I have been consistently pointing out over the years that the Euro is a historically unprecedented and untested currency. It has escaped testing till now because of the artificially-induced boom into which the Euro was born. Now it is starting to face its first real test.
No one sensible builds in an unsound way or on unsound foundation. The Euro is a child of the same kind of thinking that produced the boom of the last couple of decades.
Dr. Roubini points out that Greece is merely a "problem" for the eurozone, because it is a very small economy. But what is bigger than a mere "problem" is Spain, the Eurozone's fourth-largest economy, which has an unemployment rate just shy of 20%, and a domestic banking system much weaker than that of Greece. "The eurozone could drift essentially with a bifurcation, with a strong center and a weaker periphery and eventually some countries might exit the monetary union", he opines.
This is the most positive possible outlook. It ignores how the market would respond to even the smallest country exiting the Euro. Further, it ignores the fact that the Euro has basically been paid for by the German taxpayer, and that it remains to be seen how long the German taxpayer has the ability and willingness to continue to fund this Frankensteinian creation. Well, I am being ungenerous. In spite of its defects-at-birth, the Euro has played a very positive role (not least for German industry). The question is: are we now at the start of the historical time-frame of its demise. Sphere: Related Content
Someone who has been following my lectures, broadcasts and writings may perhaps care to inform him that I have been consistently pointing out over the years that the Euro is a historically unprecedented and untested currency. It has escaped testing till now because of the artificially-induced boom into which the Euro was born. Now it is starting to face its first real test.
No one sensible builds in an unsound way or on unsound foundation. The Euro is a child of the same kind of thinking that produced the boom of the last couple of decades.
Dr. Roubini points out that Greece is merely a "problem" for the eurozone, because it is a very small economy. But what is bigger than a mere "problem" is Spain, the Eurozone's fourth-largest economy, which has an unemployment rate just shy of 20%, and a domestic banking system much weaker than that of Greece. "The eurozone could drift essentially with a bifurcation, with a strong center and a weaker periphery and eventually some countries might exit the monetary union", he opines.
This is the most positive possible outlook. It ignores how the market would respond to even the smallest country exiting the Euro. Further, it ignores the fact that the Euro has basically been paid for by the German taxpayer, and that it remains to be seen how long the German taxpayer has the ability and willingness to continue to fund this Frankensteinian creation. Well, I am being ungenerous. In spite of its defects-at-birth, the Euro has played a very positive role (not least for German industry). The question is: are we now at the start of the historical time-frame of its demise. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
How to Internationalise Chinese Companies: The Key Issues
On the request of one of my readers, following my previous post on the subject, I am entering the text of my piece in the Mandarin-language business magazine, GLOBAL ENTREPRENEUR:
Chinese companies began to internationalise at least in some sense almost immediately after the "open up" policy was introduced in China in 1978. The generation born after that has grown up without any experience of the Soviet-style regimentation, inward-focus and isolation from the outside world that was in place earlier. This generation has also seen and benefited from the positive results of the "open up" policy.
As a result of "opening up", for every country, the questions that are raised are:
- Can internationalisation be measured?
- How internationalised are Chinese companies?
- What are the remaining barriers for Chinese internationalisation?
Can internationalisation be measured?
Yes. Many different sets of measures have been proposed. Academic debates, regarding which of these sets of measures should be adopted, are both instructive and entertaining, but as far as I can see, any set of measurement systems is more or less equally useful from a practical point of view.
Once an organisation has got the maximum benefit from using any one particular set of measures, then the organisation can certainly move on to other sets of measures, if it wishes, but what must be avoided is premature jumping around between sets of measures, because that creates more confusion than benefit.
The elements of such sets are indicated below.
However, the best set of measures for any particular company is a set that is specifically developed for that company by any experienced consultant(s).
2. How internationalised are Chinese companies in comparison to other companies?
The answer depends on which countries one chooses for comparison. Among Asian countries, Indian companies are more internationalised; but American and European companies are certainly the most international in the world. Clearly, Chinese companies have already made major strides in the last few years and are now more keen to learn as well as better organised to learn.
3. What are the remaining barriers for our internationalisation?
That question requires a longer answer. One should think of a company's internationalisation as consisting of several steps, which are part of a historical process - internationalisation has many layers or dimensions.
The first step that any company takes in order to internationalise is simply selling its products abroad. In some ways, this is the easiest thing to do. But in other ways it is quite complicated. Not only does the company have to engage with different customer tastes and different national legal requirements, but also with such issues as: doing business with foreigners (often in a foreign language!), and handling different practices regarding what is done and what is not done. Product distribution systems often vary by country. Of course there is the huge problem of currency risk - so the company, sooner or later, has to wrestle with rather sophisticated financial arrangements such as hedges, swaps and options.
If the company is successful in one or more foreign countries, it will wish to work not only through agents and other such intermediaries, but also through developing its own operations, which could include: sales, marketing, R&D, design, finance, administration, manufacture, and indeed creating a formal subsidiary in another country or countries. The moment one enters that whole combination of possibilities, one is face to face with needing to deal with some or all of the following: recruiting people from a different educational system and structure, with different work values and work-related expectations, and patterns of time-keeping and levels of autonomy, as well as different ways of indicating a "yes" or a "no" or a "let me think about it", and different ways and levels of indicating (or not indicating!) pleasure or dissatisfaction - not to mention entirely different ways of working together as teams! Which brings up, of course, the whole question of working in multi-cultural teams - and those have a whole list of their own challenges!
There is also the vexed question of how the work of subordinates is to be rated (some cultures are relatively generous in their ratings, while other cultures are relatively stingy), what organisational levels people of non-Chinese nationality should be promoted to, and so on.
Most importantly, there is the question of whether and how (and how far!) to get involved in the politics and legislative processes of the foreign country.
Many Chinese companies have now jumped over the initial steps mentioned above, so that they are confronted with a steep learning curve through the foreign companies they have acquired. For Chinese companies that acquire foreign companies, the challenge is wisdom regarding how far to maintain and even encourage different local and regional ways of doing things, versus how far to encourage, as far as possible, a uniform culture throughout the international company - and, if the company decides to go for a uniform culture around the world, then the question is: which culture? Chinese? American? German? French?
We come now to the final and most fundamental challenge: internationalising the mind-set of headquarters. It is relatively easy to run a Chinese company which does all its key activities in China, and simply exports the products (see "The first step", above). As we go down the succeeding steps, it is not only the number of challenges that increases, but also their profundity, inter-relatedness and complexity: we move from simply exporting products to having to deal with challenges at the level of the individuals, at the level of teams, at the level of divisions or subsidiaries, at the level of the organisation as a whole, and finally with the question of the organisation in its political context.
At this stage, it is worth distinguishing between "international companies", "multinational companies", "global companies" and "transnational companies":
• International ones import and export but have no investment outside the home country (the overwhelmingly important culture is that of the home country)
• Multinational ones do have investment in other countries but do not coordinate their product offerings; rather they adapt their products and service to local markets (cultural dominance at headquarters remains that of the mother country, but in the local market the dominant influence is usually the local one)
• Global ones invest and may be present in many countries but co-ordinate the marketing of their products by using a common brand in all markets (the dominant culture may be that of the home country, or it may be significantly absorptive of influences from other countries - the key is not culture but the emphasis on volume, cost control and efficiency)
• Transnational ones simultaneously pursue different degrees of coordination, integration and local adaptation in strategy as well as in operations, depending on technological, legal, financial, business and market conditions. Some activities might be globally coordinated - e.g. purchasing, R&D - while other activities may be rather more adapted to local conditions - e.g. packaging, marketing (naturally, there may or may not be a dominant culture in such a firm, or there may possibly a culture that is dominant but only among the elite in the company).
In view of all that, the principal barrier to further internationalization of Chinese companies is simply the Chinese belief that China is the centre of the world - an attitude that harks back to ancient Chinese history and culture.
Some of my Chinese friends believe that I am mistaken and that China is fully prepared to learn from foreigners. That may be more or less true at the level of individuals, but I find that is already less true when one thinks of family life, and I suggest specifically that Chinese corporations must make more deliberate and vigorous efforts to shed the old-fashioned and unhelpful mentality, particularly so as to be able to compare, study and benefit from the different ways that other countries have of developing, articulating, and implementing a company's vision, mission, structure and policies.
Further, the sooner Chinese companies actively lobby and work to get rid of political control and interference, the more effective they can be in pursuing internationalization and all its benefits.
But I want to raise a crucial question: are Chinese business leaders interested in internationalization only to make more money? If so, that will be a disaster for China as well as for the rest of the world. I very much hope the opposite: that while Chinese business leaders of course want to be very successful, they will define success not only in terms of making money but also in terms of what they do to make the world better.
What do I mean by "better"? I mean: with global rules that enhance the possibility of (i) reducing global economic volatility and vulnerability, (ii) reducing the gap between the poor and the rich, and (iii) increasing care for the environment.
That is very different from the kind of internationalization which we have at present, which is doing largely the opposite on each of these three dimensions.
I am interested, and I hope Chinese leaders will be interested, rather in the right kind of internationalization. That will benefit not only Chinese companies, or even the whole of Chinese society, it will be very good for the whole of the world.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
Chinese companies began to internationalise at least in some sense almost immediately after the "open up" policy was introduced in China in 1978. The generation born after that has grown up without any experience of the Soviet-style regimentation, inward-focus and isolation from the outside world that was in place earlier. This generation has also seen and benefited from the positive results of the "open up" policy.
As a result of "opening up", for every country, the questions that are raised are:
- Can internationalisation be measured?
- How internationalised are Chinese companies?
- What are the remaining barriers for Chinese internationalisation?
Can internationalisation be measured?
Yes. Many different sets of measures have been proposed. Academic debates, regarding which of these sets of measures should be adopted, are both instructive and entertaining, but as far as I can see, any set of measurement systems is more or less equally useful from a practical point of view.
Once an organisation has got the maximum benefit from using any one particular set of measures, then the organisation can certainly move on to other sets of measures, if it wishes, but what must be avoided is premature jumping around between sets of measures, because that creates more confusion than benefit.
The elements of such sets are indicated below.
However, the best set of measures for any particular company is a set that is specifically developed for that company by any experienced consultant(s).
2. How internationalised are Chinese companies in comparison to other companies?
The answer depends on which countries one chooses for comparison. Among Asian countries, Indian companies are more internationalised; but American and European companies are certainly the most international in the world. Clearly, Chinese companies have already made major strides in the last few years and are now more keen to learn as well as better organised to learn.
3. What are the remaining barriers for our internationalisation?
That question requires a longer answer. One should think of a company's internationalisation as consisting of several steps, which are part of a historical process - internationalisation has many layers or dimensions.
The first step that any company takes in order to internationalise is simply selling its products abroad. In some ways, this is the easiest thing to do. But in other ways it is quite complicated. Not only does the company have to engage with different customer tastes and different national legal requirements, but also with such issues as: doing business with foreigners (often in a foreign language!), and handling different practices regarding what is done and what is not done. Product distribution systems often vary by country. Of course there is the huge problem of currency risk - so the company, sooner or later, has to wrestle with rather sophisticated financial arrangements such as hedges, swaps and options.
If the company is successful in one or more foreign countries, it will wish to work not only through agents and other such intermediaries, but also through developing its own operations, which could include: sales, marketing, R&D, design, finance, administration, manufacture, and indeed creating a formal subsidiary in another country or countries. The moment one enters that whole combination of possibilities, one is face to face with needing to deal with some or all of the following: recruiting people from a different educational system and structure, with different work values and work-related expectations, and patterns of time-keeping and levels of autonomy, as well as different ways of indicating a "yes" or a "no" or a "let me think about it", and different ways and levels of indicating (or not indicating!) pleasure or dissatisfaction - not to mention entirely different ways of working together as teams! Which brings up, of course, the whole question of working in multi-cultural teams - and those have a whole list of their own challenges!
There is also the vexed question of how the work of subordinates is to be rated (some cultures are relatively generous in their ratings, while other cultures are relatively stingy), what organisational levels people of non-Chinese nationality should be promoted to, and so on.
Most importantly, there is the question of whether and how (and how far!) to get involved in the politics and legislative processes of the foreign country.
Many Chinese companies have now jumped over the initial steps mentioned above, so that they are confronted with a steep learning curve through the foreign companies they have acquired. For Chinese companies that acquire foreign companies, the challenge is wisdom regarding how far to maintain and even encourage different local and regional ways of doing things, versus how far to encourage, as far as possible, a uniform culture throughout the international company - and, if the company decides to go for a uniform culture around the world, then the question is: which culture? Chinese? American? German? French?
We come now to the final and most fundamental challenge: internationalising the mind-set of headquarters. It is relatively easy to run a Chinese company which does all its key activities in China, and simply exports the products (see "The first step", above). As we go down the succeeding steps, it is not only the number of challenges that increases, but also their profundity, inter-relatedness and complexity: we move from simply exporting products to having to deal with challenges at the level of the individuals, at the level of teams, at the level of divisions or subsidiaries, at the level of the organisation as a whole, and finally with the question of the organisation in its political context.
At this stage, it is worth distinguishing between "international companies", "multinational companies", "global companies" and "transnational companies":
• International ones import and export but have no investment outside the home country (the overwhelmingly important culture is that of the home country)
• Multinational ones do have investment in other countries but do not coordinate their product offerings; rather they adapt their products and service to local markets (cultural dominance at headquarters remains that of the mother country, but in the local market the dominant influence is usually the local one)
• Global ones invest and may be present in many countries but co-ordinate the marketing of their products by using a common brand in all markets (the dominant culture may be that of the home country, or it may be significantly absorptive of influences from other countries - the key is not culture but the emphasis on volume, cost control and efficiency)
• Transnational ones simultaneously pursue different degrees of coordination, integration and local adaptation in strategy as well as in operations, depending on technological, legal, financial, business and market conditions. Some activities might be globally coordinated - e.g. purchasing, R&D - while other activities may be rather more adapted to local conditions - e.g. packaging, marketing (naturally, there may or may not be a dominant culture in such a firm, or there may possibly a culture that is dominant but only among the elite in the company).
In view of all that, the principal barrier to further internationalization of Chinese companies is simply the Chinese belief that China is the centre of the world - an attitude that harks back to ancient Chinese history and culture.
Some of my Chinese friends believe that I am mistaken and that China is fully prepared to learn from foreigners. That may be more or less true at the level of individuals, but I find that is already less true when one thinks of family life, and I suggest specifically that Chinese corporations must make more deliberate and vigorous efforts to shed the old-fashioned and unhelpful mentality, particularly so as to be able to compare, study and benefit from the different ways that other countries have of developing, articulating, and implementing a company's vision, mission, structure and policies.
Further, the sooner Chinese companies actively lobby and work to get rid of political control and interference, the more effective they can be in pursuing internationalization and all its benefits.
But I want to raise a crucial question: are Chinese business leaders interested in internationalization only to make more money? If so, that will be a disaster for China as well as for the rest of the world. I very much hope the opposite: that while Chinese business leaders of course want to be very successful, they will define success not only in terms of making money but also in terms of what they do to make the world better.
What do I mean by "better"? I mean: with global rules that enhance the possibility of (i) reducing global economic volatility and vulnerability, (ii) reducing the gap between the poor and the rich, and (iii) increasing care for the environment.
That is very different from the kind of internationalization which we have at present, which is doing largely the opposite on each of these three dimensions.
I am interested, and I hope Chinese leaders will be interested, rather in the right kind of internationalization. That will benefit not only Chinese companies, or even the whole of Chinese society, it will be very good for the whole of the world.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Response to my interview in a Chinese business magazine
A Chinese colleague responds as follows to my interview, in a Mandarin-language business magazine, regarding the future of China in a globalising economy:
"I totally agree with you that the China-centric sentiment will hinder China's globalization process. The traditional value system was destroyed during and even before the cultural revolution. In the last three decade, it gradually comes back and with the fast economic development, some Chinese indulge themselves in the old dream of the central kingdom again. Even in management, there is a voice that the Chinese management style is better than the Western one. Personally I believe that without fully appreciating the Western management concepts, Chinese business will face big problem not only abroad, but also in their own country." Sphere: Related Content
"I totally agree with you that the China-centric sentiment will hinder China's globalization process. The traditional value system was destroyed during and even before the cultural revolution. In the last three decade, it gradually comes back and with the fast economic development, some Chinese indulge themselves in the old dream of the central kingdom again. Even in management, there is a voice that the Chinese management style is better than the Western one. Personally I believe that without fully appreciating the Western management concepts, Chinese business will face big problem not only abroad, but also in their own country." Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Inexplicable Chinese cyberattcks?
Why did the Chinese launch their attacks against global software companies, against US state agencies, as well as against Indian government offices and agencies all on the same day and at the same time?
Having puzzled about the matter ever since I heard about it, here is the only explanation that I can think of: China may have reached the limit of its capacity to stimulate its economy, having already put in a fiscal and monetary stimulus of around 50% of its GDP over the last 2 years.
China is confronted with with overflowing warehouses, enormous overproduction and perhaps as much as 50% overcapacity, in real figures probably 75 million unemployed, and a credit crunch as all of China's banks are squeezed because of capital adequacy requirements and most banks are squeezed because of bad debts; China therefore faces stagflation for the foreseeable future, and a war could do China good, in the cynical calculations of some of the elite there. It would also weaken the US, Europe and Japan.
Conclusion: If the Chinese are willing to be open about their problems, and are willing to receive international help, the world may be able to help China solve its problems. Otherwise, we are pretty close to China sparking a war în relation to any or all of the following: Taiwan, Spratly Islands, India, Russia.
In view of the above, the Chinese cyberattacks can be understood as a diversionary move from its internal problems - or from the viewpoint of the outside world, as a first strike.
An interesting question is: why is Defense Secretary Gates in India right now with so many of the top defence officials from the US? Is it because, in the US assessment, China regards India as the softest target? Sphere: Related Content
Having puzzled about the matter ever since I heard about it, here is the only explanation that I can think of: China may have reached the limit of its capacity to stimulate its economy, having already put in a fiscal and monetary stimulus of around 50% of its GDP over the last 2 years.
China is confronted with with overflowing warehouses, enormous overproduction and perhaps as much as 50% overcapacity, in real figures probably 75 million unemployed, and a credit crunch as all of China's banks are squeezed because of capital adequacy requirements and most banks are squeezed because of bad debts; China therefore faces stagflation for the foreseeable future, and a war could do China good, in the cynical calculations of some of the elite there. It would also weaken the US, Europe and Japan.
Conclusion: If the Chinese are willing to be open about their problems, and are willing to receive international help, the world may be able to help China solve its problems. Otherwise, we are pretty close to China sparking a war în relation to any or all of the following: Taiwan, Spratly Islands, India, Russia.
In view of the above, the Chinese cyberattacks can be understood as a diversionary move from its internal problems - or from the viewpoint of the outside world, as a first strike.
An interesting question is: why is Defense Secretary Gates in India right now with so many of the top defence officials from the US? Is it because, in the US assessment, China regards India as the softest target? Sphere: Related Content
The new proposals from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
New regulations have been proposed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to try to curb speculation and domination of commodity markets by a few players.
The proposals amount to placing position limits on commodity trades. The size of the position limits is so massive that it will affect only the largest players.
This is a useful way to try to ensure that the whole market is not affected, and ensures that the biggest players are limited in their activities and impact.
One can think of it as the equivalent of the work of the UK's Monopolies and Mergers Commission which tries to prevent the natural tendency of capitalism to monopoly, by breaking up monopolies, duopolies and even oligopolies.
The only problem with the device of position limits is that it will encourage the largest players to either break up into smaller units (no bad thing even in itself), or encourage them to deal, in effect, through the layers of players immediately below the regulated level.
But I guess that if the CFTC is vigilant it can spot this and ameliorate it. The question is the ability and willingness of the CFTC to be vigilant.
Unfortunately, that is not guaranteed, if one judges on the basis of its performance over the last 25 years or so (of its 35 year existence). Sphere: Related Content
The proposals amount to placing position limits on commodity trades. The size of the position limits is so massive that it will affect only the largest players.
This is a useful way to try to ensure that the whole market is not affected, and ensures that the biggest players are limited in their activities and impact.
One can think of it as the equivalent of the work of the UK's Monopolies and Mergers Commission which tries to prevent the natural tendency of capitalism to monopoly, by breaking up monopolies, duopolies and even oligopolies.
The only problem with the device of position limits is that it will encourage the largest players to either break up into smaller units (no bad thing even in itself), or encourage them to deal, in effect, through the layers of players immediately below the regulated level.
But I guess that if the CFTC is vigilant it can spot this and ameliorate it. The question is the ability and willingness of the CFTC to be vigilant.
Unfortunately, that is not guaranteed, if one judges on the basis of its performance over the last 25 years or so (of its 35 year existence). Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The USA's two-class society
According to the National Leadership Index published by the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in the USA, some 52% of Americans believe that corporate bosses work mainly to benefit themselves, while 31% believe they work to benefit a small coterie. Only 10% of Americans believe business leaders generally work for the greater good of society. That' 83% versus 10%. My guess is that the 10% are either business leaders themselves or others who are close to them, or in positions where they can anticipate becoming business leaders themselves, while the 31% are middle-managers or those who aspire to middle-management positions. That leaves the vast majority of Americans....
If things have got that bad in the USA, usually the world's lead society in terms of trends in fashion and ideas, then we can imagine what the sentiment is or will soon be in the rest of the world.
Unless business leaders really start working for the good of society as a whole, and not only for their shareholders, we will ultimately arriv at the brink of global revolution and chaos. Sphere: Related Content
If things have got that bad in the USA, usually the world's lead society in terms of trends in fashion and ideas, then we can imagine what the sentiment is or will soon be in the rest of the world.
Unless business leaders really start working for the good of society as a whole, and not only for their shareholders, we will ultimately arriv at the brink of global revolution and chaos. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, January 08, 2010
Are consumers from Emerging Markets more interested in "green" products?
According to research published by Accenture (http://newsroom.accenture.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4921), emerging-market consumers are much more willing than their developed-world counterparts to pay a premium for products which are supposed to be environmentally friendly.
As many as 84% of consumers in China, India, Malaysia, and Singapore say they would accept a higher price for green products, compared with only 50% in the U.S., Japan, France, and Germany.
This is of course related to what people say....
The question is what people DO....
My guess is that, if research were able to be done on actual purchasing behaviour, the findings would indicate the opposite - at least if the elites are either excluded or included as a normal part of the population. Sphere: Related Content
As many as 84% of consumers in China, India, Malaysia, and Singapore say they would accept a higher price for green products, compared with only 50% in the U.S., Japan, France, and Germany.
This is of course related to what people say....
The question is what people DO....
My guess is that, if research were able to be done on actual purchasing behaviour, the findings would indicate the opposite - at least if the elites are either excluded or included as a normal part of the population. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Why do some people disfigure their bodies?
I don't know, but I am hugely reassured this morning by a survey from Pew Research
http://people-press.org/report/573
Many recent innovations are popular and seen as beneficial (e.g. cell phones, "green" products, email, and the internet).
However, some others are not particularly popular - e.g. reality TV shows and "more people getting tattoos," were seen as improvements by only 8% and 7%, respectively, but seen as "a change for the worse" by 63% and 40% respectively.
Reality TV must therefore divide people more than the survey suggests. Why? Because it is clearly hugely popular with a small number of people but clearly hugely unpopular with most others.
The same can be said for tatoos.
The only difference is: you can turn off reality TV, but you basically can't undo a tattoo.
So why do people disfigure their bodies, either more or less permanently (with tattoos) or at least temporarily (with various metal studs and loops through nose, ears, and even eyebrows, cheeks and lips)?
How come they either dislike or despise their own bodies so much?
On discussing this with a few friends, it turns out that while I consider tatoos and studs/loops as mutilation, some suggest that these could be seen in the same light as the use of perfume or cream - a sort of enhancement rather than a disfigurement. Particularly as perfumes, creams, lipstick et al can be at least mildly disliked by some people....
That is true. But I remain unpersuaded. It is far easier to stop using a particular perfume (and it has fewer after-effects!) than taking out a stud or loop, or undoing a tattoo.
Anyway, according to the survey, other things (wider acceptance of gays and lesbians, cable news talk and opinion shows, and the growing number of people with money in the stock market) also divide Americans relatively strongly.
All of which makes for interesting discussion about politically incorrect and therefore generally undiscussed topics. Sphere: Related Content
http://people-press.org/report/573
Many recent innovations are popular and seen as beneficial (e.g. cell phones, "green" products, email, and the internet).
However, some others are not particularly popular - e.g. reality TV shows and "more people getting tattoos," were seen as improvements by only 8% and 7%, respectively, but seen as "a change for the worse" by 63% and 40% respectively.
Reality TV must therefore divide people more than the survey suggests. Why? Because it is clearly hugely popular with a small number of people but clearly hugely unpopular with most others.
The same can be said for tatoos.
The only difference is: you can turn off reality TV, but you basically can't undo a tattoo.
So why do people disfigure their bodies, either more or less permanently (with tattoos) or at least temporarily (with various metal studs and loops through nose, ears, and even eyebrows, cheeks and lips)?
How come they either dislike or despise their own bodies so much?
On discussing this with a few friends, it turns out that while I consider tatoos and studs/loops as mutilation, some suggest that these could be seen in the same light as the use of perfume or cream - a sort of enhancement rather than a disfigurement. Particularly as perfumes, creams, lipstick et al can be at least mildly disliked by some people....
That is true. But I remain unpersuaded. It is far easier to stop using a particular perfume (and it has fewer after-effects!) than taking out a stud or loop, or undoing a tattoo.
Anyway, according to the survey, other things (wider acceptance of gays and lesbians, cable news talk and opinion shows, and the growing number of people with money in the stock market) also divide Americans relatively strongly.
All of which makes for interesting discussion about politically incorrect and therefore generally undiscussed topics. Sphere: Related Content
Which decade was the worst of the last five?
According to a survey by Pew Research http://people-press.org/report/573, the current decade is regarded by Americans as the worst since the Sixties.
The Sixties themselves were regarded as "positive" by 34%, while 15% regarded them as "negative"; on the other hand 42% regarded them as "neither", and 8% said they did not know.
The Seventies, Eighties and Nineties improved on those scores more or less uniformly.
The proportions were, respectively:
Positive: 40, 56, and 57 (that is, more and more people regarded them favourably)
Negative: 16, 12 and 19 (a mixed trend, but relatively minor)
Neither: 37, 27 and 22 (fewer and fewer people were sitting on the fence)
Don't knows: 7, 5 and 3 (probably the least important, but reinforcing the trend above)
From these figures, one could conclude that Americans view these decades as increasingly positive.
With the current decade, however, we see an abrupt reversal: Only 27% regard the decade as positive, 50% regard it as negative, the proportion of people who regard the decade as neither postive nor negative, as well as those who don't know drops further (respectively to 21% and 2%).
Probably many factors contribute to this sudden change in view in the USA. In India and China, I am pretty confident that most people would regard the current decade as either "positive" or at least no worse than previous decades. I wonder what the verdict would be in most other countries in the world. Sphere: Related Content
The Sixties themselves were regarded as "positive" by 34%, while 15% regarded them as "negative"; on the other hand 42% regarded them as "neither", and 8% said they did not know.
The Seventies, Eighties and Nineties improved on those scores more or less uniformly.
The proportions were, respectively:
Positive: 40, 56, and 57 (that is, more and more people regarded them favourably)
Negative: 16, 12 and 19 (a mixed trend, but relatively minor)
Neither: 37, 27 and 22 (fewer and fewer people were sitting on the fence)
Don't knows: 7, 5 and 3 (probably the least important, but reinforcing the trend above)
From these figures, one could conclude that Americans view these decades as increasingly positive.
With the current decade, however, we see an abrupt reversal: Only 27% regard the decade as positive, 50% regard it as negative, the proportion of people who regard the decade as neither postive nor negative, as well as those who don't know drops further (respectively to 21% and 2%).
Probably many factors contribute to this sudden change in view in the USA. In India and China, I am pretty confident that most people would regard the current decade as either "positive" or at least no worse than previous decades. I wonder what the verdict would be in most other countries in the world. Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Outlook Business magazine now the best in India?
There are scores of magazines in India that cover Indian business. Some do so as only a part of their total offering. Others are wholly focussed on business in India.
Of these latter, I have no idea what the current figures are on circulation, but Outlook Business is now clearly at least one of the best in terms of content.
I have never before Tweeted even a single story from an Indian business mag, and I just tweeted two today:
1. "Indian companies that make you want to jump out of bed and rush to work!: Outlook Business magazine: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yd6ynyd"
and
2. "survey results: to win the war ahead for talent, Indian companies shd encourage better work-life balance http://preview.tinyurl.com/ye9ky3a" Sphere: Related Content
Of these latter, I have no idea what the current figures are on circulation, but Outlook Business is now clearly at least one of the best in terms of content.
I have never before Tweeted even a single story from an Indian business mag, and I just tweeted two today:
1. "Indian companies that make you want to jump out of bed and rush to work!: Outlook Business magazine: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yd6ynyd"
and
2. "survey results: to win the war ahead for talent, Indian companies shd encourage better work-life balance http://preview.tinyurl.com/ye9ky3a" Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Is the USA now over-emphasising homeland security?
According to US government figures, there were NO violent deaths from terrorism on US soil in the period 2002 -2006 (when the statistics stop, but probably the figure was still zero in 2009).
The US government can no doubt argue that this is because there are now hundreds of thousands of people employed to prevent terrorism.
On the other hand, some people might like to ask: how many ordinary people are affected by these measures? Sixty six million passengers flew through Atlanta in 2008, 50 million through Heathrow, and so on.
Meanwhile, Americans might want to ponder the fact that there were a quarter of a millio (252,966 to be exact) violent deaths during 2002-2006 on US roads (not to mention those who were injured).
Moreover, there were 146,814 deaths in the USA from firearms during the same period, 2002-2006. Of those who were killed, 1610 were up to 14 years old; 12,242 were 15 to 19 years old; and 20,563 were 19 to 24 years old. That's approximately 34,000 YOUNG people killed just in these five years when no one was killed due to terrorism.
So should the US stop all measures against foreign terrorism on US soil? No, but the US might want to be more balanced and sensible about countering such terrorism.
If President Obama is serious about improving Homeland Security, I would recommend the following three steps as the minimum:
1. Decrease emphasis on gathering every conceivable bit of information on every visitor, emphasise analysis of all the information that the US already gathers through existing channels, and (more important) emphasise follow through on the basis of the information collected.
2. Throw out all the redundant information that is collected, which clogs up the possibility of adequate analysis - for example, all foreign visitors to the USA must not only give BOTH eye-scans but also all TEN fingerprints. This is overkill with a vengeance! One eye-scan and one index finger print should be more than adequate for almost any purpose but if the US wants to insist, perhaps it could be satisfied with two eye-scans and two index-finger-prints? Does the formality of the pre-travel registration really help anything beyond creating additional bother for all passengers travelling to the USA?
3. Order an assessement of the IQ of all employees connected with anything to do with homeland security. One or two agents who are not up to the mark or are mentally lazy are all that are needed to stymie a whole system - because, as in the recent case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Anyone who has any contact with any official to do with TSA or homeland security knows that many of these officials may be (just) able to follow procedures, but following procedures is never going to provide security; following procedures intelligently is what is going to provide security. All TSA/ homeland security employees with an IQ of less than 120 should be let go. A slimmer but more intelligently organised and much better co-ordinated corps can help deliver security, but the present bloated, ill-organised, uncoordinated and unintelligent scattering leaves the security of the USA very much to chance.
A friend sharing a coffee break says that perhaps the US likes and wants to have a bloated, ill-organised, uncoordinated and unintelligent scattering of agents and this huge amount of undigestible information as part of scaring its own population into paying for the sales of all the security-related equipment and for providing employment during a downturn.
Another person (an American) argues even more cynically that it is part of an elaborate plot by the US elite to limit freedoms in the USA, and that the limits on freedom are going to get much tighter with even more scare-mongering.
Please let's not be that cynical! Specially at the start of a new year and a new decade! Let's be positive and seek to spread truth, intelligence, balance, justice, love and all the other good things - which are what new beginnings are all about. Sphere: Related Content
The US government can no doubt argue that this is because there are now hundreds of thousands of people employed to prevent terrorism.
On the other hand, some people might like to ask: how many ordinary people are affected by these measures? Sixty six million passengers flew through Atlanta in 2008, 50 million through Heathrow, and so on.
Meanwhile, Americans might want to ponder the fact that there were a quarter of a millio (252,966 to be exact) violent deaths during 2002-2006 on US roads (not to mention those who were injured).
Moreover, there were 146,814 deaths in the USA from firearms during the same period, 2002-2006. Of those who were killed, 1610 were up to 14 years old; 12,242 were 15 to 19 years old; and 20,563 were 19 to 24 years old. That's approximately 34,000 YOUNG people killed just in these five years when no one was killed due to terrorism.
So should the US stop all measures against foreign terrorism on US soil? No, but the US might want to be more balanced and sensible about countering such terrorism.
If President Obama is serious about improving Homeland Security, I would recommend the following three steps as the minimum:
1. Decrease emphasis on gathering every conceivable bit of information on every visitor, emphasise analysis of all the information that the US already gathers through existing channels, and (more important) emphasise follow through on the basis of the information collected.
2. Throw out all the redundant information that is collected, which clogs up the possibility of adequate analysis - for example, all foreign visitors to the USA must not only give BOTH eye-scans but also all TEN fingerprints. This is overkill with a vengeance! One eye-scan and one index finger print should be more than adequate for almost any purpose but if the US wants to insist, perhaps it could be satisfied with two eye-scans and two index-finger-prints? Does the formality of the pre-travel registration really help anything beyond creating additional bother for all passengers travelling to the USA?
3. Order an assessement of the IQ of all employees connected with anything to do with homeland security. One or two agents who are not up to the mark or are mentally lazy are all that are needed to stymie a whole system - because, as in the recent case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Anyone who has any contact with any official to do with TSA or homeland security knows that many of these officials may be (just) able to follow procedures, but following procedures is never going to provide security; following procedures intelligently is what is going to provide security. All TSA/ homeland security employees with an IQ of less than 120 should be let go. A slimmer but more intelligently organised and much better co-ordinated corps can help deliver security, but the present bloated, ill-organised, uncoordinated and unintelligent scattering leaves the security of the USA very much to chance.
A friend sharing a coffee break says that perhaps the US likes and wants to have a bloated, ill-organised, uncoordinated and unintelligent scattering of agents and this huge amount of undigestible information as part of scaring its own population into paying for the sales of all the security-related equipment and for providing employment during a downturn.
Another person (an American) argues even more cynically that it is part of an elaborate plot by the US elite to limit freedoms in the USA, and that the limits on freedom are going to get much tighter with even more scare-mongering.
Please let's not be that cynical! Specially at the start of a new year and a new decade! Let's be positive and seek to spread truth, intelligence, balance, justice, love and all the other good things - which are what new beginnings are all about. Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, December 27, 2009
"Positivitis"
There is a new epidemic in the world.
I call it "Positivitis".
It is a mental disease, which causes the victim to systematically over-evaluate everything that puts her or him in a "positive" frame of mind, and to discount everything that might put her or him in a "negative" frame of mind.
Victims of this disease insist on defining "positive" and "negative" according to their own whim or fancy.
Generally, however, "positive" equals "anything that enables me to continue feeling happy with my chosen way of life".
"Negative", for those suffering from this disease, equals "anything that causes me to question any aspect of my lifestyle, opinions or moods".
Probably, throughout history, there have been individuals who have suffered from "Positivitis".
However, these individuals usually belonged to the ruling elite and were therefore only a handful in any society.
Since the 1980s, the number in the global elite has greatly increased.
We who read this Blog in all probability belong to the global elite, because of education, access to the internet and other technical resources, as well as financial resources that, even among the so-called "middle class" today are greater than most kings enjoyed through history.
That is something that is well hidden from us because of the incessant propaganda which tends to prompt us to be focused on the rat race.
We therefore do not even realise that confronted with an enormously significant choice: to use our resources and situation merely to live as comfortably as possible, or to use our status and resources to struggle for making the world better.
Those who attempt the latter are trying to be true realists. Those who attempt the former choose the disease that I call "Positivitis".
If the disease affected only the individuals who make a deliberate choice of "Posititivitis", that would be bad enough.
But some sufferers of "Positivitis" choose an extreme form of the disease: "Fundamentailst Positivism" or even "Fascist Positivism".
"Fascist Positivists" are those who deliberately blind themselves so totally to reality that they ferociously and violently attack anyone who is a realist.
Unlike "Fascist Positivists, "Fundamentalist Positivists" do not to attack those who are realists. But "Fundamentalist Positivists" do feel compelled to use their position to distort reality for others, by producing propaganda about "Positivism".
A headline from a recent newsletter from one of the most respected Business Schools in the world provides an instructive case study.
Here is the headline: "All Is Not Doom and Gloom for Artists".
From the headline, one would expect that there is something objectively good starting to happen for artists. Perhaps a new source of funding. Or a new channel of publicity. Or an opportunity to have more cheaply the supplies they need for their profession.
But on examining the article, one finds that there is no additional source of funding, no additional channel for publicising their work, no means of obtaining the supplies they need more cheaply. In fact, nothing objectively better at all: "For working artists, the recession has meant lower income from sales and reduced support from grants".
So what's the good news? Apparently, "about one-third ...say they are experiencing more openness to collaboration, one-third say they are able to experiment more, and one-tenth of the respondents say they are able to get cheaper work space now.".
Let's think about those three elements.
On the first element, if one-third say that they are experiencing more openness to collaboration, does that mean that perhaps one seventh are experiencing the same level of openness to collaboration, while the rest (the majority) are actually experiencing less openness to collaboration?
On the 2nd element: if one third say they are able to experiment more, what does that tell us about the other two-thirds? Are the vast majority (two-thirds) actually experimenting less?!
Similarly, on the third element: if only one-tenth are able to get cheaper work space now, does that mean that nine-tenths are not able to get cheaper work space even with the decline in real estate prices since some time in 2007?
The kind of "Positivitis" displayed by the Business School newsletter is particulary galling in view of the following facts that are also quoted:
* Two-thirds of artists hold at least one job in addition to making art
* Artists’ incomes are relatively low (two-thirds made less than $40,000 in 2008), and 51% reported an actual decrease even in that small art-related income from 2008 to 2009
* Forty percent of artists do not have adequate health insurance and more than 50%are worried about losing what they do have.
All that such "Fundamentalistically Positivitist" articles do is to put a "positive spin" on a worsening situation for artists.
"Fundamentalistically Positivist" articles and feel-good speeches help to create or perpetuate an illusion - in this case, that the situation is not so bad for artists after all, so that we are discouraged from concern about the situation of artists, and de-motivated from doing anything to improve the situation. Sphere: Related Content
I call it "Positivitis".
It is a mental disease, which causes the victim to systematically over-evaluate everything that puts her or him in a "positive" frame of mind, and to discount everything that might put her or him in a "negative" frame of mind.
Victims of this disease insist on defining "positive" and "negative" according to their own whim or fancy.
Generally, however, "positive" equals "anything that enables me to continue feeling happy with my chosen way of life".
"Negative", for those suffering from this disease, equals "anything that causes me to question any aspect of my lifestyle, opinions or moods".
Probably, throughout history, there have been individuals who have suffered from "Positivitis".
However, these individuals usually belonged to the ruling elite and were therefore only a handful in any society.
Since the 1980s, the number in the global elite has greatly increased.
We who read this Blog in all probability belong to the global elite, because of education, access to the internet and other technical resources, as well as financial resources that, even among the so-called "middle class" today are greater than most kings enjoyed through history.
That is something that is well hidden from us because of the incessant propaganda which tends to prompt us to be focused on the rat race.
We therefore do not even realise that confronted with an enormously significant choice: to use our resources and situation merely to live as comfortably as possible, or to use our status and resources to struggle for making the world better.
Those who attempt the latter are trying to be true realists. Those who attempt the former choose the disease that I call "Positivitis".
If the disease affected only the individuals who make a deliberate choice of "Posititivitis", that would be bad enough.
But some sufferers of "Positivitis" choose an extreme form of the disease: "Fundamentailst Positivism" or even "Fascist Positivism".
"Fascist Positivists" are those who deliberately blind themselves so totally to reality that they ferociously and violently attack anyone who is a realist.
Unlike "Fascist Positivists, "Fundamentalist Positivists" do not to attack those who are realists. But "Fundamentalist Positivists" do feel compelled to use their position to distort reality for others, by producing propaganda about "Positivism".
A headline from a recent newsletter from one of the most respected Business Schools in the world provides an instructive case study.
Here is the headline: "All Is Not Doom and Gloom for Artists".
From the headline, one would expect that there is something objectively good starting to happen for artists. Perhaps a new source of funding. Or a new channel of publicity. Or an opportunity to have more cheaply the supplies they need for their profession.
But on examining the article, one finds that there is no additional source of funding, no additional channel for publicising their work, no means of obtaining the supplies they need more cheaply. In fact, nothing objectively better at all: "For working artists, the recession has meant lower income from sales and reduced support from grants".
So what's the good news? Apparently, "about one-third ...say they are experiencing more openness to collaboration, one-third say they are able to experiment more, and one-tenth of the respondents say they are able to get cheaper work space now.".
Let's think about those three elements.
On the first element, if one-third say that they are experiencing more openness to collaboration, does that mean that perhaps one seventh are experiencing the same level of openness to collaboration, while the rest (the majority) are actually experiencing less openness to collaboration?
On the 2nd element: if one third say they are able to experiment more, what does that tell us about the other two-thirds? Are the vast majority (two-thirds) actually experimenting less?!
Similarly, on the third element: if only one-tenth are able to get cheaper work space now, does that mean that nine-tenths are not able to get cheaper work space even with the decline in real estate prices since some time in 2007?
The kind of "Positivitis" displayed by the Business School newsletter is particulary galling in view of the following facts that are also quoted:
* Two-thirds of artists hold at least one job in addition to making art
* Artists’ incomes are relatively low (two-thirds made less than $40,000 in 2008), and 51% reported an actual decrease even in that small art-related income from 2008 to 2009
* Forty percent of artists do not have adequate health insurance and more than 50%are worried about losing what they do have.
All that such "Fundamentalistically Positivitist" articles do is to put a "positive spin" on a worsening situation for artists.
"Fundamentalistically Positivist" articles and feel-good speeches help to create or perpetuate an illusion - in this case, that the situation is not so bad for artists after all, so that we are discouraged from concern about the situation of artists, and de-motivated from doing anything to improve the situation. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Has Twitter been hacked?
Never usually have difficulties getting in and out of Twitter - but having difficuty today!
Has Twitter been hacked?!
As I try to log out, it takes ages and doesn't succeed in logging me out. On trying several times, I notice that the URL reads: "http://twitter.com/sessions/destroy". Is that normal? I don't recollect having seen that URL earlier... Sphere: Related Content
Has Twitter been hacked?!
As I try to log out, it takes ages and doesn't succeed in logging me out. On trying several times, I notice that the URL reads: "http://twitter.com/sessions/destroy". Is that normal? I don't recollect having seen that URL earlier... Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, December 20, 2009
The division of Chinese state-owned companies into two classes
Following the impact of the financial crisis on China's corporations, which slashed profits in the last quarter of 2008, profits remained negative on an annualised basis for 9 months to the third quarter of this year.
By current quarter, most industries appear to have returned to profit.
But an interesting picture emerges of the new class-division of Chinese companies.
The top-performing companies are the 131 centrally-controlled companies, whose profits were up 3.4% for the year through November.
Worst performing are the Local-government-controlled companies who suffered a loss of 8.9%.
Total losses by state-owned companies were 1.9%.
The reasons for the difference in performance are interesting to speculate about, but of course no one except the Party really knows. Sphere: Related Content
By current quarter, most industries appear to have returned to profit.
But an interesting picture emerges of the new class-division of Chinese companies.
The top-performing companies are the 131 centrally-controlled companies, whose profits were up 3.4% for the year through November.
Worst performing are the Local-government-controlled companies who suffered a loss of 8.9%.
Total losses by state-owned companies were 1.9%.
The reasons for the difference in performance are interesting to speculate about, but of course no one except the Party really knows. Sphere: Related Content
Copenhagen's NON-agreement: developing countries shoot themselves in the foot
It was clear for a long time that neither China nor the USA were keen on any real or binding agreement at Copenhagen.
The final result is a non-binding "promise" of a measly USD 10 billion a year for the next three years, with the idea that this might be increased by 2020. Given that there is no agreement about which specific countries will provide this money, which countries it will go to, in which amounts, on what conditions and by which mechanisms - and given the non-history of the "Millennium Development Goals"! - it is clear that what emerged from Copenhagen was a grand total of nothing.
Non-binding offers of cuts in carbon emissions, such as from China immediately before the summit can be considered to have been either mere posturing or in line with what the Chinese were planning anyway - and had no relation to the summit.
What is not clear is why the rest of the developing world (including India) wee so keen to avoid confronting China and the USA on the matter and arriving at an international deal that committed everyone else. That would have isolated the two bad guys and exercised at least some moral pressure on them - not that America has in recent times shown itself amenable to international pressure - let alone China of course.
So Copenhagen can be summed up as follows: duped by China and the US, the developing countries have shot themselves in the foot.
Assuming the consensus thinking about climate change is anywhere near correct, guess which countries are going to suffer most from the consequences? China and India. We have the largest coastlines, and the largest populations near them. We are more dependent on the monsoon and on the water that flows from the Himalayas than any other countries in the world. Naturally, in proportional terms small island states may be completely wiped out, but in terms of actual numbers of people, the damage in China and India will be much worse.
However, the economic and moral impact of the lack of an agreement at Copenhagen will be most on the USA. Not only has it delcined from providing leadership on a matter of global importance, its industry will continue to be hollowed out as more and more of that is outsourced to countries with lower environmental and human standards.
Global trade without global rules disproportionately disadvantages countries with the best environmental and human standards. Sphere: Related Content
The final result is a non-binding "promise" of a measly USD 10 billion a year for the next three years, with the idea that this might be increased by 2020. Given that there is no agreement about which specific countries will provide this money, which countries it will go to, in which amounts, on what conditions and by which mechanisms - and given the non-history of the "Millennium Development Goals"! - it is clear that what emerged from Copenhagen was a grand total of nothing.
Non-binding offers of cuts in carbon emissions, such as from China immediately before the summit can be considered to have been either mere posturing or in line with what the Chinese were planning anyway - and had no relation to the summit.
What is not clear is why the rest of the developing world (including India) wee so keen to avoid confronting China and the USA on the matter and arriving at an international deal that committed everyone else. That would have isolated the two bad guys and exercised at least some moral pressure on them - not that America has in recent times shown itself amenable to international pressure - let alone China of course.
So Copenhagen can be summed up as follows: duped by China and the US, the developing countries have shot themselves in the foot.
Assuming the consensus thinking about climate change is anywhere near correct, guess which countries are going to suffer most from the consequences? China and India. We have the largest coastlines, and the largest populations near them. We are more dependent on the monsoon and on the water that flows from the Himalayas than any other countries in the world. Naturally, in proportional terms small island states may be completely wiped out, but in terms of actual numbers of people, the damage in China and India will be much worse.
However, the economic and moral impact of the lack of an agreement at Copenhagen will be most on the USA. Not only has it delcined from providing leadership on a matter of global importance, its industry will continue to be hollowed out as more and more of that is outsourced to countries with lower environmental and human standards.
Global trade without global rules disproportionately disadvantages countries with the best environmental and human standards. Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)