WebSearch –Try: Management-Methods-Foresight-Prospective Studies-Roadmaps-Innovation.

Custom Search

My visitors whereabouts - tell me more via a comment or back link

Web and Blog List

New Scientist - Environment

Renewable energy : nature.com subject feeds

ScienceDirect Publication: Journal of CO2 Utilization

Shale Debate, UK

News - Steel Market Update - Steel Market Update

Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts

Monday, 10 September 2012

Rich Citizens poor state _Food for thought in current times



Food for thought 

Apologies for not being able to produce more data.

Reference

The Economist "A German movement argues that the debt crisis could be solved if governments taxed private wealth more heavily" econ.st/S24Ntk


Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Jared Diamon reviews and recommends the book_ "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty"

Two hundred years ago Adam Smith wrote his pioneering work "The Wealth of Nations", 




Jared Diamond authored two now famous books at the beginning of the new century 2000  " 1.Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, 


and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the widely acclaimed 


2. Guns, Germs, and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies, which also is the winner of Britain's 1998 Rhone-Poulenc Science Book Prize. 


  

Here, Jared Diamond reviews for us:  
"Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty" 
by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson 


Diamond's overall assessment of Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson’s argument is that inclusive institutions, while not the overwhelming determinant of prosperity that they claim, are an important factor. Perhaps they provide 50 percent of the explanation for national differences in prosperity. That’s enough to establish such institutions as one of the major forces in the modern world. Why Nations Fail offers an excellent way for any interested reader to learn about them and their consequences. Whereas most writing by academic economists is incomprehensible to the lay public, Acemoglu and Robinson have written this book so that it can be understood and enjoyed by all of us who aren’t economists.


Why Nations Fail should be required reading for politicians and anyone concerned with economic development. The authors’ discussions of what can and can’t be done today to improve conditions in poor countries are thought-provoking and will stimulate debate. Donors and international agencies try to “engineer prosperity” either by foreign aid or by urging poor countries to adopt good economic policies. But there is widespread disappointment with the results of these well-intentioned efforts. Acemoglu and Robinson pithily diagnose the cause of these disappointing outcomes in their final chapter: “Attempting to engineer prosperity without confronting the root cause of the problems—extractive institutions and the politics that keeps them in place—is unlikely to bear fruit.”


Diamond's full two page review of  Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson 's work, is published in The New York Review of Books at the following link: 


Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty



A MUST READ FOR ALL IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CLIMATE.

Saturday, 10 December 2011

Humour - Systems of Gouvernement, Economic Systems, Companies Described in few sentences,

Conversation Starter - No offence intended, Comments, Criticism suggestions fully welcomed

How true do you rate the following definitions?
Humour: rate 0 to 10
Truth: rate 0 to 10

Fire Away - Read on



SOCIALISM

You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.
You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows.
No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you
want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and market it worldwide.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive.


Wednesday, 11 May 2011

Power and corruption by any name?

This Economist article entitled "How to curb your legal bills " gives yet again an enlightening and unflattering view of the US governing and judicial system - a near closed shop system. It gives some basic facts to on which to base ones militant actions. It is a good conversation starter. I for one now understand better how one private individual - a militant lawyer, did far more to protect US consumers than any elected senator or state governor, his name? Ralph Nader

However for readers are seeking recipes to curb lawyers fees, one should consult readers comment at the end of the article.

Value for money - in a recent operation here in France, I would place the following over-rated fees as follows
1. Estate Agencies minimum 5000 euros for lower valued property, increasing with sales price - very little effort involved.
2. Lawyers fee - at least much higher skill level
I placed State agency

Shame on such professions compared to the skill and physical effort made by our father and son micro enterprise team who
A. pulled-out the obsolete electrical wiring and fuse system and put in brand new one respecting modern legislation standards.
B. Transferred a partial but brand new kitchen unit plus completed the missing elements + working surface new modern sink unit pluming+wall tiles-.
C. fully tilled the bathroom and separate WC. Installed new bathroom hand washing unit. Removed ancient wall paper on all rooms and painted walls and woodwork.
Our externally imposed delays-roughly 1 month to get the job done- imposed a very tight schedule on our team which remained unruffled throughout-true professionals!

Price: of the same order of magnitude as the above "Named and Shamed".

Of course my wife and I did some manual labouring support throughout.

This is written in a context where subsidised unemployed persons are finger pointed - Were Banks today not "subsidised, were car manufacturers in France not subsidised..Energy and transport lobbied too. The list is too long.

I trust this wiki will help stimulate some common sense in "value analysis"
in reference to:
"How to curb your legal bills"
- The price of legal services: How to curb your legal bills | The Economist (view on Google Sidewiki)

Monday, 22 February 2010

Policy, Politics: Sustainable development; Localism versus Centralisation

I came across the article entitled “Localism-Unravelling the Supplicant State” by David Boyle, New Economics Forum (nef)


Two key words caught my attention, "Localism" and "Sustainable Development". They brought my attention to “nef” a website, new to me, with a green bent and which I found well worth the visit. It proposes many freely available papers.

My rapid reading of "Localism" led me to believe that the example taken from Britain, upon which I am now, as an longstanding ex-pat, ill equipped to comment nevertheless as an international I felt could well have international ramifications and perhaps inspire other countries and economies. Specifically I am thinking of current trends in France where I have lived for many years. Generally Boyle’s paper and methodology could have useful benchmarking value.

Summary of the Localism pamphlet.
“Localism-Unravelling the Supplicant State - is a pamphlet that claims to mark a key shift in the relationship between central and local, as laid down in the Sustainable Communities Act in UK. It attempts, first and foremost, to set out a far broader agenda for the concept of localism, some way beyond the administration that so obsesses politicians, and one that might be capable of achieving a truly sustainable economy,” says Boyle.

It bases its economic analysis on a report , known familiarly as "Ghost Town Britain”, the brainchild of Andrew Simms and Alex MacGillivray who, in 2002, warned that many banks, shops and post offices were closing on Britain’s high streets and that many of them faced a looming tipping point into complete shutdown. The report also listed the disappearance of local police stations, local playing fields and local pubs. All these phenomena had been known before,[Indeed] but had been discussed as separate problems. [Déja Vu, the region where we live has been loosing about 1000 inhabitants per year for the last 10 years or so!]

“What Ghost Town Britain did was to package them as one problem, and – what is more –a problem of economic centralisation,” the author claims.
‘The Supplicant State’, is defined as a phenomenon whereby a state and corporate infrastructure that feels comfortable only when we are all reduced from citizens into supplicants (humble beggars or earnest prayers), to huge, impersonal forces beyond our control.

Administrative localism
Firstly Boyle considers Administrative localism. He quotes Lord Shawcross ( Lord Shawcross of Friston, died 2003 aged 101)
“The housewife of Britain has to accept that the man in Whitehall really does know best.” [The still very Colbertian - Etatic French equivalent would probably be The famous technocratic elite, ENARC Graduates from the prestigious Ecole National de l'Administration and in Industry it would be X-Mines, Graduates of Polytechnique Paris couple with a specialisation at the famous Ecole Nationale superieure des Mines de Paris.]

Boyle takes of course the opposing view to Shawcross, with examples from Norway and more dubiously from France albeit that the decentralisation effort was true in 1982. The point Boyle says he tries to make is that “the UK’s neighbouring countries and allies realised the damage that the drift towards centralised decision-making was doing, to their own democracy and public services, and reversed the trend.” (! )[ in spite of the efforts of French-Norwegian Judge Eva Joly , I may add.)

Boyle argues that political parties (PPs) decision-makers themselves, believe it is only about decision-making – just about the business of devolving decisions to local boards or local voters and claims that PPs do not yet understand either how damaging centralisation has become, or the official mindset that creates it, how it undermines – not just faith in government – but the effectiveness of our public services, our well-being and our ability to sustain ourselves economically.
Boyle provides a numbers to reinforce his thesis in favour of more and better balance in devolution, decentralisation and empowerment goes give similar treatment to administrative inefficiencies.

Five important areas requiring more decentralised power and responsibility Boyle listed are:
1. Re-localising decision-making
2. To front-line staff.
3. To service users.
4. To smaller organisations.
5. To local business.
Each is explained in Boyles pamphlet.

The pamphlet attempts to give a definition of a broader concept of what localism could and should mean in opposition to what the author sees as a ploy by political parties (PPs) to keep the localism debate narrow; The PPs do this by giving the impression that the whole idea is brand new, and that they are the brave pioneers.

Boyle considers that the roots of localism go back a very long way, via Catholic social doctrine – and the doctrine of ‘subsidiarity’ – right back to the Scottish enlightenment. "It was there, in the coffee houses of eighteenth-century Edinburgh, that the philosopher David Hume first cast doubt on scientific method, peering at ideas about what causes what and finding there was nothing there. All you can do, apparently Hume said, is say that events tend to happen together." [I would point out that Hume’s remark should be considered in the context of his time, a time of European turmoil notably the French Revolution,[David Hume Scots Philosopher was a friend of J-J. Rousseau, French Philosopher] times where political correctness and diplomacy were, in all probability, strongly advisable, democracy still to be re-invented - I have argued fairly recently following French, (English speaking) Sociologist Bruno Latour, in my paper on The Innovators Dilemma entitled “Conversations-on-Innovations” that politicians should take the scientific experimental approach to their decision making cf. Conversations on the Search for a ‘Physics and Chemistry – an Alchemy’ of Innovation - Reward Systems.

Two centuries after Hume was writing in Edinburgh, the Viennese philosopher Karl Popper, a refugee from the Nazis, came up with an interim answer. But, more importantly, he also applied it to politics. You may not be able to prove what you believe about the world, no matter how often an observation or experiment takes place, but you can disprove it. Popper used the example of swans. It doesn’t matter how many white swans you see, it still doesn’t prove that all swans are white. But if you see a black swan, then you know that not all swans are white. This rejoins the thesis referred to in Conversations above in that Popper’s method is an experimental one.

Popper was writing during the Second World War, when his home city was in the hands of totalitarians, and he found himself applying this insight to politics too. In doing so, he produced one of the classic twentieth-century statements of philosophical liberalism, (not Neo-liberal today’s abusive form) “The open society and its enemies, ( Neo-liberals) Societies, governments, bureaucracies and companies work best, he said, when the beliefs and maxims of those at the top (many of whom unwittingly are Neo-liberals) can be challenged and disproved by those below.” Quotes Boyle.

At the heart of all this is a decadent metropolitan snobbery. It is because the contempt that the City of London feels for industry and small business, and the contempt that Whitehall civil servants feel for their local counterparts, has been swallowed whole by Labour and Conservative governments alike.

That is the heart of the new Supplicant State, Boyle repeats.

As a conclusion Boyle asks, rhetorically, if there is any issue to the “Supplicant State” syndrome he describes?

His response is an optimistic "yes-we-can" Why? “Because of the economic crisis, adding that,” diverse local economies seem to be considerably more resilient than ones that are dominated by a few big names.”

Twelve measures necessary to target:
Boyle lists Twelve measures necessary to target: while bearing in mind the need for balance Localisation vs Centralisation. I’m afraid you must read the original, to be fair to Boyle.

COMMENT
My view of local vs central is a much simpler one dictated by birth, education and geographic distance from central power.

1. Culturally as a Scot, born raised and educated in devolution, independence of spirit and mind, engraved by church-religion protestantism "Life and Work" is the motto of the Scots Kirk, legal and eduction system, far from central power. As many individuals (social and sociable animals), a civic sense, a sense of neighbourhood, values of pulling one's weight not off-loading one's weight, over-weight on others.

2. Ecological-Environmental reasons: Peak in petrol, Climate- change Energy conundrum.
"Too easy to consume energy vs energy production" in today's developed economies not to mention the incredible race to emulate our model in rapidly developing countries or continents India, China... cf. FRS, Prof. David MacKay's Without hot air.

I strongly believe that taken together a balance - an equilibrium point, will be reached easily. The balance is written in the definition as it is in "Without hot air. So too are many of the action necessary to achieve an energy... balance.


I must note here that if I can manage the translation from the original french I must type an publish my "No-holds-Bard and Barred" "sketch for the development of a department and a region.

My Own 1st Approach:
Conversations on the Search for a ‘Physics and Chemistry – an Alchemy’ of Innovation - Reward Systems.