Richard Dawkins is an incredibly talented writer and his book the God Delusion was one of the books I began to work my way through at Christmas. Ironically Christmas is often the time when you feel most religious and when it can be at its most inspiring. I would beg any woman or man to sit through a Christmas carol service and not feel moved and closer to the rest of humanity.
There was also a program on British TV which discussed the problem with Atheists, where a number of distinguished non-believers were asked about the massive loss of life that has occurred in a number of godless societies, starting with the Jacobians after the French revolution. In the twentieth century there were a number of instances and I shed a few tears as I walked round Auschwitz/Birkenau. It felt right to take something and I was accompanied by a rose which I left infront of a pile of shoes from those that never returned.
Just as Marxists unrealistically claim Stalin and Lenin perverted communism so it wasn’t really a Marxist society so the atheists try to squirm out of the question of massive death in godless societies. The answer given was they didn’t kill in the name of atheism, where as people do kill in the name of religion.
Oh i imagine that made a huge difference to those that lost their life...... I can imagine the scene now.
'Hmmm look person who about to be killed.. don't worry about it... it will feel much better as it isn't in the name of religion. Are you happy now?'
Dawkin’s book in many ways is directed at the rise of religious power in the US and the push to move creationism back into schools. His book is basically a call to arms for agnostics and atheists and an academic dissection of a belief in god.
In the first paragraph he sadly negates a great deal of the book by directing his argument primarily at Christianity and Islam… hello Mr. Dawkins there are huge swathes of the world which are neither, and the two rising super powers are a case in point.
Secondly he doesn’t point out the benefit of religion which is it provides us with a moral code, that can be twisted and manipulated by individuals, leaders and countries but in its best manifestations can be worthy.
More importantly though, in the form of Christianity I know best, the Church of England, it can be tolerant, open and provide comfort and warmth to individuals and communities.
Perhaps Mr Dawkins we shouldn’t blame religion but look at why humans are so easily able to commit heinous acts.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Property Market.
David Smith of the Sunday times writes very elegantly on the British economy in his weekly economics article. I would like to see him write more about global issues, however, I imagine his brief is to be more UK specific.
To some extent he has aped the economist's Big Mac index, by having his own tongue in cheek index regarding the housing market, the skip index. How many skips are there on his road? If there are a lot then it means the economy is booming. He has broadly been accurate in predicting the housing market, although this is probably more due to his analytical ability than his index.
The global house price boom is phenomenal and tests economists’ powers of prediction to the limit. Personally I have felt the market would cool in the UK but figures for property price growth have continued to astound me.
So what of the future?
As has rightly been pointed out the UK is not building enough houses, so the supply side continues to remain tight, however the demand side has surpassed all but the most bullish expectations, particularly in the UK, the market I know the most about.
We cannot, however, ignore the sheer quantity of speculative capital that has flooded the housing market. The number of ordinary people who are leveraging themselves and buying several properties and restoring them. I know a number of people who struggle to pay for holidays yet have a property portfolio of over a million pounds. They are able to do this by buying off plan, or by self-certifying. One friend has bought hundreds of miles from London, two properties in markets she knows nothing about.The other important factor is the broad based nature of the property price increase, even in Scotland which has a declining population has felt the full effects. Parts of West Yorkshire where thousands of flats have flooded the market have joined the property price surge. So my biggest question is why don't we see more regional imbalances? Is it because properties in these areas were so undervalued for so long?
The city of London is awash with cash, the South East has a huge property shortage, but I cannot believe this is the case in large parts of the UK, yet they have all seen massive property price surges, therefore my personal view is that in the more deprived areas of the UK, speculative capital has played a more important role, and these areas are more likely to see a severe slow down, London and the South East are unlikely to suffer in the same way, when the slow down arrives.
When will this happen, when will property really begin to slow?
It will only be when there is demand side shock to the economy, so this has to be when interest rates reach a tipping point, or when economic growth begins to slow, or if banks begin to tighten their lending criteria. None of these factors look remotely like occurring in the near future.
It will come eventually though, I do not believe it will never arrive.
To some extent he has aped the economist's Big Mac index, by having his own tongue in cheek index regarding the housing market, the skip index. How many skips are there on his road? If there are a lot then it means the economy is booming. He has broadly been accurate in predicting the housing market, although this is probably more due to his analytical ability than his index.
The global house price boom is phenomenal and tests economists’ powers of prediction to the limit. Personally I have felt the market would cool in the UK but figures for property price growth have continued to astound me.
So what of the future?
As has rightly been pointed out the UK is not building enough houses, so the supply side continues to remain tight, however the demand side has surpassed all but the most bullish expectations, particularly in the UK, the market I know the most about.
We cannot, however, ignore the sheer quantity of speculative capital that has flooded the housing market. The number of ordinary people who are leveraging themselves and buying several properties and restoring them. I know a number of people who struggle to pay for holidays yet have a property portfolio of over a million pounds. They are able to do this by buying off plan, or by self-certifying. One friend has bought hundreds of miles from London, two properties in markets she knows nothing about.The other important factor is the broad based nature of the property price increase, even in Scotland which has a declining population has felt the full effects. Parts of West Yorkshire where thousands of flats have flooded the market have joined the property price surge. So my biggest question is why don't we see more regional imbalances? Is it because properties in these areas were so undervalued for so long?
The city of London is awash with cash, the South East has a huge property shortage, but I cannot believe this is the case in large parts of the UK, yet they have all seen massive property price surges, therefore my personal view is that in the more deprived areas of the UK, speculative capital has played a more important role, and these areas are more likely to see a severe slow down, London and the South East are unlikely to suffer in the same way, when the slow down arrives.
When will this happen, when will property really begin to slow?
It will only be when there is demand side shock to the economy, so this has to be when interest rates reach a tipping point, or when economic growth begins to slow, or if banks begin to tighten their lending criteria. None of these factors look remotely like occurring in the near future.
It will come eventually though, I do not believe it will never arrive.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
The Success of Man
The Economist had a few stimulating and interesting articles this week. They discussed whether organic food was really helping the poor as it takes more land, stops us importing from poor countries and perhaps doesn't really reduce poverty. All valid points and worth discussing.
I also went to a zoo this weekend and sat for about 30 minutes looking at a giant gorilla but not in the face, as apparently they view this as aggressive. They are truly incredible creatures, vast, lumbering and eerily human like. If you believe in evolution then there was a point in time when we had the same ancestor, I guess we have the same ancestor with any life but it was much more recent with gorillas. All relative I guess.
I also read another theory about when neandthals and man occupied the same space and why we survived and they didn’t. The new theory says it is because we specialized with women hunting small game and gathering berries whilst the men hunted large game. Neandthals, though, just hunted large game so they had a lower calorific potential than our human ancestors. We ultimately out ate them and therefore out bred them, so they were eventually wiped out. I do wonder who was the last Neanderthal. A man struggling to hunt large game whilst humans bred and reproduced at a greater rate. I imagine him stood looking at the landscape perhaps starving and fleeing the early humans, perhaps even crying.
As I looked at the gorilla I thought about this and thought about how all the animals in the zoo are seeing their habitats disappear. Our potential to exploit the planet, out compete everything else has led to our success but now as the economist rightly points out it means that we are dependent on artificially produced foods. It means that we are slowly eating the planet. Competition for scarce resources our capacity to eat the planet is our danger.
We have to find a way to naturally control our population and our consumption of resources, global warming is a problem, our carbon foot print is a problem but population increase coupled with consumption is THE problem. That gorilla sitting in the zoo knows it. Life is so majestic in its diversity; I just hope we will allow enough of it to survive.
I also went to a zoo this weekend and sat for about 30 minutes looking at a giant gorilla but not in the face, as apparently they view this as aggressive. They are truly incredible creatures, vast, lumbering and eerily human like. If you believe in evolution then there was a point in time when we had the same ancestor, I guess we have the same ancestor with any life but it was much more recent with gorillas. All relative I guess.
I also read another theory about when neandthals and man occupied the same space and why we survived and they didn’t. The new theory says it is because we specialized with women hunting small game and gathering berries whilst the men hunted large game. Neandthals, though, just hunted large game so they had a lower calorific potential than our human ancestors. We ultimately out ate them and therefore out bred them, so they were eventually wiped out. I do wonder who was the last Neanderthal. A man struggling to hunt large game whilst humans bred and reproduced at a greater rate. I imagine him stood looking at the landscape perhaps starving and fleeing the early humans, perhaps even crying.
As I looked at the gorilla I thought about this and thought about how all the animals in the zoo are seeing their habitats disappear. Our potential to exploit the planet, out compete everything else has led to our success but now as the economist rightly points out it means that we are dependent on artificially produced foods. It means that we are slowly eating the planet. Competition for scarce resources our capacity to eat the planet is our danger.
We have to find a way to naturally control our population and our consumption of resources, global warming is a problem, our carbon foot print is a problem but population increase coupled with consumption is THE problem. That gorilla sitting in the zoo knows it. Life is so majestic in its diversity; I just hope we will allow enough of it to survive.
SHIA-SUNNI Conflict
The business wrote an excellent piece this week on the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq. It is a conflict we all know something vaguely about in the West but we have never really seen it unleashed. We blame the Americans and British for their current policies but its roots go back much deeper as I think we are all aware. The nation states that were forged in the region by the British and French.I also think about Jared Diamond whenever I watch clips on the TV about the desert nature of Iraq. The term Fertile Crescent is nothing but a sick joke, is what he said. The land looks incredibly infertile, and the land is always the first place that poor people can eek a living. Coupled with this it is obviously a pressure cooker that has been kept under control and now it has been unleashed.Now the business talks about the potential of conflict between Shia and Sunni nuclear states Iran v Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Thought provoking and quite frightening reading.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
The Global Shift
Historians write beautifully on the concept of deep history the movements that take generations to have their effects felt. Others perhaps view deep history as those small imperceptiable items which we don't really notice but have a huge effect on us and our society.
For me deep history, or the idea it conjures up, are the underlying movements which might be imperceptable in a life time but slowly over time they have a great effect on societies.
One of the deep trends in society occuring around us now is the rise of wealth around the world and particularly in quasi democratic countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and obviously China. Economics used to be called Political-Economy and its study was of both subjects. The economic challenge is something that is very noticeable however, its deeper challenge is on the political system that underpins Western society. More freedom more democracy and all those modern values, which are dear to me, are being challenged and will they lead to more successful and powerful countries than the quasi-democracies or dictatorships that have adopted some market related policies, yet politically remain stunted?
Perhaps in just 20 years the most powerful country in the world might be a dictatorship. We assume, in the West, that China will move to democracy as it becomes wealthy but there are not guarnatees.
The other shift that is occuring around us some of it visible some of it less so are the imbalances in the world economy are slowly being worked out, and with it the power of the US is waning. The long us induced boom is drawing to a close.
We talk about the world's only super power being the US; this may be factually true but practially the US is no longer a super power. It has greater influence than any other country on global affairs, yet it doesn't have the political will or financial muscle to exercise its influence as it once did. We are moving into a multi-polar world. The decline of the US is shown graphically by its inability to win the two wars it has most recently entered into; it is even having to enlist the help of the axes of evil to assit it.
Any history student or casual observer will note that the decline of an empire can be traumatic. The collapse of the USSR and the decline of the Roman empire all left states struggling to cope with the freedom and instability that was left by the declining giant... will we have the same problems now the US is declining? The US has always had a quasi empire not really occupying countries but more indirectlyly exercising its power. So perhaps the indirect nature of its power will also mean that its decline will have less of destabilising effect on the world.
Humans have terribly short memories which perhaps is in part due to our relatively short life spans, especially when compared to the age of humanity, to the oldest trees or to life itself. A biologist would also argue that short-term memory allows us to recover from trauma and deal with life and the intrinsic dangers that have always been a part of existing.
Any student of history will tell you though, that terrible things have happened in recorded history, most people on the street will have a feeling about some of them, but will have rarely considered them. During the 14th century in just a few years 30% of the population of Europe was devastated by the great plague. This is conservative and my feeling is, it was actually more like 50% as in our judgements we intrinsically never want to hear the worst.
Bad things happen to humanity and bad things will happen again, but will they happen in the relatively short time period of the next 50 years or so. Economists with their extremely short time frames and the youth of their subject never really noticed that Malthus has been right. As Jared Diamond indicated with his analysis of collapsed societies. Environmental pressure, coupled with population pressure has led to economic collapse in history and he worries for our future. He doesn't view this as global warming, in my interpretation, but more global environmental pressures.
I should preface these comments by saying terrible things are happening all over the world all the time, however, the global rich elite, those that produce the most literature and therefore, the books which will be read in the future and shape our view of a period have led relatively tranquil lives for the last 50 years. Will the next fifty years see the global rich list of countries suffer problems and will globally a greater number of countries suffer trauma than over the last 50 years. This is a better phrasing of the question.
Taking the short-term view then you would say the future will more than likely follow the recent past then it is looking fairly rosy..., if you take the longer term view you would say that we were probably in for a rough patch simply because history goes through cycles. Change is rarely painless, global population pressure will mount and there are going to be difficult moments...
What will the nature of the these problems and how bad will things get? I can't consider them I want to live and enjoy life, but a conservative judgement has to say the next 50 years are going to be turbulent and challenging.
Finally how will our declining global champion deal with its waning power? Will it go humbly into old age, or will it be the angry champion lashing out at its loss of influence and power?
For me deep history, or the idea it conjures up, are the underlying movements which might be imperceptable in a life time but slowly over time they have a great effect on societies.
One of the deep trends in society occuring around us now is the rise of wealth around the world and particularly in quasi democratic countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and obviously China. Economics used to be called Political-Economy and its study was of both subjects. The economic challenge is something that is very noticeable however, its deeper challenge is on the political system that underpins Western society. More freedom more democracy and all those modern values, which are dear to me, are being challenged and will they lead to more successful and powerful countries than the quasi-democracies or dictatorships that have adopted some market related policies, yet politically remain stunted?
Perhaps in just 20 years the most powerful country in the world might be a dictatorship. We assume, in the West, that China will move to democracy as it becomes wealthy but there are not guarnatees.
The other shift that is occuring around us some of it visible some of it less so are the imbalances in the world economy are slowly being worked out, and with it the power of the US is waning. The long us induced boom is drawing to a close.
We talk about the world's only super power being the US; this may be factually true but practially the US is no longer a super power. It has greater influence than any other country on global affairs, yet it doesn't have the political will or financial muscle to exercise its influence as it once did. We are moving into a multi-polar world. The decline of the US is shown graphically by its inability to win the two wars it has most recently entered into; it is even having to enlist the help of the axes of evil to assit it.
Any history student or casual observer will note that the decline of an empire can be traumatic. The collapse of the USSR and the decline of the Roman empire all left states struggling to cope with the freedom and instability that was left by the declining giant... will we have the same problems now the US is declining? The US has always had a quasi empire not really occupying countries but more indirectlyly exercising its power. So perhaps the indirect nature of its power will also mean that its decline will have less of destabilising effect on the world.
Humans have terribly short memories which perhaps is in part due to our relatively short life spans, especially when compared to the age of humanity, to the oldest trees or to life itself. A biologist would also argue that short-term memory allows us to recover from trauma and deal with life and the intrinsic dangers that have always been a part of existing.
Any student of history will tell you though, that terrible things have happened in recorded history, most people on the street will have a feeling about some of them, but will have rarely considered them. During the 14th century in just a few years 30% of the population of Europe was devastated by the great plague. This is conservative and my feeling is, it was actually more like 50% as in our judgements we intrinsically never want to hear the worst.
Bad things happen to humanity and bad things will happen again, but will they happen in the relatively short time period of the next 50 years or so. Economists with their extremely short time frames and the youth of their subject never really noticed that Malthus has been right. As Jared Diamond indicated with his analysis of collapsed societies. Environmental pressure, coupled with population pressure has led to economic collapse in history and he worries for our future. He doesn't view this as global warming, in my interpretation, but more global environmental pressures.
I should preface these comments by saying terrible things are happening all over the world all the time, however, the global rich elite, those that produce the most literature and therefore, the books which will be read in the future and shape our view of a period have led relatively tranquil lives for the last 50 years. Will the next fifty years see the global rich list of countries suffer problems and will globally a greater number of countries suffer trauma than over the last 50 years. This is a better phrasing of the question.
Taking the short-term view then you would say the future will more than likely follow the recent past then it is looking fairly rosy..., if you take the longer term view you would say that we were probably in for a rough patch simply because history goes through cycles. Change is rarely painless, global population pressure will mount and there are going to be difficult moments...
What will the nature of the these problems and how bad will things get? I can't consider them I want to live and enjoy life, but a conservative judgement has to say the next 50 years are going to be turbulent and challenging.
Finally how will our declining global champion deal with its waning power? Will it go humbly into old age, or will it be the angry champion lashing out at its loss of influence and power?
London Tax Haven.
London we are reliably informed is the onshore money haven in the world. Non British born citizens can avoid paying tax on their overseas earnings and pay only on money that they have brought into the UK.
The city can attract expats by exploiting this loop hole and it is seen as crucal in keeping London's competitiveness, should it be allowed though. We are informed by the times, however, that the 54 billionaires in the country payed a paltry 14.7 million in income tax, and most of this from one man, Dyson, who seems to feel a moral obligation. This is wrong they should be taxed.
Taxes on the rich shouldn't be from a socialist persepctive we want to remove your wealth it should be taxed on you should show a commitment to the country you are living in by making a financial contribution to it. The level should be set low, perhaps 5 to 10% of global earnings but they should still be taxed. It shouldn't be intrusive and simply on the principle if you want to live in this country you are expected to financially contribute to its well-being. British expats should be taxed in the same way perhaps 5% of their earnings, if they are living in a tax free country and earning above a threshold they should make a small contribution to their mother country. If they are in war torn zone, the UK will spend thousands extricating them. They benefit from the passport so they should make some small contribution.
As well as taxing at nominal levels, the government should be hardnosed, if you care so little about the country you are living in to not to be willing to pay 5% of your global earnings then we are happy for you to leave.
This should also be combined with much fairer taxes regarding inheritance. Is it really right that the government taxes so highly that which someone wants to leave their children. This should also be lowered to nominal levels 5% over a million and perhaps applied to all global earnings if you hold a British passport.
Thresholds on taxes applied to dividends and savings should be set at much higher levels perhaps at over 50,000 and also the taxes should be lower.
Coupled with this the government should begin being much more transparent on the the costs of everything within the country. We should all receive a tax statement showing us where our money has gone. The people should be told to vote on the correct level of taxes and where they want taxes to be spent. We should try and balance our budget much more and a flat tax rate should be adopted, but also raising the entry threshold, so that voting on taxes affects us equally throughout society.
We should also bring back a broadly based national service where the young of both sexes are asked to contribute to the well-being of the country by working in the army, hospitals and other social functions.
As has been noted it is unfair that the Scots have their own parliament and can vote on English issues it is also unfair that London's mega rich do not contribute financially to the well-being of the country.
The city can attract expats by exploiting this loop hole and it is seen as crucal in keeping London's competitiveness, should it be allowed though. We are informed by the times, however, that the 54 billionaires in the country payed a paltry 14.7 million in income tax, and most of this from one man, Dyson, who seems to feel a moral obligation. This is wrong they should be taxed.
Taxes on the rich shouldn't be from a socialist persepctive we want to remove your wealth it should be taxed on you should show a commitment to the country you are living in by making a financial contribution to it. The level should be set low, perhaps 5 to 10% of global earnings but they should still be taxed. It shouldn't be intrusive and simply on the principle if you want to live in this country you are expected to financially contribute to its well-being. British expats should be taxed in the same way perhaps 5% of their earnings, if they are living in a tax free country and earning above a threshold they should make a small contribution to their mother country. If they are in war torn zone, the UK will spend thousands extricating them. They benefit from the passport so they should make some small contribution.
As well as taxing at nominal levels, the government should be hardnosed, if you care so little about the country you are living in to not to be willing to pay 5% of your global earnings then we are happy for you to leave.
This should also be combined with much fairer taxes regarding inheritance. Is it really right that the government taxes so highly that which someone wants to leave their children. This should also be lowered to nominal levels 5% over a million and perhaps applied to all global earnings if you hold a British passport.
Thresholds on taxes applied to dividends and savings should be set at much higher levels perhaps at over 50,000 and also the taxes should be lower.
Coupled with this the government should begin being much more transparent on the the costs of everything within the country. We should all receive a tax statement showing us where our money has gone. The people should be told to vote on the correct level of taxes and where they want taxes to be spent. We should try and balance our budget much more and a flat tax rate should be adopted, but also raising the entry threshold, so that voting on taxes affects us equally throughout society.
We should also bring back a broadly based national service where the young of both sexes are asked to contribute to the well-being of the country by working in the army, hospitals and other social functions.
As has been noted it is unfair that the Scots have their own parliament and can vote on English issues it is also unfair that London's mega rich do not contribute financially to the well-being of the country.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
The Bankers and the Stock Exchange
So a group of bankers are going to try and setup their own alternative trading system, as they feel the charges are too high..... nothing can be more ironic than the large banks complaining about charges. Incredible what is the world coming to?
Perhaps the stock exchanges are making too much money and lowering the cost of transaction would be a good thing, surely however, more important is to try and create a model where investment bankers are encouraged to think over the long run, and government tax on savings and investments is brought down.
Their bonuses are so huge, that they are in the UK encouraging companies to merge, diverge anything to increase their commissions, these same companies that often complain about high charges can adopt policies which may be detrimental to the long term health of companies and economies because they get huge fat bonuses on an annual basis. When they can earn millions in a year, when they can earn tens of millions in a year, what is the incentive to think about the long term health of companies, to build long term relationships? This is a far greater problem than the charges applied to buying and selling shares. The UK as one of the most open countries in the world will perhaps over time be most effected by this.
The liberal economic view is often a little naive, it is like escapism, it is the easy view to adopt, it is comforting and in many ways it is largely right. In some crucial ways it is wrong. The bankers are part of the market, the market is the best system, let Adam Smith's invisible hand guide the allocation of resources. Government intervention is always bad. Undoubtedly the market is a vital instrument in allocating resources, however, the Liberal Economic view is also naive, and ignores crucial facts.
Let’s start with trade...
Two countries by specialising in what they have a competitive advantage in will become richer; as the cost of the product will drop... trade is good...... what if you have nothing of importance to trade? What if you are the country that has a very low value added product, the benefit is disproportionate to the country with the higher value product and for many in the country in the lower value product, the benefits will perhaps be minimal, just visit Bolivia and parts of Africa to see the truth in this.
Governments should intervene to nurture nascent industries, the government should try and encourage technology transfer, government interference matters... just look at Japan, Korea, China... governments have played a massive interfering role in helping their countries to develop. It is naive to think governments should leave everything to the invisible hand of the markets.
The market is better than an average or poor government but a cleverly constructed policy by a government to help develop industries to protect industries can have a major positive effect on a country's economy. The problem with this policy is it can be exploited by unions and politicians to protect industries which are not so vital for the future of a country.
So what does this mean for the future what does this have to do with investments banks?
In many ways the investment banks are exploiting the UK’s unwillingness to intervene in the functioning of the market. The UK benefits from the inward investment of capital however, are these mergers really in the long term benefit of the companies and UK plc? The Spanish after all have a tax advantage which is heping them fund the takeovers. Why are smaller foreign companies able to purchase large well run British ones? This is surely wrong and only possible because the British government is so willing to let finance dictate the terms of the running of the UK economy. Leave it all to the market is their mantra as long as we can over tax.
Governments should never ever leave everything to the markets and they should try and help their companies and nascent industries where they can. They need to avoid supporting hundreds of companies. They should though adopt policies to help their best companies grow and develop as Porter says create clusters of companies as competition is important, but it should often be slowly introduced... governments matter.... what is the danger with this policy?
In protecting it can also stop openness to the change, companies must always evolve this is the power of capitalism; governments will often provide funds for the most politically sensitive companies and not those that will have the most importance for the future of an economy. Perhaps just like the bank of England is independent so should the government protection board. It would have to be called something less politically charged. The government sets the policy and the board decides those companies and industries which should benefit the most. The banks shouldn't be targeted but the government should try and adopt policies which encourage and help the long term development of companies, and make Banks think about the long term. The governments should try and reduce the importance of investment banks in the running of the economy and their short term horizons. The government should encourage no foster competition in this area, so that the charges commissions and bonuses available will drop and hence they should begin thinking more over the long run….so that talented people are spread more evenly throughout the economy. Obviously it goes without saying that it should continually invest and improve infrastructure and education.
Stock exchanges lower their charge.. nah I say Investment Bankers should first start by lowering theirs. Policies to reduce the importance and charges of investment banks will never happen in the UK as it has allowed finance to become too important as a proportion of the overall economy, anything it does that effects the revenue stream of the financial community would be devastating for the short run in the UK, something no government will ever be able to sanction. It needed to encourage and develop a more diverse economy, now it is beholden to the financial community whether it is or isn’t in the long run benefit of the UK. The only country which could force change in this area because of the size and diversity of its economy is the US.
Thatcher took the brave decisions that transformed the UK economy, she was willing to make the tough choices and the wealth that flowed has powered the labour government these last ten years. She also helped unleash the city a money generating machine, however, does it now operate for the good of the economy as a whole over the long run?
Perhaps the stock exchanges are making too much money and lowering the cost of transaction would be a good thing, surely however, more important is to try and create a model where investment bankers are encouraged to think over the long run, and government tax on savings and investments is brought down.
Their bonuses are so huge, that they are in the UK encouraging companies to merge, diverge anything to increase their commissions, these same companies that often complain about high charges can adopt policies which may be detrimental to the long term health of companies and economies because they get huge fat bonuses on an annual basis. When they can earn millions in a year, when they can earn tens of millions in a year, what is the incentive to think about the long term health of companies, to build long term relationships? This is a far greater problem than the charges applied to buying and selling shares. The UK as one of the most open countries in the world will perhaps over time be most effected by this.
The liberal economic view is often a little naive, it is like escapism, it is the easy view to adopt, it is comforting and in many ways it is largely right. In some crucial ways it is wrong. The bankers are part of the market, the market is the best system, let Adam Smith's invisible hand guide the allocation of resources. Government intervention is always bad. Undoubtedly the market is a vital instrument in allocating resources, however, the Liberal Economic view is also naive, and ignores crucial facts.
Let’s start with trade...
Two countries by specialising in what they have a competitive advantage in will become richer; as the cost of the product will drop... trade is good...... what if you have nothing of importance to trade? What if you are the country that has a very low value added product, the benefit is disproportionate to the country with the higher value product and for many in the country in the lower value product, the benefits will perhaps be minimal, just visit Bolivia and parts of Africa to see the truth in this.
Governments should intervene to nurture nascent industries, the government should try and encourage technology transfer, government interference matters... just look at Japan, Korea, China... governments have played a massive interfering role in helping their countries to develop. It is naive to think governments should leave everything to the invisible hand of the markets.
The market is better than an average or poor government but a cleverly constructed policy by a government to help develop industries to protect industries can have a major positive effect on a country's economy. The problem with this policy is it can be exploited by unions and politicians to protect industries which are not so vital for the future of a country.
So what does this mean for the future what does this have to do with investments banks?
In many ways the investment banks are exploiting the UK’s unwillingness to intervene in the functioning of the market. The UK benefits from the inward investment of capital however, are these mergers really in the long term benefit of the companies and UK plc? The Spanish after all have a tax advantage which is heping them fund the takeovers. Why are smaller foreign companies able to purchase large well run British ones? This is surely wrong and only possible because the British government is so willing to let finance dictate the terms of the running of the UK economy. Leave it all to the market is their mantra as long as we can over tax.
Governments should never ever leave everything to the markets and they should try and help their companies and nascent industries where they can. They need to avoid supporting hundreds of companies. They should though adopt policies to help their best companies grow and develop as Porter says create clusters of companies as competition is important, but it should often be slowly introduced... governments matter.... what is the danger with this policy?
In protecting it can also stop openness to the change, companies must always evolve this is the power of capitalism; governments will often provide funds for the most politically sensitive companies and not those that will have the most importance for the future of an economy. Perhaps just like the bank of England is independent so should the government protection board. It would have to be called something less politically charged. The government sets the policy and the board decides those companies and industries which should benefit the most. The banks shouldn't be targeted but the government should try and adopt policies which encourage and help the long term development of companies, and make Banks think about the long term. The governments should try and reduce the importance of investment banks in the running of the economy and their short term horizons. The government should encourage no foster competition in this area, so that the charges commissions and bonuses available will drop and hence they should begin thinking more over the long run….so that talented people are spread more evenly throughout the economy. Obviously it goes without saying that it should continually invest and improve infrastructure and education.
Stock exchanges lower their charge.. nah I say Investment Bankers should first start by lowering theirs. Policies to reduce the importance and charges of investment banks will never happen in the UK as it has allowed finance to become too important as a proportion of the overall economy, anything it does that effects the revenue stream of the financial community would be devastating for the short run in the UK, something no government will ever be able to sanction. It needed to encourage and develop a more diverse economy, now it is beholden to the financial community whether it is or isn’t in the long run benefit of the UK. The only country which could force change in this area because of the size and diversity of its economy is the US.
Thatcher took the brave decisions that transformed the UK economy, she was willing to make the tough choices and the wealth that flowed has powered the labour government these last ten years. She also helped unleash the city a money generating machine, however, does it now operate for the good of the economy as a whole over the long run?
Monday, November 20, 2006
The Problem with Economists
It is known as the dark science. It has tried to turn itself into a science at various stages and it is always a joke that you can never get two to agree. They have a huge influence on our lifes as we all pretty much work in a money based economy. Their views and ideas about how an economy should be run, if they gain the ear of the politicians, can effect every single one of us.
I don't think this is their problem, their problem is their lack of historical perspective. An ecologist can look at soil samples or ice extracts from greenland, whereas most economists will only look back a maximum of 60 years and normally much much less, after all how long have we had sophisticated economies.
They should be forced to study huge quanities of history..... they should be forced to read about the worst century, the 14th, to study Roman history.... they need a far greater historical perspective.
The problem with economists is they don't take the long view, after all we are all dead aren't we Mr Keynes....Many of the policies they advise are incredibly short term , they view success over incredibly short term scales, a generation is an extremly short time scale yet we all know in historical terms this is nothing.
This is the problem with Economists, because two never agree, surely that just makes it more interesting.
I don't think this is their problem, their problem is their lack of historical perspective. An ecologist can look at soil samples or ice extracts from greenland, whereas most economists will only look back a maximum of 60 years and normally much much less, after all how long have we had sophisticated economies.
They should be forced to study huge quanities of history..... they should be forced to read about the worst century, the 14th, to study Roman history.... they need a far greater historical perspective.
The problem with economists is they don't take the long view, after all we are all dead aren't we Mr Keynes....Many of the policies they advise are incredibly short term , they view success over incredibly short term scales, a generation is an extremly short time scale yet we all know in historical terms this is nothing.
This is the problem with Economists, because two never agree, surely that just makes it more interesting.
Questions I don't like
I always remember someone asking me a question when i was a student.
Stalin industrialized Russia at a huge human cost but that helped crush the nazi, was the cost worth it.
I could never answer it... i still can't.... i don't like questions like that... it is too painful to consider....
Suddenly we are faced with a similar situation, not quite on the same scale but nevertheless a similar question....
Tonight i watched a program about the atrocities in Iraq, and the massacres that Saddam committed, yet look what we have now! People are being killed daily, which is worse? I really don't know. What I do know is that unless you can improve something you shouldn't intervene and the very least you should leave is an improved infrastructure. I remember when they entered Baghdad a colleague of mine pointed out the celebrating masses. I said I will hold up my hand and admit I was wrong with my criticism of the invasion in 5/10 or even twenty years if we have improved the situation for the people at the moment we haven't, we are failing them.
Stalin industrialized Russia at a huge human cost but that helped crush the nazi, was the cost worth it.
I could never answer it... i still can't.... i don't like questions like that... it is too painful to consider....
Suddenly we are faced with a similar situation, not quite on the same scale but nevertheless a similar question....
Tonight i watched a program about the atrocities in Iraq, and the massacres that Saddam committed, yet look what we have now! People are being killed daily, which is worse? I really don't know. What I do know is that unless you can improve something you shouldn't intervene and the very least you should leave is an improved infrastructure. I remember when they entered Baghdad a colleague of mine pointed out the celebrating masses. I said I will hold up my hand and admit I was wrong with my criticism of the invasion in 5/10 or even twenty years if we have improved the situation for the people at the moment we haven't, we are failing them.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
The Challenge of Science
The popularity of science is diminishing, few and far between are the politicians with a scientific background, yet its importance in society has never been greater.
The creationist are challenging in some schools the idea that evolution really occured the scientists responded, as was covered by the New Scientist, with a conference in the US regarding whether science could replace religion. Richard Dawkins feels that they should go on the offensive... that Scientists should come out as it were.
As important in the same issue were the signs of how science is reaching further into our lifes and minds helping us understand the human brain and behaviour, how in analyzing the minute the miniscule they are beginnging to change how we look at reality, impacting subject such as philosophy, psychology, economics.....
What does this mean?
I am always reminded of the Khmer Rouge and how they massacred anyone educated... the killing fields... scienists have always challenged the status quo, but what Dawkins is doing? Questioning whether religion should be usurped whether it should exist...hmmmm?
My reading isn't as comprehensive as i would like in this area, and i hope to change that over the next few months.. but could perhaps the greatest conflict of the future will not be between, the West and Islam but between those that believe and those that don't?
There was a piece in the New Scientist discussing if you don't believe, then you lose your connection with eternity... which can perahps be replaced with your atoms being reused and being transferred so in a way you do......hmmm........
The creationist are challenging in some schools the idea that evolution really occured the scientists responded, as was covered by the New Scientist, with a conference in the US regarding whether science could replace religion. Richard Dawkins feels that they should go on the offensive... that Scientists should come out as it were.
As important in the same issue were the signs of how science is reaching further into our lifes and minds helping us understand the human brain and behaviour, how in analyzing the minute the miniscule they are beginnging to change how we look at reality, impacting subject such as philosophy, psychology, economics.....
What does this mean?
I am always reminded of the Khmer Rouge and how they massacred anyone educated... the killing fields... scienists have always challenged the status quo, but what Dawkins is doing? Questioning whether religion should be usurped whether it should exist...hmmmm?
My reading isn't as comprehensive as i would like in this area, and i hope to change that over the next few months.. but could perhaps the greatest conflict of the future will not be between, the West and Islam but between those that believe and those that don't?
There was a piece in the New Scientist discussing if you don't believe, then you lose your connection with eternity... which can perahps be replaced with your atoms being reused and being transferred so in a way you do......hmmm........
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Press American Interest/London Review of Books
Recently I have been in essay mode when it comes to my reading material. I picked up a new magazine called American Interest. It is a little like the Harvard Business Review in format but its topics are from a far wider subject area. I have also been reading the London Review of Books the last few weeks. Its personals are far funnier than those I have seen in the New York Review of Books. There may be a play in London based on an advert in the New York Review of Books... it would seem to me it should be based on those from the London Review of books..... much more entertaining.
There was recently in LRB a wonderful piece on Iraq and in particular the funds for reconstruction. Leaving some kind of infrastructural improvements should be the very minimum that can be provided to the Iraqis, judging by this article however, it would seem they are being let down as most of the funds for reconstruction have already been spent with very little to show.
There are two ways of looking at a war. The first discussion point is the moral reason for engaging in a conflict, the second is how you win a war and the peace. Regarding the second point the fact that the US and British governments engaged on two fronts in two very difficult environments and countries is mind boggling. It seems like military and political suicide. I wonder whether we will ever find out why. I think the first thing any politician should do before he engages in an ambitious foreign agenda is sit down with five esteemed historians, individually, and have a history lesson....surely they would both have then followed a different path.
The American Interest had an article written by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times, regarding the imbalances afflicting the world financial system and in particular the US trade deficit. 75% of excess world exports are being taken by the US. This is a phenomenal sum and obviously leading to an enormous US global IOU. This has to change and can it change without significant dislocation is one of the most pressing questions of the next twenty years. Severe economic problems as we all know puts society under significant pressure and can lead to international conflict and distasteful regimes gaining power.
Interestingly he also touched on the detail that has had little coverage which is China could actually use the IOU as leverage over the US and its policies. The Americans did this with the French and British at the time of the Suez crisis, now that would be a twist...
It is a truly excellent piece of journalism.
There was recently in LRB a wonderful piece on Iraq and in particular the funds for reconstruction. Leaving some kind of infrastructural improvements should be the very minimum that can be provided to the Iraqis, judging by this article however, it would seem they are being let down as most of the funds for reconstruction have already been spent with very little to show.
There are two ways of looking at a war. The first discussion point is the moral reason for engaging in a conflict, the second is how you win a war and the peace. Regarding the second point the fact that the US and British governments engaged on two fronts in two very difficult environments and countries is mind boggling. It seems like military and political suicide. I wonder whether we will ever find out why. I think the first thing any politician should do before he engages in an ambitious foreign agenda is sit down with five esteemed historians, individually, and have a history lesson....surely they would both have then followed a different path.
The American Interest had an article written by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times, regarding the imbalances afflicting the world financial system and in particular the US trade deficit. 75% of excess world exports are being taken by the US. This is a phenomenal sum and obviously leading to an enormous US global IOU. This has to change and can it change without significant dislocation is one of the most pressing questions of the next twenty years. Severe economic problems as we all know puts society under significant pressure and can lead to international conflict and distasteful regimes gaining power.
Interestingly he also touched on the detail that has had little coverage which is China could actually use the IOU as leverage over the US and its policies. The Americans did this with the French and British at the time of the Suez crisis, now that would be a twist...
It is a truly excellent piece of journalism.
Oil Strike 2006
It is a funny old world and sometimes you wonder what gets reported in the press.
In Aberdeen, which due to the Oil rush is a boom town again, 10 days ago 900 divers went on strike. It was news in Scotland but in the English press not a word.
Their demand was for a 50% pay rise and they were offered 35% which they rejected and they walked out on strike. About one week later the employers, who subcontract to the oil companies, struck a deal and it was for 46%. A truly incredible rise…
Who can begrudge them though? I know stories on the North Sea oil rigs of the sheets from divers being collected covered in red patches, where they have bled during the night from their ears and noses.
It is a reminder that can so easily be forgotten that when there are supply shortages in the labour market and an industry is very profitable, workers can demand large pay increases. I do wonder whether one day globablly we will ever see shortages that allow workers to ask for large pay increases. China is after all aging.
It reminds me of one of the greatest natural tragedies to hit Europe, The Black Plague in 1347. It was one of the first examples of chemical warfare as the Mongols or Tartars were afflicted by the plague and were laying seige to a European town. They used large catapults to fire in some of the corpses and it quickly spread through the population who began to flee taking the plague with them spreading it throughout Europe.
There are estimates that perhaps 30% of the population of Europe was wiped out, a heart-breakingly high number. One simply can't imagine the pain, the human loss and rupture that it must have caused. In many countries society would have been in a state of near collapse.
The consequence economically during the plague were devastating however, for the working man that survived they were suddenly able to demand far higher salaries, and it was the beginning of the end of serfdom in Europe.
So the message for the modern working man living in poverty in many parts of the world, is have less children and practise birth control at the preconception stage. The problem is it is something that everyone needs to practise for it to have a consequence but fewer children, would ultimately lead to higher salaries over a generation or two for their children. For governments that really want to help their people they need to think about ways that they can encourage pre-conception birth control.
In Aberdeen, which due to the Oil rush is a boom town again, 10 days ago 900 divers went on strike. It was news in Scotland but in the English press not a word.
Their demand was for a 50% pay rise and they were offered 35% which they rejected and they walked out on strike. About one week later the employers, who subcontract to the oil companies, struck a deal and it was for 46%. A truly incredible rise…
Who can begrudge them though? I know stories on the North Sea oil rigs of the sheets from divers being collected covered in red patches, where they have bled during the night from their ears and noses.
It is a reminder that can so easily be forgotten that when there are supply shortages in the labour market and an industry is very profitable, workers can demand large pay increases. I do wonder whether one day globablly we will ever see shortages that allow workers to ask for large pay increases. China is after all aging.
It reminds me of one of the greatest natural tragedies to hit Europe, The Black Plague in 1347. It was one of the first examples of chemical warfare as the Mongols or Tartars were afflicted by the plague and were laying seige to a European town. They used large catapults to fire in some of the corpses and it quickly spread through the population who began to flee taking the plague with them spreading it throughout Europe.
There are estimates that perhaps 30% of the population of Europe was wiped out, a heart-breakingly high number. One simply can't imagine the pain, the human loss and rupture that it must have caused. In many countries society would have been in a state of near collapse.
The consequence economically during the plague were devastating however, for the working man that survived they were suddenly able to demand far higher salaries, and it was the beginning of the end of serfdom in Europe.
So the message for the modern working man living in poverty in many parts of the world, is have less children and practise birth control at the preconception stage. The problem is it is something that everyone needs to practise for it to have a consequence but fewer children, would ultimately lead to higher salaries over a generation or two for their children. For governments that really want to help their people they need to think about ways that they can encourage pre-conception birth control.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Shifting Power.
In the late 80s Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, was the book that everybody was reading. American’s were worried about their relative decline compared to Japan. Then the technology induced revival of the US, the bursting of the property bubble in Japan changed all that.
Fast forward 18 years or so and now it is the rise of China. The West worries about the movement of industry to the East, and I do sometimes wonder what we will have to export to them…
The most important impact of the rise of Chinese power, and of Russian power will be those middling countries in the developing world. The global agenda will increasingly be set by Chinese ideas, views and attitudes. The rise of China is more important to them than it is to the West, as they have far less wealth. China is inviting a whole host of African leaders to Beijing, is investing huge sums of money throughout Africa. This will only spread, with their war chest of money, and with huge swathes of the West increasingly financially under pressure they will have little competition from the liberal democratic West. Perhaps it won’t be just Chinese money but also the financial wealth from countries such as Russia.
In the UK there is a massive debate regarding the correct level of taxes, this misses the point somewhat. The reason we are having this debate is financially we are struggling to support our social and military commitments. We have constructed a very worthy social support network that is coming under strain.
Paul Kennedy said that when a country’s military expenditure and commitments become too much of a burden for an economy then this is when their decline begins. In the modern world this is social and military commitments. The huge problem, in the West, is that we have reached this stage across a huge range of countries. The countries that are performing fiscally are well managed small countries.
So as has been discussed in many papers the balance of power is shifting, in many ways the balance of power has shifted…. We the people are just catching up.
So what is the future?
Competing on innovation they say is the only way but how much of development is due to innovation, the Brits have been wonderful inventors, yet the US they say is the country that has benefited more from British creativity. Move into higher value products, however, can everyone in the UK/US really do this.. Surely there is a limit to the amount of higher value work a country can do. Any teacher will tell you there is a huge difference between the abilities of children. Not everyone can be a PHD scientist.
Far more important than our ability to innovate, is the general quality of education, fiscal intelligence, social harmony and diversity allowing us to be more open to new ideas… and the ability to change as the world changes. The US for all its deficiencies is the country in the world that has a greater ability to transform itself than anyone else… and the dark cloud, whether liberal democratic countries will be able to make these changes. Another political economic challenge is rising, the economic argument was won, with the collapse of Russia, what we are seeing now is a new political system and way of doing things.
Anyone that is close to China will tell you how they are more divided, have more internal dissent than you would ever believe from the outside, however, the political gauntlet has been thrown down, and not just by China but also Russia. Perhaps it won’t be the West that faces China with an alternative liberal political system but India..now there is a thought…
Fast forward 18 years or so and now it is the rise of China. The West worries about the movement of industry to the East, and I do sometimes wonder what we will have to export to them…
The most important impact of the rise of Chinese power, and of Russian power will be those middling countries in the developing world. The global agenda will increasingly be set by Chinese ideas, views and attitudes. The rise of China is more important to them than it is to the West, as they have far less wealth. China is inviting a whole host of African leaders to Beijing, is investing huge sums of money throughout Africa. This will only spread, with their war chest of money, and with huge swathes of the West increasingly financially under pressure they will have little competition from the liberal democratic West. Perhaps it won’t be just Chinese money but also the financial wealth from countries such as Russia.
In the UK there is a massive debate regarding the correct level of taxes, this misses the point somewhat. The reason we are having this debate is financially we are struggling to support our social and military commitments. We have constructed a very worthy social support network that is coming under strain.
Paul Kennedy said that when a country’s military expenditure and commitments become too much of a burden for an economy then this is when their decline begins. In the modern world this is social and military commitments. The huge problem, in the West, is that we have reached this stage across a huge range of countries. The countries that are performing fiscally are well managed small countries.
So as has been discussed in many papers the balance of power is shifting, in many ways the balance of power has shifted…. We the people are just catching up.
So what is the future?
Competing on innovation they say is the only way but how much of development is due to innovation, the Brits have been wonderful inventors, yet the US they say is the country that has benefited more from British creativity. Move into higher value products, however, can everyone in the UK/US really do this.. Surely there is a limit to the amount of higher value work a country can do. Any teacher will tell you there is a huge difference between the abilities of children. Not everyone can be a PHD scientist.
Far more important than our ability to innovate, is the general quality of education, fiscal intelligence, social harmony and diversity allowing us to be more open to new ideas… and the ability to change as the world changes. The US for all its deficiencies is the country in the world that has a greater ability to transform itself than anyone else… and the dark cloud, whether liberal democratic countries will be able to make these changes. Another political economic challenge is rising, the economic argument was won, with the collapse of Russia, what we are seeing now is a new political system and way of doing things.
Anyone that is close to China will tell you how they are more divided, have more internal dissent than you would ever believe from the outside, however, the political gauntlet has been thrown down, and not just by China but also Russia. Perhaps it won’t be the West that faces China with an alternative liberal political system but India..now there is a thought…
Friday, November 03, 2006
Poor Quality Journalism
Today I feel angry, whatever, I read I feel I am not getting anyone who is capable of facing the real issue. Is half the world blind? Obviously extremely intelligent people are writing these articles and surveys but why are they not reflecting properly?
First the business published a critique of the Stern report about the environmental impact of global warming. It completely misses the point….. I want to hit my head and go doh….. The point isn’t the world is getting warmer the point is the cumulative effect of humans on the environment. The issue is population…. consumption, global warming, running out of resources, degradation of water supplies.. talking about one issue global warming is pointless, we have to talk about human’s global effect on the environment. So the issue is how we deal with all these issues not just one… the greatest danger doesn’t come from global warming it comes from population pressure combined with scarce resources, made scarcer. Then the question is how do we transform capitalism and democracy to cope in a world where people might be poorer and on one which isn’t based on always more people more consumption? Finally when political power is closely linked to economic power which large country is going to take the steps to perhaps make itself poorer and reduce its population? This is the problem…
The Independent was equally disappointing but from the opposite angle. They had a full front page on the increase in Air Travel… now really… so the Editor of the independent where does he go on holiday? I bet he takes his kids to a cold beach in the UK….. the problem isn’t air travel the problem is population and wealth… so do you propose making us poorer Independent? Tell your kids that this year they are not going on holiday and not having an IPOD. Will you, of course you won’t so you blame the government! You have to first face the truth, we have to have less kids and accept less…. Are we willing to do it…..I don't know if I am I like my life too much That is the question… finally whatever we do in the UK doesn’t matter a jot without change globally…..
Finally some notes on poorer quality work in the Economist the last few weeks: The Economist. High quality/low quality. The Economist represents what is best in free thinking journalism and sometimes what is worst. It can change direction make bold statements, however, on occasions its journalism can fall in quality. The last two weeks there have been several articles which have been well constructed full of facts which have said very little. The first of which was an article talking about the rise of the Asian consumer, quoting hundreds of facts how exports to this area are rising… America’s importance is declining. Tell us something we didn’t know….
The really interesting points were never mentioned though. Which countries would lose from this shift in importance to the East, so they are importing more, but most of this will be capital goods to help their exports… now the really important details, assuming Asian consumers will be the future drivers of the world Economy as the US weakens then what will they want to buy from the West? What can the West export for them. This was never considered, never debated, and in any change there are always winners and losers who will be the losers.. oh so they will buy luxury goods will they?.... hmmm… this will keep Europe going… now then time for some deeper analysis. The second article that was of rather weaker quality was regarding the changing nature of the US economy and the falling long term trend rate of growth…. Hundreds of facts were quoted but the impact never was… analysis is explaining what might happen not just diagnosing whether it will… only one fact is necessary to know that it will, that is the baby boomers retiring, this could have been said in a paragraph with just a few facts…. What happens is far more important, how this will effect the world, and more importantly how do we create a sustainable economy which isn’t always based on more people, more consumption….. one day we will reach a Malthusian problem.. when I don’t know, but something always based on more is going to hit problems eventually. The rest of the magazine has been great well done… but we should always pick up on what is of poorer quality.
In conclusion why does this happen, because most people don't like being properly challenged in debate they like to hear an alternative to what they think, so they sit round not really challenging each other..... so here I am challenging you all to improve... they’ll hate me for it.
First the business published a critique of the Stern report about the environmental impact of global warming. It completely misses the point….. I want to hit my head and go doh….. The point isn’t the world is getting warmer the point is the cumulative effect of humans on the environment. The issue is population…. consumption, global warming, running out of resources, degradation of water supplies.. talking about one issue global warming is pointless, we have to talk about human’s global effect on the environment. So the issue is how we deal with all these issues not just one… the greatest danger doesn’t come from global warming it comes from population pressure combined with scarce resources, made scarcer. Then the question is how do we transform capitalism and democracy to cope in a world where people might be poorer and on one which isn’t based on always more people more consumption? Finally when political power is closely linked to economic power which large country is going to take the steps to perhaps make itself poorer and reduce its population? This is the problem…
The Independent was equally disappointing but from the opposite angle. They had a full front page on the increase in Air Travel… now really… so the Editor of the independent where does he go on holiday? I bet he takes his kids to a cold beach in the UK….. the problem isn’t air travel the problem is population and wealth… so do you propose making us poorer Independent? Tell your kids that this year they are not going on holiday and not having an IPOD. Will you, of course you won’t so you blame the government! You have to first face the truth, we have to have less kids and accept less…. Are we willing to do it…..I don't know if I am I like my life too much That is the question… finally whatever we do in the UK doesn’t matter a jot without change globally…..
Finally some notes on poorer quality work in the Economist the last few weeks: The Economist. High quality/low quality. The Economist represents what is best in free thinking journalism and sometimes what is worst. It can change direction make bold statements, however, on occasions its journalism can fall in quality. The last two weeks there have been several articles which have been well constructed full of facts which have said very little. The first of which was an article talking about the rise of the Asian consumer, quoting hundreds of facts how exports to this area are rising… America’s importance is declining. Tell us something we didn’t know….
The really interesting points were never mentioned though. Which countries would lose from this shift in importance to the East, so they are importing more, but most of this will be capital goods to help their exports… now the really important details, assuming Asian consumers will be the future drivers of the world Economy as the US weakens then what will they want to buy from the West? What can the West export for them. This was never considered, never debated, and in any change there are always winners and losers who will be the losers.. oh so they will buy luxury goods will they?.... hmmm… this will keep Europe going… now then time for some deeper analysis. The second article that was of rather weaker quality was regarding the changing nature of the US economy and the falling long term trend rate of growth…. Hundreds of facts were quoted but the impact never was… analysis is explaining what might happen not just diagnosing whether it will… only one fact is necessary to know that it will, that is the baby boomers retiring, this could have been said in a paragraph with just a few facts…. What happens is far more important, how this will effect the world, and more importantly how do we create a sustainable economy which isn’t always based on more people, more consumption….. one day we will reach a Malthusian problem.. when I don’t know, but something always based on more is going to hit problems eventually. The rest of the magazine has been great well done… but we should always pick up on what is of poorer quality.
In conclusion why does this happen, because most people don't like being properly challenged in debate they like to hear an alternative to what they think, so they sit round not really challenging each other..... so here I am challenging you all to improve... they’ll hate me for it.
Darwin and the Bible.
These words as I am sure you are aware are from Genesis, and as an Aunt of mine used to say the literature in the bible is wonderful so just a few lines….
001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
The new Yorker recently published a stimulating essay on Darwin about the quality of his writing and the huge gap between his travels on the Beagle the publishing of his great work. How in many ways he is the one great scientist who amateurs read for pleasure, his prose they said is beautifully constructed……
Sitting here in the naughts I look back and think about the impact that he has had upon our society, upon our belief system and how all the major religions have managed to survive, and yet how he managed to release such an earth shattering thesis, without been persecuted.
Gallileo espoused ideas which for us are far less threatening to the modern religions, but was persecuted. There is a play in London about his life. How he was tortured, and forced to make a public statement saying he renounced all his beliefs… his daughter watched him through the last years of his life Darwin never suffered this kind of persecution. I guess society was primed for his revelations, they were in the midst of the industrial revolution, and my feeling is if society hadn’t, Darwin perhaps wouldn’t have published… Darwin's impact has been greater, but the greater man was Galileo as he was alive in a more hostile environment.
The one thing that I find quite remarkable, is the Victorians left us with the idea that we could shape the planet and the environment to our will, that we are the ultimate masters. The positive attitude can be seen in journals such as the Economist, where anything is possible, man can truly over come anything. Through Darwin, though, they also left us with the idea, that ultimately there is one thing we can never truly over come and that is death. They eroded the belief for many in an after life… now that is ironic…
I can remember lying in my bed as a nine year old and thinking what came first…. Darwin, Hawkins, Newton, Einstein… they will never explain that… oh there was gas was there, and before the gas.. what?...... how can something come from nothing… no one will ever explain that… we may come within one milli second of the start of the universe they say and before that millisecond what? Somethings will never be explained… even a 9 year old can see that..
001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
The new Yorker recently published a stimulating essay on Darwin about the quality of his writing and the huge gap between his travels on the Beagle the publishing of his great work. How in many ways he is the one great scientist who amateurs read for pleasure, his prose they said is beautifully constructed……
Sitting here in the naughts I look back and think about the impact that he has had upon our society, upon our belief system and how all the major religions have managed to survive, and yet how he managed to release such an earth shattering thesis, without been persecuted.
Gallileo espoused ideas which for us are far less threatening to the modern religions, but was persecuted. There is a play in London about his life. How he was tortured, and forced to make a public statement saying he renounced all his beliefs… his daughter watched him through the last years of his life Darwin never suffered this kind of persecution. I guess society was primed for his revelations, they were in the midst of the industrial revolution, and my feeling is if society hadn’t, Darwin perhaps wouldn’t have published… Darwin's impact has been greater, but the greater man was Galileo as he was alive in a more hostile environment.
The one thing that I find quite remarkable, is the Victorians left us with the idea that we could shape the planet and the environment to our will, that we are the ultimate masters. The positive attitude can be seen in journals such as the Economist, where anything is possible, man can truly over come anything. Through Darwin, though, they also left us with the idea, that ultimately there is one thing we can never truly over come and that is death. They eroded the belief for many in an after life… now that is ironic…
I can remember lying in my bed as a nine year old and thinking what came first…. Darwin, Hawkins, Newton, Einstein… they will never explain that… oh there was gas was there, and before the gas.. what?...... how can something come from nothing… no one will ever explain that… we may come within one milli second of the start of the universe they say and before that millisecond what? Somethings will never be explained… even a 9 year old can see that..
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The Clash of Civilisation Debate.
So across Western Europe, there are debates about whether women should be wearing the full face veil, there was a court case in Northern England regarding a woman wanting to wear the veil whenever she was in the presence of a male teacher.
There is massive debate about whether Europe should let Turkey join the European Union. This debate has two sides to it. The first side is simply that Turkey is a secular country, that is broadly supporting the West and we don’t want to push them to Islamic extremism. I find this argument slightly childish and naive….
Turkey is a relatively rich country with a long history, because it won’t be allowed into the European Union it will suddenly become an extreme country seems to be slightly simplistic. The British Muslims have lived and worked inside a western European country for many years; they first started arriving in the 1950s, yet on the streets of northern cities with large Pakistani populations the impression can be they are more radicalised than they were 20 years ago.
There is also a danger when the intellectual elite move too far away from what the people on the street think, the door is left open for extremist to enter. So should Turkey be allowed into the European Union, in short I do not know, but the debate about the EU has to be far wider, more inclusive, more honest with arguments that appeal to more than we have to support Turkey, because they are our only friend in the Middle East. We also have to look at the social problems that may occur if large numbers of Turkish immigrants begin to arrive in European cities, many of which are seeing a resurgence of rather distasteful political parties. We have to look at whether an EU can function as it continues to increase in size, without reforming.
We should also treat Turkey fairly openly and trasparently. Discuss our worries not operate a two value system, what we say to our populations internally and what we say to the Turks, this is surely the worst thing.
There is massive debate about whether Europe should let Turkey join the European Union. This debate has two sides to it. The first side is simply that Turkey is a secular country, that is broadly supporting the West and we don’t want to push them to Islamic extremism. I find this argument slightly childish and naive….
Turkey is a relatively rich country with a long history, because it won’t be allowed into the European Union it will suddenly become an extreme country seems to be slightly simplistic. The British Muslims have lived and worked inside a western European country for many years; they first started arriving in the 1950s, yet on the streets of northern cities with large Pakistani populations the impression can be they are more radicalised than they were 20 years ago.
There is also a danger when the intellectual elite move too far away from what the people on the street think, the door is left open for extremist to enter. So should Turkey be allowed into the European Union, in short I do not know, but the debate about the EU has to be far wider, more inclusive, more honest with arguments that appeal to more than we have to support Turkey, because they are our only friend in the Middle East. We also have to look at the social problems that may occur if large numbers of Turkish immigrants begin to arrive in European cities, many of which are seeing a resurgence of rather distasteful political parties. We have to look at whether an EU can function as it continues to increase in size, without reforming.
We should also treat Turkey fairly openly and trasparently. Discuss our worries not operate a two value system, what we say to our populations internally and what we say to the Turks, this is surely the worst thing.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Weeks Press
The British New Scientist had a few wonderful articles this week.
One about a not so famous Polymath.
I have always loved people that are curious about the world. A close friend of mine is very keen on the arts, and likes to talk about its cultivating, moderating aspects. Its importance in society. What will be left without the arts?
I always respond that culture for me is much wider. It is the interest in intellectual pursuits in the world around us. Maths is culture and interesting, language is, science, art... we are so fortunate to have so many interesting intellectual pursuits that we can pursue... so i say lets glory in the polymaths that epitomise this... an interest in the world.
The Business has changed its format and become a magazine.
The business should be read for one element which is its thought provoking editorial, which can also can be read on line at:
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/
Y0u may often disagree with what they say but you will nevertheless be stimulated by a direct and brave editorial style.
Sadly this week's first editorial was a little poorer than normal.
The New Scientist also had an article about Bio technology and how it could be used negatively. I haven't quite got round to reading that it looked a little depressing. If human's disappeared tomorrow was my favorite. A sobering thought as after a million years or so there would be very little trace of us. The Earth they said would very quickly forget us.
I didn't bother with the Economist this week, as time for a change of reading material occasionally. Nothing caught my attention when reading the contents either.
The Prospoect should also be occaionally read as it writes in an essay format about such a wide variety of topics.... I also love the whats on lecture page:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/landing_page.php
The papers well I got the Sunday Times as ever but nothing really hit in that.
The Ecologist is interesting for a change but didn't fancy that either......
http://www.theecologist.org/
One about a not so famous Polymath.
I have always loved people that are curious about the world. A close friend of mine is very keen on the arts, and likes to talk about its cultivating, moderating aspects. Its importance in society. What will be left without the arts?
I always respond that culture for me is much wider. It is the interest in intellectual pursuits in the world around us. Maths is culture and interesting, language is, science, art... we are so fortunate to have so many interesting intellectual pursuits that we can pursue... so i say lets glory in the polymaths that epitomise this... an interest in the world.
The Business has changed its format and become a magazine.
The business should be read for one element which is its thought provoking editorial, which can also can be read on line at:
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/
Y0u may often disagree with what they say but you will nevertheless be stimulated by a direct and brave editorial style.
Sadly this week's first editorial was a little poorer than normal.
The New Scientist also had an article about Bio technology and how it could be used negatively. I haven't quite got round to reading that it looked a little depressing. If human's disappeared tomorrow was my favorite. A sobering thought as after a million years or so there would be very little trace of us. The Earth they said would very quickly forget us.
I didn't bother with the Economist this week, as time for a change of reading material occasionally. Nothing caught my attention when reading the contents either.
The Prospoect should also be occaionally read as it writes in an essay format about such a wide variety of topics.... I also love the whats on lecture page:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/landing_page.php
The papers well I got the Sunday Times as ever but nothing really hit in that.
The Ecologist is interesting for a change but didn't fancy that either......
http://www.theecologist.org/
Definition of Age
I went to the theatre the other night and I sat next to an incredibly knowledgeable gentlemen. He was telling me about the different performances of Faustus he had seen, and the great show that he saw in the sixties when there was a German actor playing the role.
He had seen Jude Law playing it at the young Vic as well.
He also mentioned the acclaimed Kevin Spacey in O'Neill's A Moon for the Misbegotten. This is the third time he has been in an O'Neill play, one of the other times opposite Jack Lemmon, who was in the role he is now playing.
It made me feel sad as it must become quite lonely when you have seen so much more than everyone else, when your friends are slowly dying away, or losing their minds and there are so few people that you can share these thoughts with; so few people that are your equal.
You must know you are getting old when you have seen so much more than anybody else, remember facts that nobody else cares about, and feel lonely as there are so few people to share them with, instead of just relating the stories.
He had seen Jude Law playing it at the young Vic as well.
He also mentioned the acclaimed Kevin Spacey in O'Neill's A Moon for the Misbegotten. This is the third time he has been in an O'Neill play, one of the other times opposite Jack Lemmon, who was in the role he is now playing.
It made me feel sad as it must become quite lonely when you have seen so much more than everyone else, when your friends are slowly dying away, or losing their minds and there are so few people that you can share these thoughts with; so few people that are your equal.
You must know you are getting old when you have seen so much more than anybody else, remember facts that nobody else cares about, and feel lonely as there are so few people to share them with, instead of just relating the stories.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
The Elephant in the Room
Francis Fukuyama's famous phrase the end of history, was one of those comments which was almost correct.... He should have said rupture with history, and used it discuss a far greater problem. OK he wrote it an answer to the Marxist view of history but in a way that just made it even worse. He was simply answering a lot of those left wing academics that he had met during his career. That debate misses the point though. If we step back from our current lives and look around us we live in, perhaps, sorry definitely the most remarkable period in human history...... when did this rupture with history begin? When did we suddenly begin to break away from the past to start living by different rules and what does it mean? Now any student of history will know that there have been periods when developments have flowed more quickly, when amazing things have been constructed, however, we admire them because they managed to complete these buildings and structures when they didn't have our technology. Sometimes we feel we can even learn from some of the things that they had been able to accomplish. For instance the Japanese have studied how Machu Picchu was built and its resilience to earth quakes. The fact remains though that if we were to bring the greatest inventors and scientists from the past and put them into the modern world they would be staggered. Now rupture with history, what does that mean? It means that millions of people around the world have a far higher standard of living than ever before.. It means we can travel, use instruments that people in the past could scarcely imagine.... all wonderful.. all incredible... but it also means there is an elephant in the room which we are all ignoring. Our cultures, our ideas, our opinions evolved over millions of years, and this has also changed but not quickly enough given the present state of the world. The emancipation of women, fewer children in the developed world etc, yet so much of our debate about the world is framed in ideas that have little relevance in the modern world. We talk about a clash of civilisations betweens East and West, whether women should or shouldn't wear the veil, whether abortion should be legal or not, whether condoms should be encouraged...... These issues don't deal with the elephant in the room. These issues are framed by our cultures, by our views which are unable to deal with the elephant..... What is the elephant in the room, the one thing that people struggle to discuss.... The West consumes too much, and the developing world has too many children..... Now you might say that these issues are discussed now, we hear about global warming, we hear about population, but are they discussed? Jared Diamond's excellent books shed more light on this subject than anything else I have ever read, however, even he doesn't want to touch the elephant in the room. The problem is the most productive economic system ever created is based on more, always more... more consumption, greater growth increasing share prices more inventions etc..... In solving the problem, always higher population and consumption, we could undermine everything in our civilisation and what our forefathers struggled for. Waste creates jobs; we are all part of this system, we eat from McDonalds, we watch television, we consume and we want to consume, we all take pensions, and we want to have a good retirement... Can a capitalist democratic system deal with these problems, when it is based on more? Can our companies survive when they are based on more? Can our countries survive? I don't know but the world has to stand up and face it... We consume too much and you guys, I guess I should say ladies are having too many kids. It is naive of ecologists to think that simply by changing our habits by being more aware, by cutting down on our green house gases we can begin to solve the question... Mr. Goldsmith/Mr. Branson to solve global warming we have to commit to having less. We have to tell our children they will have less. We will be poorer, you will be poorer and life will be tougher.... We have to have fewer kids, we have to have less leisure, we have to eat less of what we want... we have to have smaller cars, less cars, we have to take fewer glamorous holidays...the list just goes on... As you relax in your expensive homes, turn on your TV and discuss these ideas with the intelligentsia stop for one second and think what it really means, as your children get excited about the latest IPOD, just stop and think what is really required to make the change..... It is truly scary.. I am scared... I love my life and I love my standard of living... Yet however, we criticise, those that have broken into the modern wealthy world love it. This is the greatest period in history to be alive; we are the fortunate ones... yet... yet... yet..... The elephant is there asking us whether we can or will make the choices..... will I.... do I want to... I don't know but at least I can see it there questioning me when I take another flight, when I wastefully buy some more junk food, when I get into my car.. when I go to a party and look at the waste, when I turn on the TV.... Do you want to change, does society want to that and will we face it honestly and really look at what it means? It means and lets not beat around the bush, that you voter are gong to be poorer and have less. It means that you voter in the developing world are going to have fewer children, and you are not going to ever, all live like the films you watch... ever.... That is truly scary for all of us..... time to turn on the TV, listen to my IPOD, read a newspaper and eat a McDonalds... no one else is really considering this so why should I? I didn't answer when this began.. that will be my next topic.
Economist Talent Survey
The Economists recent survey on talent was a wonderfully argued and written piece it, however, failed to acknowledge several fundamental realities. The first of those realities is that talent, brain power, imagination probably only explain 25% of success in the modern world. There are a number of other factors, which are at least as important.
Manners….(Which means those born at the bottom of the social spectrum are likely to have more problems)
Dedication (Modern companies don’t just want you 9-5 they want incredible dedication and commitment.)
Right Education (Even discussing a world where everyone successful is more talented than those unsuccessful is ridiculous when state schools across the developed world are failing so atrociously.)
Company politics/networking (Often those that are the most successful are simply those that play the game better)
Specialisation (The modern world forces an enormous amount of specialization, so that if a talented person chooses the wrong profession, it is difficult to change and redirect his brain power )
HR people are never brave, their priority it to ensure that if mistakes are made then they cannot be blamed. Many of the most talented people live unusual lives, however, HR departments are chained by a PC correct world, and by fear of failure, they rarely take major risks in selecting candidates.
The experience conundrum. Many CEOs simply aren’t good enough, the quality has risen over the years, but there is no open transparent way of becoming a CEO. It is an old boys club, meaning those that crack it have often simply played the game well. They may be competent but often not particularly talented. Once they acquire experience it allows them to move between senior management positions. Some of them will pick up this experience and simply not damage a successful company, they can then move on to another and do nothing in particular. More talented creative individuals simply will not get the opportunity if they haven’t played the game properly. The skills required to progress through a company are often not the same as those required to run a company. Those that are more equipped for senoir management may be less well equipped to progress through the company.
Finally and most importantly, the ROI on going to university in some countries in the developed world is now debatable. The cost is increasing and there will often be greater returns by learning a trade. Those who are most talented at the trades may rise to the top, however, trades probably don’t distinguish talent in quite the same way as some of the jobs discussed in the survey.
Finally lady luck, whether it being the last man standing, the one that has stayed the longest, or simply having built a good relationship with an important manager, or having the right face at the right time…. LUCK we make some of it but not all of it.
Manners….(Which means those born at the bottom of the social spectrum are likely to have more problems)
Dedication (Modern companies don’t just want you 9-5 they want incredible dedication and commitment.)
Right Education (Even discussing a world where everyone successful is more talented than those unsuccessful is ridiculous when state schools across the developed world are failing so atrociously.)
Company politics/networking (Often those that are the most successful are simply those that play the game better)
Specialisation (The modern world forces an enormous amount of specialization, so that if a talented person chooses the wrong profession, it is difficult to change and redirect his brain power )
HR people are never brave, their priority it to ensure that if mistakes are made then they cannot be blamed. Many of the most talented people live unusual lives, however, HR departments are chained by a PC correct world, and by fear of failure, they rarely take major risks in selecting candidates.
The experience conundrum. Many CEOs simply aren’t good enough, the quality has risen over the years, but there is no open transparent way of becoming a CEO. It is an old boys club, meaning those that crack it have often simply played the game well. They may be competent but often not particularly talented. Once they acquire experience it allows them to move between senior management positions. Some of them will pick up this experience and simply not damage a successful company, they can then move on to another and do nothing in particular. More talented creative individuals simply will not get the opportunity if they haven’t played the game properly. The skills required to progress through a company are often not the same as those required to run a company. Those that are more equipped for senoir management may be less well equipped to progress through the company.
Finally and most importantly, the ROI on going to university in some countries in the developed world is now debatable. The cost is increasing and there will often be greater returns by learning a trade. Those who are most talented at the trades may rise to the top, however, trades probably don’t distinguish talent in quite the same way as some of the jobs discussed in the survey.
Finally lady luck, whether it being the last man standing, the one that has stayed the longest, or simply having built a good relationship with an important manager, or having the right face at the right time…. LUCK we make some of it but not all of it.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Belle Du jour
I have read her book, never really looked at her blog and my question is should we splash our sex life all over the web?
I haven't been an angel but most of us haven't, however, why do people feel the need to tell the world about it, whatever happened to discretion, to having a little bit of embarrassment about our weaknesses and sins.?
In the end I felt sad for her, she was having all this sex yet she was alone, and she has taken the final step which is to cross the I don't care threshold, many of us do things yet we still don't want the whole world to know, ok so she is anonymous but she has put so many details up, made herself such a celebrity that anyone that spends any time with her will know the truth.... she will always be that person... she can never run from it, hide from it, move on...... so good luck to her....but I feel sad for her....
Most importantly is there a difference between living a life like that and being embarrassed by it and wanting to hide the details and the opposite which is being brash and openly telling the whole world. Is it honesty or is it merely degrading to her and the rest of us?
Which is the best path?
I know the one i think is better.
I haven't been an angel but most of us haven't, however, why do people feel the need to tell the world about it, whatever happened to discretion, to having a little bit of embarrassment about our weaknesses and sins.?
In the end I felt sad for her, she was having all this sex yet she was alone, and she has taken the final step which is to cross the I don't care threshold, many of us do things yet we still don't want the whole world to know, ok so she is anonymous but she has put so many details up, made herself such a celebrity that anyone that spends any time with her will know the truth.... she will always be that person... she can never run from it, hide from it, move on...... so good luck to her....but I feel sad for her....
Most importantly is there a difference between living a life like that and being embarrassed by it and wanting to hide the details and the opposite which is being brash and openly telling the whole world. Is it honesty or is it merely degrading to her and the rest of us?
Which is the best path?
I know the one i think is better.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
The Short Term Long Term
It is a famous quote from John Maynard Keynes that in the long run we are all dead...... the skill in investing, politics, is being able to separate the long run from the short run.
Detecting the long run tendencies is easier than predicting when they will have an impact. You could argue the revival of Asia began at the start of the 2oth century, when Japan beat the Russians in a small war, yet the West is still dominant in so many areas.. when will the East really gain dominance?
The American trade deficit has been at high levels for many years yet, the world just carries on, and it doesn't seem to matter, when will it matter? When will Americans finally begin paying back their IOU to the world, and will I be alive so will it matter me?
Our lives are so short yet trends, the currents of the world are much deeper and take far longer to work themselves out...
Will the environment effect my life significantly or will it be my children/childrens...
It is just 400 generations since people were drawing on cave walls.... trying to communicate with us....... and 400 generations later we aren't sure what they were trying to tell us.
Detecting the long run tendencies is easier than predicting when they will have an impact. You could argue the revival of Asia began at the start of the 2oth century, when Japan beat the Russians in a small war, yet the West is still dominant in so many areas.. when will the East really gain dominance?
The American trade deficit has been at high levels for many years yet, the world just carries on, and it doesn't seem to matter, when will it matter? When will Americans finally begin paying back their IOU to the world, and will I be alive so will it matter me?
Our lives are so short yet trends, the currents of the world are much deeper and take far longer to work themselves out...
Will the environment effect my life significantly or will it be my children/childrens...
It is just 400 generations since people were drawing on cave walls.... trying to communicate with us....... and 400 generations later we aren't sure what they were trying to tell us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)