So in all the noise that is and will be written about Obama very few people are likely to read this, however, unlike most people I don’t write for others I write for myself and if someone else happens upon it and likes it more the better if they don’t it doesn’t really matter.
There was an English man called Alistair Cooke and when I was driving my car on a Friday evening I used to listen to him talking about America from his longest ever running radio show and he always had a different angle on the major events that were affecting the country. Surrounded by all the noise about Obama I long for his unusual American twang and his wisdom, sadly though he passed a way a few short years ago. He is one of the few celebrities, if you could call him that, who I have wanted to meet.
So what do I think about Obama? The only way of integrating a country is through sex. People have sex together and produce children that don’t have the prejudices of their parents. Two people sexually attracted by each other, from vastly different backgrounds and who fell in love have produced a man with no ridiculous prejudice towards blacks and no bitterness towards whites. You can feel it when you watch him talking. How could he be bitter towards whites when his mother deserted by the man she loved brought him up by herself? How he must miss her. As he stood there looking out at the crowd of 250,000 in isolation from all around him, alone as only the truly powerful can be, how he must have wanted her close with his own younger family.
Women are the most important people in society and I will never like the Islamic world when the role of women is so crushed. The people I have met who have most impressed me in life have generally been women. The stories of women from the 20th century from friends and relatives are truly impressive, such stories don’t exist in the Islamic world as women have no freedom, they have no voice, they are dependent on men. The Islamic world does not produce great men as it doesn’t allow women to grow and develop; great men such as Obama often have incredible mothers.
Finally Barack, if I can call you that, I would like to wish you luck and pray for you. I hope you are surrounded by strong people who have the courage to tell you when you are wrong, that you have the wisdom that Kennedy did to allow other views to develop to counteract your own so that you have opinions to juxtaposition your own against.
We have very little in common really, my hopes and aspirations are on a much smaller scale and infinitely more personal, anyone however, whatever level in society needs luck and I pray you have it. We have one important thing in common, though, I have much to be thankful from the women who have touched my life.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Sunday, October 05, 2008
An irritated American living in London.
Americans are often frustrated when they live abroad they have to deal with sniping foreigners who too often like to take what America offers in terms of products and would love to live there but spend inordinate amounts of time criticising it.
We are all instinctively jealous of the largest and most successful and part of us always would like to see them brought down a peg or two. This becomes tiring for those who find they are continually defending it and feel much of the criticism is unfair and unbalanced. If you come from Greenland this is not a problem you have to suffer, however, you also don’t get the joy of watching your Olympic team win a multitude of golds. Undoubtedly as Europeans we have much to be grateful for from the USA, following the UK experience in many ways some of its greatest atrocities and meddling have been on its own doorstep.
Sniping about the USA or defending its direction seems to ignore fundamentals. We are always full of hyperbole and at the moment there is more than enough of it. The Economist this week had a wonderful picture, focusing on the colour red which made me smile saying that the world is on the edge. Well let’s be clear, life may be rare in this universe but it has endured for millions of years and will endure so the world is not on the edge.
This economic crisis may lead to something worse but at the moment life is continuing in many parts of the world. The greatest risk to this planet and life on it is the continuing expansion of the human population and the demands it places on our ecosystem and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
People who criticise end of world theories or espouse seem to ignore truisms. The world will ultimately end and humans will probably follow the way of other creatures and become extinct. As far as I can see it one of greatest advantages we have is being long lived. This is a massive advantage for so many obvious reasons, primarily all based around stored knowledge and skills development, however, there may come a time when this is not such a distinct advantage. Perhaps following nuclear war a shorter life cycle may prove advantageous when a premium is put on rapid evolution.
In fact most life is predictable if we extend the time frames enough. The trick in life is knowing when things will change, they have a habit of not happening when we expect them. House prices will ultimately drop and fall again, it is true, predicting when is the trick. The world will ultimately end but we need to move away from talking about humans to talk about something deeper to really understand what is happening around us.
So the greatest danger to this world is nuclear weapons and the impact they could have on the planet and history shows us is that technology once developed is ultimately used, and if it has been used once or twice it will be used again. We should not forget this when we look at our short term issues.
So back to my point which is lets look deeper at the USA and what are its advantages based on and are they likely to disappear any time soon?
It has had an expanding population which over the last 200 years has been an advantage as it has meant low cost labour and increased consumption and a continual supply of motivated people working hard to further their lives. Is this likely to change, I really don’t know but this is what we should be looking at.
It has an abundance of key resources as far as I can see which are food, minerals and coal. Are they likely to disappear soon? Will global warming impact them?
It has space lowering the cost of land and the price of building and buying homes, factories and distribution centres.
It dominates its region enabling it to make key decisions secure in its relative geographic isolation.
It has an advanced educational system delivering a large number of educated people ready for a modern economy.
When we discuss the political and social side we should not forget the other fundamentals on which its strength has been based and often shifts in power can be traced to more fundamental underlying shifts when advantages change to disadvantages. It has ever been so on the human, social and animal level that our greatest strengths are often our greatest weaknesses depending on the situation.
Now regarding its political structure even though a democracy is much more lovable and likable than other systems rising in different parts of the world it shouldn’t stop us from stepping back and looking at the failings and asking whether its system will be successful moving forward. What are its limitations? Short-termism driven by the political cycle, the power and sometimes beauty of the mob.
My personal view is this system I love so much is fundamentally based on bribery. I will make you richer, vote for me and allow me to make a few tough decisions, you will though get richer and so will your children. The financial crisis happened because of collective greed and it was leading to ever increased consumption which people liked but was driven by debt. No one dared tell the people you cannot have it all and always have more. So in a world where continual economic growth and consumption might not be possible may mean the mass bribery which has fuelled the system I love and allows me to read, write like this may be unsustainable.
So talk of bailouts is short term, interest rate cuts, short term, fundamentally people are going to have to spend less, consume less, save more. Life is going to be tougher will you vote for me? That is the truth but it doesn’t get votes.
One final point Malthus or some of Malthus analysis was undoubtedly right he just succumbed to the Marx failing of prediction. Fundamentally if population expands quicker than food production or the resource exploitation that people expect then there will be potentially be mass starvation riots, civil disorder etc. We may delay this for centuries with invention but the risk is always there, and at some stage in history perhaps not on a mass scale globally the point will be reached. We have seen it so terribly inflict a number of societies last century.
And finally, yes finally Americans should stop comparing themselves to the old Western European world so much of the future is going East and here you go a prediction after I have talked of so many failures in that area, the great power will be Russia. I could be wrong, and I am basing it on one article about the fact it has become a food exporter. Large land mass, stable population and abundance of vast resources in practically every area and a number of other advantages. I think its time will really come in the next one hundred years.
We are all instinctively jealous of the largest and most successful and part of us always would like to see them brought down a peg or two. This becomes tiring for those who find they are continually defending it and feel much of the criticism is unfair and unbalanced. If you come from Greenland this is not a problem you have to suffer, however, you also don’t get the joy of watching your Olympic team win a multitude of golds. Undoubtedly as Europeans we have much to be grateful for from the USA, following the UK experience in many ways some of its greatest atrocities and meddling have been on its own doorstep.
Sniping about the USA or defending its direction seems to ignore fundamentals. We are always full of hyperbole and at the moment there is more than enough of it. The Economist this week had a wonderful picture, focusing on the colour red which made me smile saying that the world is on the edge. Well let’s be clear, life may be rare in this universe but it has endured for millions of years and will endure so the world is not on the edge.
This economic crisis may lead to something worse but at the moment life is continuing in many parts of the world. The greatest risk to this planet and life on it is the continuing expansion of the human population and the demands it places on our ecosystem and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
People who criticise end of world theories or espouse seem to ignore truisms. The world will ultimately end and humans will probably follow the way of other creatures and become extinct. As far as I can see it one of greatest advantages we have is being long lived. This is a massive advantage for so many obvious reasons, primarily all based around stored knowledge and skills development, however, there may come a time when this is not such a distinct advantage. Perhaps following nuclear war a shorter life cycle may prove advantageous when a premium is put on rapid evolution.
In fact most life is predictable if we extend the time frames enough. The trick in life is knowing when things will change, they have a habit of not happening when we expect them. House prices will ultimately drop and fall again, it is true, predicting when is the trick. The world will ultimately end but we need to move away from talking about humans to talk about something deeper to really understand what is happening around us.
So the greatest danger to this world is nuclear weapons and the impact they could have on the planet and history shows us is that technology once developed is ultimately used, and if it has been used once or twice it will be used again. We should not forget this when we look at our short term issues.
So back to my point which is lets look deeper at the USA and what are its advantages based on and are they likely to disappear any time soon?
It has had an expanding population which over the last 200 years has been an advantage as it has meant low cost labour and increased consumption and a continual supply of motivated people working hard to further their lives. Is this likely to change, I really don’t know but this is what we should be looking at.
It has an abundance of key resources as far as I can see which are food, minerals and coal. Are they likely to disappear soon? Will global warming impact them?
It has space lowering the cost of land and the price of building and buying homes, factories and distribution centres.
It dominates its region enabling it to make key decisions secure in its relative geographic isolation.
It has an advanced educational system delivering a large number of educated people ready for a modern economy.
When we discuss the political and social side we should not forget the other fundamentals on which its strength has been based and often shifts in power can be traced to more fundamental underlying shifts when advantages change to disadvantages. It has ever been so on the human, social and animal level that our greatest strengths are often our greatest weaknesses depending on the situation.
Now regarding its political structure even though a democracy is much more lovable and likable than other systems rising in different parts of the world it shouldn’t stop us from stepping back and looking at the failings and asking whether its system will be successful moving forward. What are its limitations? Short-termism driven by the political cycle, the power and sometimes beauty of the mob.
My personal view is this system I love so much is fundamentally based on bribery. I will make you richer, vote for me and allow me to make a few tough decisions, you will though get richer and so will your children. The financial crisis happened because of collective greed and it was leading to ever increased consumption which people liked but was driven by debt. No one dared tell the people you cannot have it all and always have more. So in a world where continual economic growth and consumption might not be possible may mean the mass bribery which has fuelled the system I love and allows me to read, write like this may be unsustainable.
So talk of bailouts is short term, interest rate cuts, short term, fundamentally people are going to have to spend less, consume less, save more. Life is going to be tougher will you vote for me? That is the truth but it doesn’t get votes.
One final point Malthus or some of Malthus analysis was undoubtedly right he just succumbed to the Marx failing of prediction. Fundamentally if population expands quicker than food production or the resource exploitation that people expect then there will be potentially be mass starvation riots, civil disorder etc. We may delay this for centuries with invention but the risk is always there, and at some stage in history perhaps not on a mass scale globally the point will be reached. We have seen it so terribly inflict a number of societies last century.
And finally, yes finally Americans should stop comparing themselves to the old Western European world so much of the future is going East and here you go a prediction after I have talked of so many failures in that area, the great power will be Russia. I could be wrong, and I am basing it on one article about the fact it has become a food exporter. Large land mass, stable population and abundance of vast resources in practically every area and a number of other advantages. I think its time will really come in the next one hundred years.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Wars, Finance, The Future
I have been reading a book about the First World War and history can teach you many things and perhaps in the most extreme of human activities you learn the most. The First World War like any war had its turning points, but it was perhaps the first Great War where powers with such varying political systems came to battle. We could argue over semantics here and say that systems of government have always differed, but as democracy is relatively new then I would argue The First World war is where such radically different regimes and ways of governing have gone to war. It would be an interesting to study the wars and how different the political organizations been between the combatants have been and perhaps I am wrong and it is a question of perception.
So how close were the more democratic countries to defeat?
The difference between this war and the Second World War is that Germany completely defeated some of the geographically peripheral countries who acted as the swing countries in the central and western European battle for dominance. A truce was signed with the Russians which gave the Kaiser vast swathes of Eastern Europe. In the Second World War they swept through France which must have elated people like Hitler who had spent years in the trenches however, the main swing protagonist in the West remained the UK.
They would have won in the west without the UK in the First World War. In terms of knocking out opponents the French were not the people to beat as they didn’t have the navy, economy or empire the size of the British, they had better generals than the British in the first, lost more soldiers but they couldn’t decisively change the balance of power in Europe like the British. In a straight fight between France and Germany there would only be one winner. Between the UK and Germany it would be harder one to call given Britain’s relative Island security and its overseas resources, although one feels Germany in the second would have defeated it if they had only focused in the first it is much more doubtful and unlikely.
So I would argue the Germans were closer to victory in the First World War, particularly and importantly the Americans entered the battle so much later in the first than the second. The Germans made three mistakes; they conducted general submarine attacks and discussed with the Mexicans the opening of another front which brought America into the conflict and they failed to develop the tank.
My point would be that democracy was extremely close to being defeated in the First World War, and even though the Americans arrived late, the sheer numbers of men they could provide following the exhaustion of the European powers was decisive along with the tank. It is quite possible that the western powers would have negotiated a peace, if the Americans hadn’t arrived and I would put the odds at perhaps 30%. The tank may have swung the balance away from the power of defence and the trench system which is what the Germans excelled at, but the Germans could have learnt and developed their own perhaps. So if they hadn’t have antagonised the Americans they could have been left dominating continental Europe.
Democracy was close to being defeated. So what does this have to do with finance do you ask and our current predicament? We are so used to reading about the success of the democratic powers in defeating the German led allies on two occasions and then the winning of the cold war we forget how fragile our hard won freedom and democracy is.
Democracy is precious the market can function under many different political regimes and it has throughout history. It is the best way of allocating resources and most dynamic human creation although I wonder whether it will be able to actively help and assist in solving our resource\environment problems but that is another debate. That is not at risk what is at risk is democracy.
The Germans didn’t have a good tank in the First World War and paid a significant price. For the second they had well developed tanks and tactics. The American’s had terrible military intelligence at Pearl Harbour they didn’t make that mistake again. At the battle of Midway they had better intelligence than the Japanese, which proved critical. He who has the hardest lesson often learns the hardest. Not always but often.
Russia, China, India have had some hard lessons throughout the last century and they have learnt. They are developing, particularly in the case of Russia and China other ways of governing and they maybe able to harness the market differently to Western Europe and America. If they continue to progress and the West struggles then the greatest political system ever created for the average human could be threatened.
We have severe problems that need to be discussed and faced. The inherent short-termism endemic in the UK and US exacerbated by an extremely lengthy election process in the US and the media hunting packs who focus overtly on charisma and scandal. They forget issues, intelligence and judgement. The bonus culture has been discussed enough, but one would bracket it here along with the obsession with quarterly targets.
The work ethic and always assuming that everything will improve and get better, people wanting the easy life, governments petrified of allowing people to realize that sometimes life is tough and the hard times won’t always last and look population we are going to have a tough few years we will do our best to build a long-term future but hell life is sometimes tough we have to take the ups with the downs.
Democracy needs defending it is a fragile thing and not something we should take for granted or take liberties with.
So how close were the more democratic countries to defeat?
The difference between this war and the Second World War is that Germany completely defeated some of the geographically peripheral countries who acted as the swing countries in the central and western European battle for dominance. A truce was signed with the Russians which gave the Kaiser vast swathes of Eastern Europe. In the Second World War they swept through France which must have elated people like Hitler who had spent years in the trenches however, the main swing protagonist in the West remained the UK.
They would have won in the west without the UK in the First World War. In terms of knocking out opponents the French were not the people to beat as they didn’t have the navy, economy or empire the size of the British, they had better generals than the British in the first, lost more soldiers but they couldn’t decisively change the balance of power in Europe like the British. In a straight fight between France and Germany there would only be one winner. Between the UK and Germany it would be harder one to call given Britain’s relative Island security and its overseas resources, although one feels Germany in the second would have defeated it if they had only focused in the first it is much more doubtful and unlikely.
So I would argue the Germans were closer to victory in the First World War, particularly and importantly the Americans entered the battle so much later in the first than the second. The Germans made three mistakes; they conducted general submarine attacks and discussed with the Mexicans the opening of another front which brought America into the conflict and they failed to develop the tank.
My point would be that democracy was extremely close to being defeated in the First World War, and even though the Americans arrived late, the sheer numbers of men they could provide following the exhaustion of the European powers was decisive along with the tank. It is quite possible that the western powers would have negotiated a peace, if the Americans hadn’t arrived and I would put the odds at perhaps 30%. The tank may have swung the balance away from the power of defence and the trench system which is what the Germans excelled at, but the Germans could have learnt and developed their own perhaps. So if they hadn’t have antagonised the Americans they could have been left dominating continental Europe.
Democracy was close to being defeated. So what does this have to do with finance do you ask and our current predicament? We are so used to reading about the success of the democratic powers in defeating the German led allies on two occasions and then the winning of the cold war we forget how fragile our hard won freedom and democracy is.
Democracy is precious the market can function under many different political regimes and it has throughout history. It is the best way of allocating resources and most dynamic human creation although I wonder whether it will be able to actively help and assist in solving our resource\environment problems but that is another debate. That is not at risk what is at risk is democracy.
The Germans didn’t have a good tank in the First World War and paid a significant price. For the second they had well developed tanks and tactics. The American’s had terrible military intelligence at Pearl Harbour they didn’t make that mistake again. At the battle of Midway they had better intelligence than the Japanese, which proved critical. He who has the hardest lesson often learns the hardest. Not always but often.
Russia, China, India have had some hard lessons throughout the last century and they have learnt. They are developing, particularly in the case of Russia and China other ways of governing and they maybe able to harness the market differently to Western Europe and America. If they continue to progress and the West struggles then the greatest political system ever created for the average human could be threatened.
We have severe problems that need to be discussed and faced. The inherent short-termism endemic in the UK and US exacerbated by an extremely lengthy election process in the US and the media hunting packs who focus overtly on charisma and scandal. They forget issues, intelligence and judgement. The bonus culture has been discussed enough, but one would bracket it here along with the obsession with quarterly targets.
The work ethic and always assuming that everything will improve and get better, people wanting the easy life, governments petrified of allowing people to realize that sometimes life is tough and the hard times won’t always last and look population we are going to have a tough few years we will do our best to build a long-term future but hell life is sometimes tough we have to take the ups with the downs.
Democracy needs defending it is a fragile thing and not something we should take for granted or take liberties with.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Financial Armageddon a threat to democracy
So,
In this a age of modern technology where information is instant some problems never change and that is receiving relevant, accurate and timely information and interpreting the information you are presented with efficiently without allowing yourself to be swamped or swayed by the panic and emotions of yourself and those around you.
Great men in dramatic situations aren't the cleverest they are the ones which are best informed and able to quickly and efficiently work out what are the key pieces of information they are being presented with and then acting decisively. One day they will be able to test this skill and traditionally I guess they would have called it calmness of thought or having a steady hand.
The television I look at now is swamping me with information and the internet provides even more on this so called credit crunch. Bear Stearns was rescued America nationalized its mortgage market and one of America's great financial institutions today has collapsed as America's properties continue to decline in value. Alan Greenspan says this is a once in a century act without doubt he is correct but as a child of a great democracy he doesn't quite grasp what the real problem is, in the heat of the moment my interpretation would take his argument further.
Magazines such as the Economist and most economic writers blindly follow and write about the market as being the best system to distribute resources and power forward economies and the world. Laissez faire is the idelogy we should follow liberalism.
This idea is being challenged and with political economic and successful alternatives arising in the world the Western liberal democratic system is under attack as the best means of running a country.
Western Intellectuals need to realize that now more than ever we need to question our way of running our countries and economies, we need a rebirth of ideas and of economic management without this democracy could be on a potentially fatal death march. It doesn't need to be but we need careful thought about the limitations and problems in the way our countries are governed and managed.
Sarah Palin is very scary, not because of where she comes from, not because she carries a gun but because she is quite simply stupid. Listen to her interview here and cry. This is a problem and challenge to democracy if because an idiot is like us we will elect them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jvfm8tn_Cw
When President Trueman fired General Macarthur during the Korean war it was because he was a wise thoughtful and clever man. The USA could have gone Nuclear and that would have had disastrous consequences for the world.
So it is with Financial crisis the markets have failed totally, utterly and completely this is a challenge to capitalism and the liberal democratic approach of managing them. The USA went socialist the other week when it nationalized its mortgage market.
If idiots continue to be elected to govern countries then effectively decisions will not be made by leaders but by experts who are able to grasp the problem or interest groups who are able to sway the leaders.
They should be informing leaders but if they are not clever enough to understand the problem they will not be making the decision and sorry but Sarah Palin is no Magaret Thatcher who had a degree in Science from one of the world's greatest university. She maybe more like us than Mrs Thatcher but that means she is even less capable of running a country
This is a challenge to the greatest system of government and economic management the world has produced. Fukuyama wrote about the end of History if we are not careful due to the rise of the East and alternative Political Economic systems, our financial mismanagement and our blind faith in the market is always right, the power of the media and the rule of the mob meaning idiots get elected, the short termism that is perhaps endemic such as quarterly profit drivers and a 4 year election cycle with a two year campainging period, may lead to the end of democracy.
This is the challenge facing us as we move forward.
In this a age of modern technology where information is instant some problems never change and that is receiving relevant, accurate and timely information and interpreting the information you are presented with efficiently without allowing yourself to be swamped or swayed by the panic and emotions of yourself and those around you.
Great men in dramatic situations aren't the cleverest they are the ones which are best informed and able to quickly and efficiently work out what are the key pieces of information they are being presented with and then acting decisively. One day they will be able to test this skill and traditionally I guess they would have called it calmness of thought or having a steady hand.
The television I look at now is swamping me with information and the internet provides even more on this so called credit crunch. Bear Stearns was rescued America nationalized its mortgage market and one of America's great financial institutions today has collapsed as America's properties continue to decline in value. Alan Greenspan says this is a once in a century act without doubt he is correct but as a child of a great democracy he doesn't quite grasp what the real problem is, in the heat of the moment my interpretation would take his argument further.
Magazines such as the Economist and most economic writers blindly follow and write about the market as being the best system to distribute resources and power forward economies and the world. Laissez faire is the idelogy we should follow liberalism.
This idea is being challenged and with political economic and successful alternatives arising in the world the Western liberal democratic system is under attack as the best means of running a country.
Western Intellectuals need to realize that now more than ever we need to question our way of running our countries and economies, we need a rebirth of ideas and of economic management without this democracy could be on a potentially fatal death march. It doesn't need to be but we need careful thought about the limitations and problems in the way our countries are governed and managed.
Sarah Palin is very scary, not because of where she comes from, not because she carries a gun but because she is quite simply stupid. Listen to her interview here and cry. This is a problem and challenge to democracy if because an idiot is like us we will elect them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jvfm8tn_Cw
When President Trueman fired General Macarthur during the Korean war it was because he was a wise thoughtful and clever man. The USA could have gone Nuclear and that would have had disastrous consequences for the world.
So it is with Financial crisis the markets have failed totally, utterly and completely this is a challenge to capitalism and the liberal democratic approach of managing them. The USA went socialist the other week when it nationalized its mortgage market.
If idiots continue to be elected to govern countries then effectively decisions will not be made by leaders but by experts who are able to grasp the problem or interest groups who are able to sway the leaders.
They should be informing leaders but if they are not clever enough to understand the problem they will not be making the decision and sorry but Sarah Palin is no Magaret Thatcher who had a degree in Science from one of the world's greatest university. She maybe more like us than Mrs Thatcher but that means she is even less capable of running a country
This is a challenge to the greatest system of government and economic management the world has produced. Fukuyama wrote about the end of History if we are not careful due to the rise of the East and alternative Political Economic systems, our financial mismanagement and our blind faith in the market is always right, the power of the media and the rule of the mob meaning idiots get elected, the short termism that is perhaps endemic such as quarterly profit drivers and a 4 year election cycle with a two year campainging period, may lead to the end of democracy.
This is the challenge facing us as we move forward.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The End of Education
Education, Education, Education we hear and as ever in life there are forces pulling the world in several directions.
The world is more educated, more literate and we all know it is critical to progress in life but on the other side we are also seeing the degrading of degrees, the idea that one can buy a masters, the rise of wanting instant fame, people who make vast sums of money with little talent and simply from being seen with the right people.
The general respect for education and culture is dropping in society, if we go back to the middle ages people with education and culture were admired partly as there weren't many people with education, whereas now people often seem to enjoy saying they know nothing.
Perhaps like many things in life, that when literacy and education is at its peak its decline has begun especially when coupled with the environmental and social problems which will afflict society over the next few decades.
The world is more educated, more literate and we all know it is critical to progress in life but on the other side we are also seeing the degrading of degrees, the idea that one can buy a masters, the rise of wanting instant fame, people who make vast sums of money with little talent and simply from being seen with the right people.
The general respect for education and culture is dropping in society, if we go back to the middle ages people with education and culture were admired partly as there weren't many people with education, whereas now people often seem to enjoy saying they know nothing.
Perhaps like many things in life, that when literacy and education is at its peak its decline has begun especially when coupled with the environmental and social problems which will afflict society over the next few decades.
Dear Gates, Ellison, Jobs
Dear GEJ,
We all know the names.
One of them a super geek, one a truly creative mind, one the supreme marketing being.
Two of them have been accused of stealing other's ideas. I have heard a table rumour that one of them left a library with material he perhaps shouldn't have. One they say was helped by his Aunt or a relative to negotiate a critical deal.
I wonder whether they have ever sat down together and if they were to have dinner what would they say?
The helped relaunch America's economic mights, they powered their companies forward for decades.
Now Bill is stepping down, whilst Larry and and Steve march on.
Who would you rather spend time with?
They are a remarkable triumvirate, they weren't the only key people to launch America's techno might many others played roles and ran or launched smaller companies, however, they were without doubt the must successful and prominent.
So what of America now these titans begin to step down? We look at google, however, i don't think it will be quite the revenue and job creating organization that the three former ones have been. I could be wrong and Google is certainly innovative, however the only tool from Google most people regularly use is the search engine, everything else is a small spin off.
America's skill has been its sheer chutzpa its ability to go for it, its entrepreneurial spirit, but however large a country however attractive it is to immigrants there are golden ages and remarkable people that arise in those ages. Sometimes it is simply in a period of time there are the opportunities and the right set of circumstances to allow creativity and dynamism to blossom, the 70s & 80s was that time in the US and we won't see it again to the same extent for a long time.
America will see more remarkable people in business, in science perhaps more remarkable than the three mentioned, however, they won't see the sheer number of creative entrepreneurs blossoming and powering forward the country to the same extent for a very long time.
So good-bye Bill, I dare say you were often annoying, perhaps not as much fun to have a beer with as Jobs, I could be wrong who knows, but damn you were from a remarkable time and you were a remarkable individual.
To you Larry, let's see you smile a bit more, i bet you're great to get drunk with unless you say the wrong thing I imagine you are a little moody, loyal but never to be crossed. You are an awesome businessman, truly awesome...
Jobs.. you're the creative one, perhaps a little arrogant sometimes but i imagine full of wisdom, but probably need knocking down occasionally too many people think you are too awesome. My guess is you are probably loyal and trusting but a little burnt.
Anyway guys as I sit here using your technology, giving you some money, you are a remarkable triumvirate and do yourselves a favor go out for a meal sometime as America won't see your like again for a very long time, if ever.
We all know the names.
One of them a super geek, one a truly creative mind, one the supreme marketing being.
Two of them have been accused of stealing other's ideas. I have heard a table rumour that one of them left a library with material he perhaps shouldn't have. One they say was helped by his Aunt or a relative to negotiate a critical deal.
I wonder whether they have ever sat down together and if they were to have dinner what would they say?
The helped relaunch America's economic mights, they powered their companies forward for decades.
Now Bill is stepping down, whilst Larry and and Steve march on.
Who would you rather spend time with?
They are a remarkable triumvirate, they weren't the only key people to launch America's techno might many others played roles and ran or launched smaller companies, however, they were without doubt the must successful and prominent.
So what of America now these titans begin to step down? We look at google, however, i don't think it will be quite the revenue and job creating organization that the three former ones have been. I could be wrong and Google is certainly innovative, however the only tool from Google most people regularly use is the search engine, everything else is a small spin off.
America's skill has been its sheer chutzpa its ability to go for it, its entrepreneurial spirit, but however large a country however attractive it is to immigrants there are golden ages and remarkable people that arise in those ages. Sometimes it is simply in a period of time there are the opportunities and the right set of circumstances to allow creativity and dynamism to blossom, the 70s & 80s was that time in the US and we won't see it again to the same extent for a long time.
America will see more remarkable people in business, in science perhaps more remarkable than the three mentioned, however, they won't see the sheer number of creative entrepreneurs blossoming and powering forward the country to the same extent for a very long time.
So good-bye Bill, I dare say you were often annoying, perhaps not as much fun to have a beer with as Jobs, I could be wrong who knows, but damn you were from a remarkable time and you were a remarkable individual.
To you Larry, let's see you smile a bit more, i bet you're great to get drunk with unless you say the wrong thing I imagine you are a little moody, loyal but never to be crossed. You are an awesome businessman, truly awesome...
Jobs.. you're the creative one, perhaps a little arrogant sometimes but i imagine full of wisdom, but probably need knocking down occasionally too many people think you are too awesome. My guess is you are probably loyal and trusting but a little burnt.
Anyway guys as I sit here using your technology, giving you some money, you are a remarkable triumvirate and do yourselves a favor go out for a meal sometime as America won't see your like again for a very long time, if ever.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Heathrow Expansion
Am I the only person that can see what the solution is. I am fed up listening to people that write for the times and apparently live under the flight path, the editor of the Sunday times obviously lives in Richmond.
Let's build one in the estuary on the East Coast of England they say... yeah right and what happens to all the infrastructure that has been built around it, the massive amounts of invesment which has gone into Reading.
No the solution my friends is obvious. Build a high speed rail M25, which connects all of London's airports so expansion at Stanstead benefits Luton, expansion at Gatwick benefits Heathrow. To begin with this would just connect the airports but eventually normal commuters could exploit the trains and huge carparks can be built north of London so people can travel by high speed train to Heathrow without going on the M25, you could even charge for going on the M25 once the rail m25 has been built.
Blindingly obvious with caveat price.
Come on ladies and gentlemen let's get some creative thinking going on in public life and the media. Steal my idea make some money from it but for god sake think a little.
If after building this we need a new airport then build it, but first build the rail M25.
Let's build one in the estuary on the East Coast of England they say... yeah right and what happens to all the infrastructure that has been built around it, the massive amounts of invesment which has gone into Reading.
No the solution my friends is obvious. Build a high speed rail M25, which connects all of London's airports so expansion at Stanstead benefits Luton, expansion at Gatwick benefits Heathrow. To begin with this would just connect the airports but eventually normal commuters could exploit the trains and huge carparks can be built north of London so people can travel by high speed train to Heathrow without going on the M25, you could even charge for going on the M25 once the rail m25 has been built.
Blindingly obvious with caveat price.
Come on ladies and gentlemen let's get some creative thinking going on in public life and the media. Steal my idea make some money from it but for god sake think a little.
If after building this we need a new airport then build it, but first build the rail M25.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Overbelief. Communism\Economic Liberalism
Belief in a philosophy or idea to the exclusion of anything else is dangerous. Marx was an excellent critic of the worst excesses of British 19th Century capitalism however, his ideas of how to run a society, how to organize an economy were patently wrong, and led to some of the worst crimes of the 20th Century. He should have remained an observational writer and not talked about solutions.
He had a big idea, sadly it was a bad idea.
So now as I read the papers, as the British and Americans belief in the efficiency in the free market continues, news papers like the Economist, very fine journalists seem to blindly talk about leaving things to the market, less legislation. It is mind numbing sometimes... questions yourselves i want to say...you are not thinking you are just quoting the orthodoxy.
So why do I say this.
The country i live in has done remarkably well out globalisation, the market is a supremely efficient mechanism, yet all countries try to manipulate it and few of them are as willing as the UK to let well run, wealth producing companies disappear.
Scottish and Newcastle, a company that wanted to stay independent a successful company, yet no the needs of shareholder were paramount. The problem with the market the problem with finance in the UK is that it is always run by financial brains who chase a short-term return when this is often not in the nations interest.
They hang to this over simple idea, leave it to the market, yet they don't wonder why car companies are in Germany and they are in danger of impoverishing their children, they are denying wealth creation from the UK. Foreign companies often protected, sometimes funded by governments.. but we have a quick return today, resources can always be reallocated.. can it are you sure....
Companies must be bought and sold, the market is the best mechanism of distributing goods and services, yet should it be so easy to buy British companies? I do wonder.
He had a big idea, sadly it was a bad idea.
So now as I read the papers, as the British and Americans belief in the efficiency in the free market continues, news papers like the Economist, very fine journalists seem to blindly talk about leaving things to the market, less legislation. It is mind numbing sometimes... questions yourselves i want to say...you are not thinking you are just quoting the orthodoxy.
So why do I say this.
The country i live in has done remarkably well out globalisation, the market is a supremely efficient mechanism, yet all countries try to manipulate it and few of them are as willing as the UK to let well run, wealth producing companies disappear.
Scottish and Newcastle, a company that wanted to stay independent a successful company, yet no the needs of shareholder were paramount. The problem with the market the problem with finance in the UK is that it is always run by financial brains who chase a short-term return when this is often not in the nations interest.
They hang to this over simple idea, leave it to the market, yet they don't wonder why car companies are in Germany and they are in danger of impoverishing their children, they are denying wealth creation from the UK. Foreign companies often protected, sometimes funded by governments.. but we have a quick return today, resources can always be reallocated.. can it are you sure....
Companies must be bought and sold, the market is the best mechanism of distributing goods and services, yet should it be so easy to buy British companies? I do wonder.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Crossing the Rubicon
Narrative history at its best and the opening paragraphs are some of the best English you could read anywhere. Caesar as he stood looking across the Rubicon what must he have thought, committing a crime against the City he loved.
As a Western European, ancient Greece and Rome will always fascinate me more than the great Eastern empires, although the Mongols you could argue are the primary difference between Russia and Western Europe. If you go to Russia you can still see the genetic legacy and parts of that great country were dominated for hundreds of years by the horde, or should I say the golden horde.
Rome was the first great European empire and there began the movement of power away from the middle East, although, they had another renaissance after the collapse of the Roman empire and as we all know reintroduced Plato to Europe. So why did Rome fall and what lessons does that give us for the future?
It is a scary world for the Western powers now, as we move to a multi-polar world where power is shifting away from the traditional centres and those countries who once bestrode the world are now having to deal with a realignment. It may not appear so as Russians desperately try and live in Western Europe, impoverished Africans head in their droves to any European destination, yet Economic and military power is shifting. It might not always be so noticeable as these up and coming countries have chosen not to spend on their people. There are huge inequalities but precisely as they are not spending their wealth in such huge amounts on their social systems means they have more to spend on the military, infrastructure and perhaps nationalistic economic objectives.
Rome fell as all Empires do, now why... perhaps it is simply when a country is successful we focus on the positives and forget the negatives.... Perhaps Rome destroyed itself, its dynamism came from its competitiveness, perhaps it was the ending of the republic, perhaps it was the spread of ideas outside of its domain of control, perhaps it was the over use of lead in flavouring reducing the fertility of the elite.
So now one country bestrides the world, the sole economic and military super power. The only large country with a high standard of living, a capability to renew itself. Yet what will bring it down, perhaps it will be its short term democracy and an inability to focus on the long term. One election doesn't finish before the next one seems to start. Its people are hooked on every greater living standards, it requires always more immigrants to feed its creativity, perhaps there are the seeds of its downfall. Who knows, but as Hilary looks tearful and wonders whether she will follow her husband, pick up the book Crossing the Rubicon and wonder how will the US fall as it surely will and will it be in our life time, and does that make the world a scarier place?
As a Western European, ancient Greece and Rome will always fascinate me more than the great Eastern empires, although the Mongols you could argue are the primary difference between Russia and Western Europe. If you go to Russia you can still see the genetic legacy and parts of that great country were dominated for hundreds of years by the horde, or should I say the golden horde.
Rome was the first great European empire and there began the movement of power away from the middle East, although, they had another renaissance after the collapse of the Roman empire and as we all know reintroduced Plato to Europe. So why did Rome fall and what lessons does that give us for the future?
It is a scary world for the Western powers now, as we move to a multi-polar world where power is shifting away from the traditional centres and those countries who once bestrode the world are now having to deal with a realignment. It may not appear so as Russians desperately try and live in Western Europe, impoverished Africans head in their droves to any European destination, yet Economic and military power is shifting. It might not always be so noticeable as these up and coming countries have chosen not to spend on their people. There are huge inequalities but precisely as they are not spending their wealth in such huge amounts on their social systems means they have more to spend on the military, infrastructure and perhaps nationalistic economic objectives.
Rome fell as all Empires do, now why... perhaps it is simply when a country is successful we focus on the positives and forget the negatives.... Perhaps Rome destroyed itself, its dynamism came from its competitiveness, perhaps it was the ending of the republic, perhaps it was the spread of ideas outside of its domain of control, perhaps it was the over use of lead in flavouring reducing the fertility of the elite.
So now one country bestrides the world, the sole economic and military super power. The only large country with a high standard of living, a capability to renew itself. Yet what will bring it down, perhaps it will be its short term democracy and an inability to focus on the long term. One election doesn't finish before the next one seems to start. Its people are hooked on every greater living standards, it requires always more immigrants to feed its creativity, perhaps there are the seeds of its downfall. Who knows, but as Hilary looks tearful and wonders whether she will follow her husband, pick up the book Crossing the Rubicon and wonder how will the US fall as it surely will and will it be in our life time, and does that make the world a scarier place?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)