Category: government

Going insane with government subsidies

Governments and taxpayers keep repeating the same failed strategies in attracting new industries.

Albert Einstein is said to have defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

When it comes to funding the film industry it’s hard not to think that governments, and those who want a strong local film making communities, have all gone insane.

As discussed previously, the global producer incentive industry is a scam perpetuated by the major movie studios on gormless governments desperate for the glitz and glamour of having a Hollywood star or two come to town.

In Australia, governments are scratching around to raise change to attract a high profile Hollywood production once again – unsurprisingly to subsidise another remake of a fifty year old hit.

This is dressed up in the guise of helping build or maintain the local skill base or infrastructure. The water tank that’s expected to be used should the Aussies win the bid was built by the Queensland government in 2007 to attract aquatic themed movies, as the minister at the time said;

“As a result of having the water tank facility, the Government’s Pacific Film and Television Commission and Warner Roadshow Studios are currently in negotiations with a number of major studios requiring water tank facilities for their next major films.

“These projects under negotiation have an estimated value of $US370 million.”

Little of that money made it down under and the Gold Coast water tank stands largely unused as the Queensland and Federal governments failed to interest subsidy hungry movie producers.

When governments win those subsidised productions the local industry has brief sugar rush as providers struggle to find caterers, crew and extras required to film Superman XVIII or the fourth remake of Herbie The Love Bug. After a few months, the big producer folds their tent and moves on to the next city that spent millions attracting the studios’ favours.

Those involved in the big Hollywood production sadly go back to their day jobs and dreams of building careers in a vibrant local industry which has no chance of developing under the boom and bust cycle of major production attraction.

And so the cycle goes. At least today’s Sydney accountants can tell their kids how they once stood next to Keanu Reeves as an extra on The Matrix.

While Hollywood is the best organised at milking gullible governments, it isn’t just the film industry that pulls this scam off on taxpayers. If anything, the automobile manufacturers are probably the biggest beneficiary of government largess and produce more unloved bombs than the movie industry.

What’s particularly notable when governments announce huge licks of money for multinational corporations is just how small support is for the local industry in comparison.

A good example of this are the New South Wales film industry subsidies. The state’s Emerging Filmmakers Fund dispensed a grand $90,000 to local producers in 2012. This compares to the $6.6 million dollars spent by the state on attracting foreign productions.

Even that $6.6 million number has to be treated with caution as major productions can be subsidised from the state’s Investment Attraction Scheme – a $77 million slush fund put aside for attracting ‘footloose’ multinational business operations.

Generally payments from the IAS are ‘Commercial in Confidence’, or ‘Crooks in Collusion’ as some more cynical might put it, so it’s almost impossible for taxpayers to know how much has been lavished on attracting foreign businesses.

What is clear though is the government subsidies for foreign operators, not just in the film industry, dwarf the support given to local businesses.

During my short period working for the NSW Department of Trade and Investment more than one businessman asked me “why is your minister giving a slab of money to my overseas competitors rather than encouraging local businesses?”

It’s difficult to find a diplomatic answer that doesn’t imply that political and public service leaders are blinding the glamour and prestige of being associated with rich multinational corporations.

The real support local industries need is steady work producing products that play to their advantages, the sugar rushes of major movie productions or subsidised manufacturing only distort the market and may even damage the smaller local production companies as the wrong skillsets and infrastructure is built.

Done strategically as part of a broader, long term plan targeted subsidies to global industry leaders can work, but unfortunately few of the movie industry incentives or investment attraction schemes have that sort of thinking underlying them.

As budgets tighten with the deleveraging global economy, it’s going to be interesting to see how long governments can continue this sort of corporate welfare.

Film clapper image courtesy of Chrisgr through SXC.hu

 

Similar posts:

Smelling digital garbage

Excel spreadsheets lie at the core of business computing, but what happens when they go wrong?

Excel spreadsheets lie at the core of business computing, but what happens when they go wrong?

James Kwak writing in the Baseline Scenario blog describes how Excel spreadsheets have an important role in the banking industry and their key role in one of the industry’s most embarrassing recent scandals.

In the early days of the personal computer spreadsheets; it was company accountants and bookkeeping clerks who bought the early PCs into offices to help them do their jobs in the late 1980s .

From the accounts department, desktop computers spread through the businesses world and the PC industry took off.

Over time, Microsoft Excel displaced competitors like Excel 1-2-3 and the earliest spreadsheet of all, VisiCalc, and became the industry standard.

With the widespread adoption of Excel and millions of people creating spreadsheets to help do their jobs came a new set of unique business risks.

The weakness with Excel isn’t with the program itself, it’s that the formulas in many spreadsheets aren’t properly tested and often incorrect data is put into the wrong fields.

In his story Kwak cites the JP Morgan spreadsheets that miscalculated the firms Value-At-Risk (VAR) calculations for synthetic derivatives. The result was the London Whale debacle where traders were allowed to take positions – some would call them bets – exposing the bank to huge potential losses.

It turns out that faulty spreadsheets had a key role as traders cut and paste data between various spreadsheets and the formulas that made the calculations had basic errors.

That a bank would have such slapdash procedures is surprising but not shocking, almost every organisation has a similar setup and it gets worse as a project becomes more complex and bigger numbers become involved. The construction industry is particularly bad for this.

Often, a spreadsheet will show out a bunch of numbers which simply aren’t correct. Someone made a mistake entering some data or one of the formulas has an error.

The business risk lies in not picking up those errors, JP Morgan fell for this and probably every business has, thankfully to less disastrous results.

My own personal experience was with a major construction project in Thailand. One sheet of calculations had been missed and the entire budget for lights – not a trivial amount in a 35 storey five star hotel – hadn’t been included in the contractor’s price.

This confirmed in my mind that most competitive construction tenders are won by the contractor who made the most costly errors in calculating their price. Little has convinced me otherwise since.

In the computer industry there’s a saying that “garbage in equals garbage out” which is true. However if the computer program itself is flawed, then good data becomes garbage.

Excel’s real flaw is that it can make impressive looking garbage that appears credible if it isn’t checked and treated with suspicion. The responsibility lies with us to notice the smell when the computer spits out bad figures.

Spreadsheet image courtesy of mmagallan through sxc.hu

Similar posts:

Are there any plans to help us?

A blizzard in New York illustrates how we struggle with evaluating risk in a connected society.

Another winter storm descends upon the North Eastern United States and dozens of people get caught in the blizzard.

The New York Times describes the plight of those stuck on the Long Island Expressway and quotes Lorna Jones who was stuck in her car overnight with nothing but a bottle of Listerene for supplies.

“It’s terrible. It’s cold. I don’t know how long I’m going to be here,” said Ms. Jones, 62, a nurse who stalled near the town of Brookhaven, less than a mile from her destination. “Are there any plans to help us?”

One of the conceits of modern society is that we have help at our fingertips, that we only have to dial 911, 112 or whatever emergency code is in use and a helicopter will come to pluck us from whatever predicament we find ourselves in.

As those stuck on the Long Island Expressway found, when a real emergency hits you will join the queue in the wait for overwhelmed emergency services.

To the west, Franklin Simson’s, 18-wheeler got stuck on an exit ramp as he tried to deliver corn flour to a tortilla bakery at 3 a.m.

He said he had called the police every two hours but had received no assistance. He tried several towing companies, but they all said they were overwhelmed, he recalled. He had heat in the truck and had slept for two hours, but had no food or water.

No doubt Franklin eventually got a feed and was able to deliver his flour, which illustrates a different type of risk in an economy built around just in time logistics, but he and Lorna got off lightly – plenty of people die in these situations.

It all comes down to our modern inability to identify and evaluate risks.

Another article in the New York Times from Jared Diamond discusses the little risks in life – the one in a thousand chance events such as slipping in the shower.

These apparently small risks are actually almost certainties – if you shower once a day, you have a risk of slipping once every three years.

While it’s understandable we discount those small risks, modern communications and the perceived safety net of government regulations lull us into a false sense of security with bigger risks.

As a consequence, we invest in financial instruments we don’t understand, we rely on technologies we barely comprehend and, most importantly, we put ourselves into physical danger by venturing out into blizzards, floods or fires when anybody sensible stays at home or bunks down at the office.

Ultimately the plans to help us don’t work when dozens, hundreds or thousands of people are affected. The best we can do is to evaluate and manage risks as best as we can.

We have the tools to do this, the tragedy is we are far better informed about the risks around us than our forebears, which makes our modern inability to judge the risks we take so much more of a paradox.

Image courtesy of ColinBroug through sxc.hu

Similar posts:

Do kids really need laptops in school?

Computers are seen as essential to education, but are we mistaking the tools for the methods.

Are laptop computers really essential to educating our kids? Fairfax media reports this weekend that the Australian Federal government’s laptops in education scheme is near collapse.

What stands out from the story are the quotes from educators;

Chatswood High School principal Sue Low said her school was providing laptops to students in year 9 but the uncertainty over future plans was unsettling.

“Laptops are now just as much of the culture of education as are pens and paper,” she said. “To not have certainty over how we will administer laptops to our students is very disruptive, and we need that certainty as soon as possible.”

Some schools have come up with their own solution to the problem. One NSW school has made arrangements with a private provider under which parents can buy a laptop for $1341 or rent-to-buy for $90 with monthly payments of about $50.

That computers are important is not a debate, but are we putting to much emphasis on the tools and not enough on what education is trying to achieve?

One educator said a decade ago that they could teach an 80 year old to use a computer in a few hours, but an illiterate 15 year old may be lost for life. This is truer today than it was then.

Computers are flooding our lives with information and the tools to gather that information are intuitive and don’t need 12 years of school to master.

What we are all need are the critical and mathematical skills to filter out the dross and misinformation that floods onto our screens.

Old and young have the belief that if something is on the web, then it must be true. The biggest challenge for parents and teachers with the web is convincing kids that cutting and pasting huge slabs of Wikipedia into an assignment isn’t research.

Not that this is just a problem in the classroom – plenty of politicians, business leaders and time poor journalists have been caught out plagiarising Wikipedia and other websites.

In recent times I’ve been to a lot of ‘future of media’ events where the importance of ‘data journalism’ has been raised. What really sticks out listening to these is how poorly equipped both young and old journalists are to evaluate the data they’ve gathered.

This isn’t just a problem in journalism – almost every occupation needs these skills. We could argue those skills are essential for citizens who want to participate in a modern democracy.

Computers, and coding skills, are important but we risk giving students the skills of today rather than giving them the foundations to adopt the skills of tomorrow.

We also risk making technological choices that risk education departments, schools and kids being locked into one vendor or system.

Giving every child a laptop is not a replacement for them having the critical, literacy and numeracy skills to participate in 21st Century society.

Similar posts:

Building Africa’s multinationals

Ashish Thakkar is one of the new breed of African entrepreneurs who will shape 21st Century business.

African business site CP-Africa has a profile on the continent’s youngest billionaire, 31 year old Ashish Thakkar, based on a recent interview with the Wharton Business School.

Ashish’s story is fascinating one, his family have been refugees twice – once from Uganda when Idi Amin expelled the Indian population and later in Rwanda – and each time his father rebuilt the family’s fortunes from scratch.

In setting up his own business at 15 with a $6,000 loan, Ashish surprised Dubai authorities who thought his age was a misprint. 16 years later Mara Group operates in real estate, tourism, manufacturing and IT services across 24 countries, the bulk of them in Africa.

The interview is an insight into how African economies are evolving and how the continent is just as diverse as the others – it’s as foolish to lump all African nations together as it is to consider all Asian or European countries as being the same.

An important point that jumps out of Ashish’s interview are his thoughts on attracting foreign investment;

We have a huge issue in Africa with unemployment. Unfortunately, a lot of our governments think the answer is foreign direct investment. It’s not.

This is one of the mistakes governments around the world make – it’s understandable as those big foreign corporations are impressive and rich, there’s also the kudos a politician or public servant gets from being seen as a great statesman consorting with global captains of industry, this is one of the attractions in the annual World Economic Forum meetings in Davos.

As Ashish points out, attracting big corporations is not the answer to building a thriving, modern economy. It requires the locals to take action, not just in the business sector but right across the community.

Waiting for a big corporation to come along to kick start your business community is just a cargo-cult mentality which rarely works.

That cargo cult mentality is alive and well in western nations, a good recent example was the campaign to get Twitter to open an Australian office in Melbourne.

Like Facebook, Twitter’s representation down under would be a government liaison staffer who would be best located in Canberra.

Campaigning for this only made Melbourne look like a bunch of provincial hicks, the city and state is capable of much better.

The sad thing is all our governments do this when squandering money subsidising multinationals to set up offices that were going to be set up anyway. Business books are full of betrayed cities like New London, Connecticut who gave away tens of millions only to see their great corporate saviour walk away a few years later.

It’s far better for government to spend those millions reforming business regulations and taxes to make it easy for local businesses to compete with multinationals and become the global leaders of tomorrow.

As one of the few parts of the world that isn’t facing the challenges of an aging population, Africa economies are in a good position to spawn a whole generation of entrepreneurs and corporations. It will be interesting to see if Ashish Thakkar is leading that generation.

Similar posts:

Managing unemployment perceptions

Why did we accept one in twenty workers being unemployed as a good thing?

Stephen Koukoulas has a look at the changing composition of the Australian economy in Business Spectator today where he looks at how things have evolved over the last 50 years.

One of the notable things is unemployment and how our perception of what an acceptable level is;

Australia’s unemployment rate is 5.4 per cent at present, it was 0.9 per cent in August 1970 while in August 1951 it was a staggering 0.3 per cent.

In the 1961 Federal election the Menzies government hung on by one seat, having been punished for allowing the unemployment rate to reach the dizzying heights of 3.5 per cent.

Through the Twentieth Century, Australia’s unemployment rate averaged around 5% as shown in this Treasury graph.

Australia's unemployment through the twentieth century

What’s notable in that graph is how high unemployment became the norm in the last quarter of the century. When it became obvious politicians and economists couldn’t move the needle below 5%, the process of convincing us that five percent was ‘good’ began.

One wonders what the acceptable level of unemployment will be for the next generation. Will they consider us the failures that our grandparents would?

Image of unemployed carpenters in 1935 courtesy of the NSW State Library via Flickr

Similar posts:

Australia’s grapes of wrath

The Australian wine industry is a good example of where the country’s industrial policies and business leadership have failed.

In a great post, The Wine Rules looks at what ails the Australian wine industry after the news of Cassella Wine’s problems.

Three things jump out of Dudley Brown’s article – how industry bodies are generally ineffectual, the failure of 1980s conglomerate thinking and how fragile your position is when you sell on price.

Selling on price

It’s tough being the cheapest supplier, you constantly have to be on guard against lower cost suppliers coming onto the market and you can’t do your best work.

Customers come to you not because you’re good, but because you’re cheap and will switch the moment someone beats you on price.

Worse still, you’re exposed to external shocks like supply interruptions, technological change or currency movement.

The latter is exactly what’s smashed Australia’s commodity wine sector.

A similar thing happened to the Australian movie industry – at fifty US cents to the Aussie dollar filming The Matrix in Sydney was a bargain, at eighty producers competitiveness falls away and at parity filming down under makes no sense at all.

Yet the movie industry persists in the model and still tries to compete in the zero-sum game of producer incentives which is possibly the most egregious example of corporate welfare on the planet.

When you’re a high cost country then you have to sell high value products, something that’s lost on those who see Australia’s future as lying in digging stuff up or chopping it down to sell cheaply in bulk.

Industry associations

“It’s like a Labor party candidate pre-selection convention” says Brown in describing the lack of talent among the leadership of the Australian wine industry. To be fair, it’s little better in Liberal Party.

There’s no surprise there’s an overlap between politics and industry associations, with no shortage of superannuated mediocre MPs supplementing their tragically inadequate lifetime pensions with a well paid job representing some hapless group of business people.

Not that the professional business lobbyists are any better as they pop up on various industry boards and government panels doing little. The only positive thing is these roles keep such folk away from positions where they could destroy shareholder or taxpayer wealth.

Basically, few Australian industry groups are worth spending time on and the wine industry is no exception.

Australia conglomerate theory

One of the conceits of 1980s Australia was the idea that local businesses had to dominate the domestic market in order to compete internationally.

A succession of business leaders took gullible useful idiots like Paul Keating and Graheme Richardson, or the Liberal Party equivalents to lunch at Machiavelli’s or The Flower Drum, stroked their not insubstantial egos over a few bottles of top French wine and came away with a plan to merge entire industries, or unions, into one or two mega-operations.

It ended in tears.

The best example is the brewing industry, where the state based brewers were hoovered up in two massive conglomerates in 1980s. Thirty years later Australia’s brewing industry is almost foreign owned and has failed in every export venture it has attempted.

Fosters Brewing Group was, ironically, one of the companies that managed to screw the Australian wine industry through poorly planned and executed conglomeration. Again every attempt at expanding overseas failed dismally.

In many ways, the Australian wine industry represents the missed opportunities of the country’s lost generation as what should have been one of the nation’s leading sectors – that had a genuine shot at being world leader – became mired in managerialism, corporatism and cronyism.

All isn’t lost for the nation’s vintners or any other Aussie industry, Dudley Brown describes how some individuals are committed to delivering great products to the world. There’s people like them in every sector.

Hopefully we’ll be able to harness those talents and enthusiasm to build the industries, not just in wine, that will drive Australia in the Twenty-First Century.

Picture courtesy of Krappweis on SXC.HU

Similar posts: