Category: government

  • Are there any plans to help us?

    Are there any plans to help us?

    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?

    Do kids really need laptops in school?

    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

    Building Africa’s multinationals

    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

    Managing unemployment perceptions

    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

    Australia’s grapes of wrath

    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: