Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Tag: economy

Misunderstanding Chinese growth
When I first visited China in the late 1980s, I was amused at all the adverts for Rolex watches and Luis Vuitton handbags lining Shanghai’s Bund and the streets of Guanzhou; “how many Chinese can afford these goods?” I asked.

The response was usually along the lines of there are a billion Chinese and if only one percent can afford these products then that’s a huge market.

Over the years since we’ve seen consumer brands pour into China only to find the markets for Western style consumer goods aren’t what they expected. Many have left with their tails between their legs.

The New York Times looked at this in their weekend story “Come On China, Buy our Stuff.”

What many misunderstand is that while there are some millions of well heeled Chinese who can afford a Rolex, the vast majority simply cannot afford a Western style consumer lifestyle.

The average Chinese income in 2010 was $4,270 per person according to the World Bank. For the United States, average income was over ten times China’s at $47,000. The average across the Europe Union is just over $32,000. India’s was only $1,330.

So any business selling into the PRC expecting to find a consumer society like those of Northern Europe, Japan, the United States or Australia’s is in for a disappointing experience. Chinese households have neither the income or access to the credit lines that drove the Western consumerist societies over the last thirty years.

For economists hoping that Chinese and Indian workers can pick up the world economy’s slack by becoming consumers on a level similar to European and US workers, they are deluded; this is at least a generation away.

According to the Nation Master web site, the US had a similar average income to what China’s current levels in 1900. While there are clearly some differences in measures, we can say today’s Chinese workers are – in wealth terms – around a century behind their US colleagues.

It may take a century for Chinese workers to catch up with Europe and North America, but it won’t happen as quickly as businesses and economists hope.

Those hoping China will take up the slack left from the excesses of the 20th Century credit boom are going to have to look for a plan B. It may be up to the rest of us to find what’s going to drive the world economy for the next twenty years.

Similar posts:
January 27, 2012
The case for faster internet
The National Broadband Network (NBN) is a project designed to deliver faster and more reliable broadband to Australia’s regions. While a good idea, it’s not without its critics and a fair degree of controversy.

One of the problems the project has is the inability of NBNCo, the company established to build and run the network, to articulate the benefits and scope of the project.

Last Friday night “John from Condobolin” grilled the Gadget Guy, Peter Blasina, about the project. John’s questions, and Pete’s answers, which can be found at 35 minutes into his program, illustrates the confusion the surrounds NBN and the failure of the project’s supporters to explain the benefits.

So how should proponents of the National Broadband Network – people like me who believe that high speed broadband are the freeways and railways of the 21^st Century – respond to questions. Let’s answer John’s questions from last Friday.

Lightning might affect fibre networks

John’s first question was about lightning affecting the NBN, commenting when Pete confirmed electrical storms would affect the network that “it’s no better than the existing service.”

Sadly all infrastructure is affected by weather – a freeway is just as affected by fog as a dirt road, perhaps even more so, but it doesn’t mean you don’t build a highway because of that. The same applies for the NBN.

Interestingly the wireless and satellite alternatives proposed to fibre optic cable are even more susceptible to electrical storms, which perversely makes a better argument for running a fibre optic network.

I don’t need any NBN

“I have got quite good reception in Condobolin and I don’t need any NBN, I can assure you” was John’s next big statement.

That’s nice for John that he’s happy with what he has – the rest of us should be so lucky.

For many of his neighbours and those in the surrounding district, particularly those dealing with remote suppliers and overseas markets, reliable and fast communications are essential.

Now is good enough

A farmer doesn’t need broadband for selling into America, he’s able to do that today, was the crux of John’s next comment after he and Pete had an exchange about rolling broadband out to remote locations.

It’s true that farmers can do a lot with today’s satellite and ADSL connections, then again they were able to ship exports in the days of bullock carts and sailing ships. We could extend that argument against railway lines, roads, containers and bulk carriers.

Once upon a time some guy argued against the wheel. Today’s technology has been good enough has always been the argument of those who don’t see the benefits of new tools; we’re talking about tomorrow’s markets and society, not today’s.

Broadband is all about fibre

“You’re talking about satellite dishes and things like that, not NBN.”

The National Broadband Network isn’t just about fibre; fibre optic cables makes up the network’s core and bulk of connections, but wireless and satellite are essential in order to make sure the entire nation has access to the network.

Unfortunately the nonsense argument that technology improvements in wireless will render fibre optics redundant has been allowed to take hold by self-interested politicians and sections of the media pushing a narrow agenda.

Wireless, satellite, fibre optic and other cable technologies are all part of the mix, the real argument is on the proportions of that combination and the consequences to the government’s budget.

Spotting the clueless

As an aside, the cable versus wireless argument is a good yardstick for measuring the knowledge of anyone joining the NBN debate.

Someone clueless arguing against the project says investment in fibre optic cable is unnecessary as it’s speed and data capacities will be one day superseded by those of Wireless networks.

This betrays a failure to grasp the inherent advantage of having a dedicated cable connection to your property as opposed to sharing a wireless base station with hundreds, if not thousands, of others.

Equally anyone pro-NBN who says that fibre is faster because it travels at the speed of light is equally clueless as wireless, copper wire and even smoke signals also travel at – or close to – the speed of light.

Games and videos

“Is this only to watch videos and DVDs?” was John’s last question.

Well, does Condobolin have a video store? A quick Google search shows it does, along with local and satellite TV stations. So the residents of Condobolin are just keen as the rest of us to watch the tube.

Increasingly our viewing habits are moving online and fast broadband is necessary to deliver that. John may be happy to exclude his town from being able to do that, but my guess is plenty of his neighbours would like to have that option.

What’s more, many of those farmers, processors, trucking companies and other service providers in the Condobolin region will need those video facilities for tele-conferencing with suppliers, customers and training companies.

Building for the future

Video conferencing isn’t the only application for what we consider today to be high speed networks, these are going to change society and business in the same way the motor car changed us in the 20^th Century and railways and telegraph in the 19^th.

Australia made a mess of the railways and the roads, in both areas we’re still playing catch up. The National Broadband Network is an opportunity to avoid the mistakes of the last hundred years and get the 21^st Century right.

Unfortunately, the objectives of building a better nation are being lost in a fog of disinformation, political opportunism and corporate incompetence. We can do better than this.

Similar posts:
December 5, 2011
The agents of change
It’s understandable technologists see technology as driving change. Often it’s true – technologies do build or destroy businesses, alter economies and collapse empires.

Sometimes though there’s more to change than a new technology changing the economy and while it’s tempting to credit innovations like the web, social media and cloud computing with many of the changes we’re seeing in the world, we have to consider some other factors at work.

The end of the 40 year credit boom

In the 1960s, the United States started creating credit to pay for the Vietnam war; they never stopped and after the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks the money supply was kept particularly loose.

The worldwide credit boom allowed all of us –Greek hairdressers, Irish home borrowers, Australian electronics salesmen, US bankers and pretty well everyone else in the Western world – to live beyond our means.

In 2008, the start of the Great Recession saw the end of that period and now the economy is deleveraging. Consumers are reluctant to borrow and businesses struggle to find funds to borrow even if they want to.

Any business plans built on the idea of almost unlimited spending growth are doomed. The era of massive consumer spending growth driven by easy credit is over and the days of expecting a plasma TV in every room are gone.

The aging population

An even bigger challenge is that our societies are getting older, the assumption we have an endless supply of cheap labour is being challenged as a global race for talent develops.

The lazy assumption that economic growth can be driven by building houses and infrastructure to meet increased demands will be found wanting as the Western world’s populations fail to grow at the rates required to power the construction industries.

Our societies are maturing and increased economic growth and wealth is going to have to come from clever use of our resources.

Innovations in computers and the Internet – along with other technologies like biotech, clean energy and materials engineering – will help us meet those challenges but they are tools to cope with our transforming societies, not the agents of change themselves.

Had tools like social media come along in the 1970s or 80s they probably would have been massive drivers for change, just like the motor car and television were earlier in the 20th Century. In the early 21st Century they have been overtaken by history.

Smart businesses, along with clever governments and communities, will use tools like social media, local search and cloud computing with the demographic and economic changes, but we shouldn’t think for a minute the underlying challenges will be business as usual.

Similar posts:
October 17, 2011
Do you really want help from the government?
Pity the public servant who stands up in front of a room and asks a bunch of business owners, executives or managers what they want from government.

While there will be plenty of comments about improved procurement, less red tape and reduced fees you can be sure there’ll be plenty of demands that the government ought to subsidise something – anything – that business does.

It’s notable how free enterprise, small government and low taxation loving business people will drop their copies of Atlas Shrugged and barge their way to the feeding trough and the slightest scent of taxpayer money wafting in their direction.

But is government money really good for a business? In many cases it isn’t.

You run a business, not work in a government department

“Who pays the piper, calls the tune.” The whole idea of running a business is that you are the boss, so why do you want to answer to a government department?

If you’re self employed or just opened a startup, one of the main reasons for doing so is because you decided you no longer want to work for the man. A government grant may well open up a whole new world of paperwork that leaves you wondering why you ever left the cubicle.

The dependency culture

One of the dangers of government funding is if you are successful, you’ll find yourself hooked on it. Quickly you become better at filling in funding applications than delivering products your customers want. The Aussie film industry is a good example of this.

Governments are behind the innovation curve

Public servants are not employed to take risks, this is a good thing as it’s our money they are handling.

Because governments are risk adverse they’ll only recognise an industry – or a problem – long after it has become established.

If you find you are on the government’s help list, it might be time to consider an exit from a troubled industry.

Do you really have a business?

Many new business owners expect the government should do something to assist them in their start up phase. This is a common complaint from under capitalised proprietors.

Given the massive subsidises given out to the banks and other big corporations since the start of the great recession, this attitude can almost be excused but we can already see how well that strategy works.

If you really need a subsidy to run your business, then it’s time to consider whether you should be in business at all.

This isn’t to say all government funding is bad; well thought out programs help viable businesses with things like export assistance, skills development and employing young or disabled workers. There are many of these although the process of identifying what a viable business is usually eliminates the newest and smallest enterprises.

What is notable with the successful government programs is they address a specific need, they don’t have onerous paperwork and they are no substitute for a healthy, living cashflow and profit.

Overall though, if you really want government money then take a job with the public service. It’s a lot easier than scrabbling for grants.

Similar posts:
October 14, 2011
Survivor Bias – the danger of learning the wrong lessons
A recent blog post by Chris Guillebeau on his terrrific Art of Non-Conformity site looked at the value of qualifications.

Chris’ post is a great read and it’s obviously worked for him, though we always should keep in mind with these stories that we’re reading about someone who has managed to make it work.

We all have a lot to learn from Chris and other success stories however the winners’ tales are only half the story; that for every success who dropped out, started a business or travelled the world and did well there are many more who – for whatever reason – didn’t.

That’s part of the equation of risk, that for every success there are failures. For risking failure, the successes are rewarded – despite the best efforts of our political and corporate leaders to engineer away the risks and leave only the rewards for those best connected or placed to take them.

For every winner, it’s also worthwhile listening to those who didn’t quite succeed. The lessons from “failure” are probably stronger and just as enlightening.

Taking a jump, quitting your job, starting a business, becoming a freelancer or travelling the world isn’t for everybody. Many of us are happy staying in the cubicle or the workshop or the village and leading a comfortable, secure and safe life.

Societies need a balance of the risk taking adventurers and the anchors of solid, secure working people. Neither is wrong, neither is bad and a balance of the two is essential for a healthy, prosperous and sustainable society.

It’s not to say we shouldn’t take risks, just understand the dangers are there and your appetite for living with uncertainty before making a big step into business, travel or whatever it is where you see the opportunity.

Similar posts:
October 11, 2011