Food, India, and Growing Global Influence

Food: The Price is the Crisis

At the risk of sounding trite, the law of supply and demand still functions. To solve the price crisis in India, supply must be increased. This is a matter of "time place utility"; "form utility"; "economies to scale"; and direct foreign investment. I mention the last consideration because the advice to some can also be considered advice to another. In short, if you know where and how people are being advised to invest, you can position yourself to be the where and the how.

I've included "Having Problems with Foreign Direct Investment?" to give insight into what investors can look for. This can also give insight into those who want to benefit from the investors. I've included The Marketing of India. I've included a metaphor: Starving Nations and Food Equations: A metaphor. This is not to be interpreted as reference to people actually dying. It is to discuss the economics of agriculture.


Having Problems with Foreign Direct Investment?


What are some of the barriers?

Leverage.

ROI.


It is easy to see that start up costs in some countries are much lower than start up costs in another. If the other country does not have the physical plant for example, it will be cheaper to build that plant in the other country.

Currency considerations are another factor

Incentives from a country with little industry are greater than they are from a country where you will compete with the locals.

Market penetration. Would people in countries in the region be more inclined to buy from countries in the region or from western nations.

Partnering. It is easier to partner with business in some countries where western technology is not readily available by making that technology available.

Just a few thoughts.

Now, for a few more thought.


The Marketing of India


Find a need and fill it.

Who has a need for what you can produce?
Partner with that (nation's) companies.

In addition to the profits, offer a minority interest in the company. (This will give investors an incentive to succeed.)

Offer a profit share to the suppliers. (This will give the farmers(?) an incentive to join in the venture.

In addition to money, offer other incentives. [Prestige]. For example: Build schools in the areas where the people are most enthusiastic.

If one or two small companies cannot find the funding (through govt. funding--a bad idea) go to the marketplace.

Economies to scale.

Create a marketing group for the several smaller companies, so they can pool their resources.

In Vermont there is a joke:

Q: "Do you think the rain will hurt the rhubarb?"
A: "Not if they're in cans."

If produce spoils before it hits the market, set up a joint effort to can the produce at the source.

Roads are a government responsibility.

Just a few ideas. (Call me old-fashioned)

Anyone care to amplify, amend, or correct?

Sincerest regards,

Slim

PS. Read The Caste Busters article in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/magazine/02Striver-t.html

Mail slimfairvew@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Starving Nations and Food Equations: A Metaphor

[This metaphor does not refer to people actually dying. This refers to the discordance in the economy of agriculture specifically and in the economy as a whole.]

If one person in the group does not have enough food to eat, he may die.

For a while, that means more food for the rest of the group. However, that also means one less person to work the farm. That means less food to eat. Less food to eat means someone will die.

For a while, that means more food for the rest of the group. However, that also means one less person to work the farm. That means less food to eat. Less food to eat means someone will die.

Soon, there won't be enough people to work the farm. That means there won't be enough food to eat.

Get the idea?


Slim

Mail: slimfairview@yahoo.com


Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Food, India, the World

According to the large article in the Sunday New York Times, global food production is on the brink of disaster. This, of course, is not news to people who are starving. This is news to those who are engaged in the pretext of helping starving people to stave off the guilt of being well fed if not over fed. I call it the Ebenezer Effect. (More about that later.)

We learn from the article by Mr. Justin Gillis that the problem is multi-faceted. Increased demand from rising population and affluence coupled with a series of disasters—natural and man made have been used to create a graph whose trajectory is not good, but that there is hope.

The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus made a similar prognostication. It went like this. Food production increases arithmetically: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... The Population increases geometrically: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16… The Reverend Malthus went on to point out that, population growth is checked by famine and disease. An austere position but one that must be heeded.

After filtering out the echoes of Al Gore and Global Warming, indeed a problem (Global Warming and Al Gore) the good news spells out good news for the poor, the hungry, emerging nations and struggling economies; and, the good news goes beyond food.

Global warming and flooding have renewed the interest in agro studies. Two advances looming are flood resistant rice and drought resistant wheat.

However, as is often the case with most science, the discussion ignores many questions.

If global warming is encroaching on cooler months, will the growing season at least shift if not lengthen?

If sunlight is an issue, will that influence the type of plant modification that will become necessary?

If flooding and drought are problems, why don’t we use floodwaters to fill underground reservoirs to irrigate drought stricken fields? Hydroelectric power can run the pumps. Solar powered UV systems can disinfect the water. The reservoirs can be located beneath land that frequently suffers from droughts.

The Cost? Perhaps it would be astronomical. Plan B? No Food. People die. As plan B is not an option, let’s consider reservoirs for the floodwaters. (This, too, could ameliorate the damages caused by floods.)

Would this approach offset the negative impact of floods and droughts in Australia converting Australia into a global breadbasket?

The next issue is pricing. Food, too often, is too expensive for those with a modest income. The poor, the working poor, the middle class, all going hungry. In addition, as it is illegal for both a rich man and a poor man to sleep under a bridge, neither a rich man nor a poor man can buy food when there isn’t any.

Farmers respond to higher prices by planting more food. This drives the prices down. This cuts into farm income. This causes a cutback in food production. This causes an increase in food prices. All of this, of course, assumes that the weather has co-operated.

The platitudes of Government officials are not reassuring. Statements about “…days of cheap food being over” or “…our mindset was surpluses.” is analogous to “…the days of cheap gas are over.” Jimmy Carter, 63¢ a gallon—outrage! George W. Bush, $3.00—lament. Barack Obama, $4.00—resignation. The days of cheap gas are over. That does not translate well to food. You don’t have to drive. You don’t have to drive a gas-guzzler. You do have to eat. There are energy alternatives. There are no alternatives to food.

Some positive statistics (Caveat!): The percentage of starving among poor nations 40 years ago was 1/3 of the population of poor countries. By the 1990’s it was 20%. (Fraction to decimal?) The drop from 34% to 20% is a drop of 14%. Next: The population going hungry was 800 million. Now, it is 925 million. 925 – 800 = 125 million people. That is a 15.65% increase.

However, the world population is growing. In addition, hunger is spreading to industrial nations. That includes the U.S. Yes, the US. Yes, US!

Research budgets to find solutions are tight. In the West there is a different mindset” “If we run out of food, we just go to the supermarket to buy more.”

Another problem is contrived science.

Greenhouse gasses will fertilise the crops offsetting the decline in water and rise in temperature. Wrong. They may work as a complement to water and good weather, but as substitute, no. These ideas were propounded by experts. Does that make you feel better?

I called this contrived science. Actually, this is sad science.

Then there is social and economic policy. We converted land to grow food for people into land to grow food for cars. (Ethanol.) The problems with that:

1. There was no major benefit to the environment.

2. It drove up the cost for food.

3. It disrupted the markets.

4. It was made moot by the switch to electric or hybrid automobiles.

Number 4 will have an effect on the oil industry. This will push down the price of oil. Countries that rely on oil money to buy food will have less money to buy food. The result will be food riots, toppled government, instability, and so on.

The best we can do to forestall disaster is to have a global consortium that cannot distinguish between consensus and groupthink. A bigger problem lies in the fact that a fresh look will be taken by the people who got it wrong in the first place.

Bill Gates and his foundation are leading the way into the future. Question? Who is going to follow? While governments bump up the commitment to solving the problem, (spend money), when the problem goes away, so does the commitment.

Another issue seldom addressed is storing food. If America produces twice what we need, we can store half of what we produce. Other countries, those who are blessed to produce enough, cannot afford to store enough to offset the impact of natural disasters in addition to man made disasters--and I am not talking about global warming.

1. Drought

2. Floods

3. Crop Disease

4. Population rise

5. Food Hoarding

6. Food Riots

7. Government Collapse

8. Anarchy

&c.

China has a population of 1.35 Billion people. China must deal with a flood here and a drought there. What happens when China has 2.35 Billion people?

India is emerging as a technological superpower. It won’t be long before a clear sighted, market driven, goal oriented approach takes root and flourishes. In addition, India is developing flood resistant rice. Soon, food processing will help get food to markets rather than rot in the field. Farms will evolve into agro-business. There will be improved channels of distribution, cash crops for export, and commodity futures investments. This will have a two-fold effect. Affluence will drive up the demand for food. India may become more vulnerable to disaster.

If you refer to comments I made about oil price declines and natural disasters having a negative impact on the people of oil-export nations, you will see that the Arab Spring could turn into an Arab Winter.

If the population of the US increases by 10%, we add another 30 million people. If India (with a population of one billion people) has a population increase of 10%, India will have to feed an additional 100 Million people. Op. cit. my comments on food storage.

In addition to the food crisis turmoil, we will see population migrations that will redefine the matrix.

Can Australia become a breadbasket nation to the world? Can India? Will China be able to feed itself? Will Africa?

All of this so far has ignored another looming problem. Energy. Germany and Switzerland are ending their love affair with nuclear energy.

CNN reported that China is planning to build 400 nuclear power plants compared (contrasted) to the 400 new plants being built in the rest of the world. Rather than predict a nuclear disaster—that is the easy part—I will predict a depression in oil prices.

True, clean energy initiatives may help to advance the hydroelectric, solar, and wind powered energy industries. In addition, Canada may resurrect the hydroelectric project shelved when Mario Cuomo (New York Governor) decided not to buy Canadian Power.

Then there is the possibility of political backlash in the United States. There may be a power shift in Washington. The Tea Party out! The Lunch Crowd in! What would happen if we elect Food Hoarding Agro-isolationists?

The world can no longer play a zero-sum game.

The Future of the G 20 in Good Times and Bad

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/the-g-20-in-good-times-and-bad-5802178

Then there is the issue of people simply not understanding economics. If you listen to economists you will know why. With so much disagreement among them, one isn't certain if economists understand economics. Thus:

http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/01/economics-illustrated-primer-in.html

Then, “When the tide comes in, all boats in the harbour rise.”

Now, “When the boat sinks, everyone on the boat drowns.”

Regards,

Slim

slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

The Middle East. Problem? Solution!

The Middle East

With approximately 5,000 years of wisdom and culture to build upon, the question is not, what is happening in the Middle East, the question is why?

I ask this question not from the Western Perspective. We had our revolution. The French have Bastille Day. The English have Runnymede.

While the American style government may not suit the people in the Middle East (The Arabs don’t want Western Government, The Arabs want Western Freedom.), and while citing The English may be poor salesmanship, there must be something within the Arab culture and history that will allow a peaceful transition into the future that is preferable to the efforts now being made to change the course of history.

It seems axiomatic. You can change the course of history but you cannot stop history from happening. You cannot stand in the way of history. It is coming. The conundrum: you won’t know what happened until it does.

Now, you can say, “You cannot predict the future.” However, that is not an appropriate rebuff to the person who says, “Get off the tracks, the train is coming.”

Then, too, there is the failed policy of shooting the messenger.

All this begs the question, ‘What can be done to smooth the transition?”

Arab leaders working from a propter hoc position. (Because of the fact that there is no immediate precedent for what is happening in the Middle East.)

Each leader, each nation, is attempting to come to an understanding of what is going on in his nation, with his people and how best to respond? True, there are religious differences. There are different economic circumstances. There are different global alliances—both historical and expedient. This, however, ignores the old saying; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Leaders of all the Middle East nations would do well to follow the example of some of the Middle East nations. That example would be to have a conclave (A Private Meeting) of the Leaders of the Middle East nations and the Reform Movement Leaders. Look to a nation like Turkey to host the meeting.

Remember:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

Omar Khayyám

Regards,

Slim

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

Why I Read Newspapers

Slimviews:  Commentary on Global Political and Economic Events by Slim Fairview Please also see also http://sidestreetjournal.blogspot.com/  Please do click the follow button for Slimviews--and please email a link to your friends.  Thank you.

Slim

Why do I prefer getting my news from newspapers?

That is analogous to why I prefer writing to talking. When I write, you can’t interrupt me. You can disagree with me. You simply cannot interrupt me.

“No one agrees with someone else’s opinion, only his own opinion expressed by someone else.” – My Dad.

You can stop reading what I wrote. You can tear up the paper, you can scream at the screen, you can even make a peanut butter and banana sandwich and shoot the computer, but you can’t interrupt me.

In addition to your disagreeing with me, and the aforementioned options for reacting to what I wrote, you can rise up in opposition. You can write an opposing piece or speak out in forums that offer the option.

Now, you have two options.

1. You can express an opposing view.

2. You can express your opposition to my view.

The latter, however, leaves your audience at a bit of a loss without their being able to read what I wrote. You must reference what I said. If you are preaching to the choir, it doesn’t matter.

However, if you are addressing people with a sincere interest in the topic, they will read what I wrote. At this point, you lose dominance over the audience. Your audience can read my monograph without interruption, form their own opinions, and draw their own conclusions. They may agree with you, they may agree with me. (Put your stick down. They can’t see you and they can’t hear you.)

Such is the way it is when I read the newspaper. I can read a columnist. I can read another. I can read two newspapers for opposing views. I can read the editorial, I can read an op-ed, and I can read the letters to the editor. I can form my own opinions. I can form my own opinions in quiet contemplation.

This option is seldom available when TV News becomes entertainment.

When those with opposing views appear on television, they can express their opinions in turn, express them simultaneously, tell half-truths, or engage in evasions or misrepresentations. That is not news. That is not debate. That is pure theatre. The theatre of the perturbed.

Any questions?

Well: “Don’t bother asking me. You don’t want to hear my opinion; you want to hear your opinion.”

From The Quotations of Slim Fairview.

Regards,

Slim

 

PS.  I am not Paul Harvey.  Still, I am open to becoming a paid blogger, columnist, or commentator.

In the meantime, if anyone finds the monographs on my blog to be especially helpful, please do not hesitate to send me on of those tricked out laptops and few dollars tucked into the envelope with the thank you note.

Sincerely  

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

You Go Into an Ice Cream Parlour

 

You go into an ice cream parlour. You sit in a booth. You look at a menu. You like cherry vanilla ice cream. You check the sizes available. You look at the prices. You order cherry vanilla, you eat cherry vanilla, you enjoy cherry vanilla, you leave a tip, pay your bill and leave.

I go into an ice cream parlour. I stand in line at the counter. I see the assorted flavours in their containers in the freezer case. I see the maple-walnut, the butter-pecan, the chocolate. I see the dishes, the sizes, the cones, and the variety of cones, the sprinkles, and the toppings. I decide I can handle two scoops. Butter-pecan and chocolate. I ask for hot-fudge. I ask for wet-walnuts. I pay the bill, leave a tip and enjoy the ice cream, the toppings, and the experience.

You enjoy the ice cream. I enjoy the experience and the ice cream.

The problem arises when there are too many choices. Though perhaps not with ice cream, but perhaps with sweaters.

You have an event to attend. You shop for a sweater. The choices are red, white, and blue.

You don’t want white, because it shows every little spot. Red, well, you have a skirt to go with a red sweater, but only one. Blue is nice. You have a blue sweater but it is light blue. This is dark blue. It goes with several skirts. You buy the blue sweater. You have closure. You are happy.

Your friend is attending the same event. Your friend goes to another store. There are many colours from which to choose.

Your friend thinks green. Will it go with her outfit? There is mint green. Too light? Kelly green. Too bright? Forest green. Too plain? What about blue? Royal blue, navy blue, sky blue, or aquamarine?

Your friend decides on the Kelly green. Your friend gets home and has doubts about her choice. Your friend reviews the options she’d had in the store. Your friend does not have closure. Your friend is not happy.

There are different aspects to life. How we approach each event is determined more by the event.

The considerations:

Cost

Duration

Purpose

Previous experience

Rather than approach the activity at hand, or the choices among different activities available, focus on the different aspects of the experience and match them up to what you are looking to find in the experience.

If all you want is an ice cream, buy a package of Klondike Bars at the supermarket. If all you want to do is wear a sweater, pull one out of your closet. When you go beyond that, think about what you really want from the experience.

 

For those who might enjoy an extended metaphor on the topic
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/05/you-go-into-ice-cream-parlour.html

 Regards,

Slim

slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

Designing Qualified Employees for the Renewable Energy Industry

On the news: A report on the two-year degree tech employee.

Part of the problem with the lack of qualified employees in the tech industry, specially the renewable energy industry, is the self-defeating ideas about qualified employees and schooling.

Our renewable energy industry may go out of business waiting to convince the public of the need for tech education then waiting for the supply of educated applicants to rise to meet demands in hiring.

The energy industry, (renewables) may just have to man up and own up to the fact that the traditional pipeline of qualified employees has gone the way of the dinosaur. (Allusion to oil intended.) What the renewable energy industry has to do is to educate and or train the needed employees themselves. Get rid of the "stuck in the mud" mentality of credentialism.

The programmes and solutions floating around have the same odious flavour of the Jimmy Carter job training idea of reducing (double-digit) unemployment: Tax business, to train people for jobs that won't exist because business can't afford to hire people due to higher taxes.

Real employers, with real jobs, train their own people. Energy does not get a magical pass. Hire people with the capability to learn the job. Put them through an on-the-job training programme to handle the mechanical aspects and an educational programme to educate them to the technical aspects.

It is analogous to the Theory plus Case Method of education

Good luck.

Slim

slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

The Failure of US Diplomacy in the Middle East 3.0

The impending failure of Western Diplomacy discussed in the previous monograph on the topic is now focused on the US.

Few people analyse a situation as it is. Most interpret the situation in a way that best helps their agenda.

Here is an analogy. The math analogy plays well to America’s position in international testing among school students.

With global relations, the dispute is not that 10 x 10 = 100. Upon that, we can all agree. However, when the teacher poses the question to her class and Billy responds 99, we break into two camps. One camp says that 99 is 99% correct. The other camp says that 99 is 100% wrong. Neither side realises that Billy does not understand arithmetic.

We are so focused on the American paradigm that we lack the ability to grasp the concept of what we are dealing with.

In the previous monograph, I said that we assume that the Arab Spring will result in a region of Pro-Western democracies. In 1776, we had a revolution. We built a democracy. We assume the same will hold true for the Middle East. We simply do not allow, for example, that Libya will be a country run by ruling councils.

Let us assume, however, for the purposes of discussion, that there is a wave of revolutionary fervor throughout the Middle East. Let us assume further, that there are a dozen democracies. Why should we then assume that the democracies would become our allies and trading partners?

The problem with Western Diplomacy is that it is a product of Western Diplomacy. Perhaps we are attempting to celebrate the success of Ben Franklin, Ambassador to France—200 years ago. The conundrum? The Middle East is not France.

We have decided, over the past several decades, that we will treat people the way we want to be treated. Nothing wrong with that if we want to be treated with respect. The simplistic solution is to treat people with respect and we will be respected. The problem with that is that different people define respect in different terms.

“If we were more concerned with being respectable and dignified, we would be more often treated with dignity and respect.” Slim Fairview.

Libya is not Egypt. Syria is not Libya.

I’d said, on previous occaision, that we are not fighting three wars in the Middle East. We are not fighting two wars in the Middle East. We are fighting one war in the Middle East. I was wrong. The war we are fighting is with ourselves.

If the Arab Spring spreads to other nations, those nations may very well form a Middle Eastern Diplomatic Union. (Thing of The European Union except with more money, less debt.)

There might not be an OPEC style union but rather a free-market union. One with the Union Members’ self-interest as the cornerstone. Not an ideological self-interest, not a theological self-interest, but rather an economic self-interest. Are we prepared for another “front”? Financially? Economically?

View our immigration policies. We are disputing immigration reform. The two sides of the issue are the interests of the immigrants and our national self-interest. (Economic and Security) We applaud our munificence. However, almost all of the immigrants come from countries with relatively few freedoms and with poor economic conditions. We completely ignore the fact that the immigration rise can be attributed to the conditions in the countries from which the immigrants emigrate. We help a few thousand while a few million continue to suffer. We hurt many and help few.

We’ve had a history of embracing these failed polices: The pursuit of symbolic gestures over substantive gains. Here are some examples from the past 60 years.

Penal reform in the late 50’ and early 60’s intended to reduce recidivism in our prisons resulted in a rise in crime and a rise in the prison population.

Parole reform, intended to reduce recidivism resulted in a rise in crime and a rise in the prison population.

We repeatedly attempted to tax our way to prosperity. Then we attempt to cut the programmes the money is being spent on.

Add to that the fact that we’ve outsourced jobs to cut costs to increase corporate profits to stay in business. The result? We’ve put our American customers out of work here at home. The result? The American customer can’t afford to buy our products. The result? Lower sales. The result? Lower corporate profits.

What will happen if the Middle Eastern nations form a Diplomatic Union? They will go into the free market. China is becoming an increasingly more profitable customer. Latin America is emerging from economic turmoil to economic growth. Can anyone see a symbiotic relationship between the Middle East (oil), China (money), and Latin America (expanding markets)?

We don’t need to rethink our Middle Eastern Diplomatic relationships. We need to learn how to do business globally.

For additional reading:

The G-20 in Good Times and Bad

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/the-g-20-in-good-times-and-bad-5802178

Global Management: A shift in the paradigm of corporate America.

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/global-management-5415780

The impending Failure of Western Diplomacy in the Middle East.

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/the-impending-failure-of-western-diplomacy-in-the-middle-east

The Fallacy of US Diplomacy in Libya

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/the-fallacy-of-us-diplomacy-in-libya

Social Media is the Medium: Greater than the sum of its parts.

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/social-media-is-the-medium

Regards,

Slim

slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

Can We All Come to a Consensus on Group Think?

We must liberate ourselves from the notion that a gutsy leader will arise to save us. Remember the admonition: "...a confederacy of dunces will rise up around him..."

I am now 4 decades into discussing group-think.

Let's assume for the moment that:

a. W still have group think.
b. We must get rid of group think.

Now, we are still discussing group think.

Is is possible that all the methods to get rid of group think have failed? As evidenced by the fact that we still have group think--yes.

Do we ever come up with a new way to get rid of group think? No.

Is that group think? Yes.

By constantly clutching to the notion that we must get rid of group think, and constantly pursuing the sames methods to get rid of group think, are we not merely perpetuating group think but also reinforcing group think?

The focus is always to narrow.

Bring as many different people into the group to get as many different ideas as possible.

Cultivate a culture of shared vision. (Shared vision?)
The visioning process.
Team building. (Cohesion)
Consensus building.(Group think)

Get rid of as many different ideas as we can until we have consensus.

Call this Leadership in Action.

I will be the leader. I will get as many different people on my team as I can. I will lead the group to share a vision. I will engage in team building exercises. I will achieve consensus.

If it works, I am a visionary leader. If it fails, I fell victim to group think.

And, now, you can see the process for what it is.

If you treat everyone to lunch, you will have achieved "Bread & Circus".

Regards,

Slim

Mail: Slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Common Sense and Common Business Practices

Case in point.

There is a theorem in Geometry: If a line intersects a circle at one point, (tangent) then a line drawn from that point to the center point of the circle will be perpendicular. (90 degrees). This makes sense. If you think about it, it makes more sense. Common sense will say, “It seems to be impossible to be any other way.” (Still, common sense says, “Still, it must be proved.”)

One reason this must be proved is that theorems that are more complex are not easily deduced by looking at them. Therefore, you must learn proofs.

Still, common sense is a great way to avoid pitfalls. In addition, what I said above, contravenes what I believe. (About management, not about geometry.)

I believe common sense is still the better way to go most times. However, I also know that it is necessary to have some analytical support.

[Remember, I make only two claims. I have an analytical mind and the ability to speak in metaphors.]

The reason why people choose common sense, however, is that people become bogged down in analysis. This is due, in part, to a lack of common sense. In addition, there is an attempt to use analysis to delay implementing strategy by those who lack sufficient analytical skills to arrive at a conclusion. The conclusion part is what causes people to become flummoxed.

Now, what gives us the courage to formulate and implement strategy?

That courage is the result of experience, intelligence, education, and skill. From these arise the courage necessary to form a strategy you have faith in and to execute without the hesitation—hesitation that is rewarded with failure. You cannot jump halfway across a stream without falling in. (And you cannot turn back in mid-air.)

Another problem is the impediment of plausibility.

With computers, certainly, and with calculators at the very minimum, it would seem unnecessary to memorise the times tables. The argument could be made that the results of the calculator are valueless unless you know enough math to recognise the answers as the correct ones. However, that falls apart when you get into numbers larger than you might handle in the fourth grade.

Then, why memorise the times tables?

Well, there are other (ancillary) skills that you will acquire by memorising the times tables.

It helps to develop memory skills

It helps to develop concentration.

It helps to increase attention span.

It helps to develop the ability to sit in one place for a longer time.

It helps students to learn math more easily with fewer frustrations and distractions.

These are benefits acquired by memorising the times tables.

The other skills gained by memorising the times tables are quantifiable. Now, compare and contrast that with the statement:

“Memorisation stifles creativity.”

This statement may or may not be true. It may or may not depend on our definitions of creativity.

People will become bogged down with a discussion that pretends to analyse the facts. This, “becoming bogged down with analysis”, becomes the impetus for using common sense at the expense of substantive facts.

Common sense will tell us much when we are confronted with analysis offered up by those who lack common sense, embrace an ideology (or a product to sell), who lack analytical skills, and in general seek validation by attention seeking.

Common sense will tell you when the analysis is bad only when you lack the capacity to analyse.

Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

GroupThink 2.0

I sat on an economic development committee for over two years. In that time, I observed a group of people, some professionals (CEO banking), economic development, etc. and community people. (Business people.)

I observed the group. There was no group think. It looked like someone trying to herd cats.

After two years of attempting to stimulate investment, attract business, deal with green fields and brown fields, we finally had the opportunity to entertain a state official of the department that hands out grant money. (It's their job to give money away.)

We put on a great presentation, tour, helicopter, luncheon, the works. We got shot down--unceremoniously. (As Mrs. Slocum used to say, "How ignimonious" sic)

Upshot. "We give money for projects, not plans."

They licked their wounds. Still, they did not accomplish much.

On another committee, (Finance committee of a government programme.) I opined on moving funds into technology related projects. Website development, improvement, etc. People listened to me. We voted, agree--unanimously--funds were moved. Subsequently, the web presence and technology use became vital. We were that much ahead of the game.

Group think is a result of consensus building which was a consequence of the absence of leadership. Too, an absence of followship.

I addressed that issue in another discussion where a budding expert was giving examples of how he/she helped groups avoid group think. In short, this individual encouraged group think.

It is somewhat disheartening to watch (as I watched the members of that economic development committee), people discussing the same issues that had been discussed, have been discussed, are being discussed and will continue to be discussed.

I've studied groups, been in groups, been in a group that studied itself, worked in groups, on committees, on a committee to form a committee to set up a programme to form committees, and I dissected the different structures used handle projects and explained why each does not work. However, as I am adamant in my opposition to articles that are descriptive and not prescriptive, I also set up an organisational chart that will work for one of my ppt. presentations.

As I read in clever book on management just the other night (While waiting for my cat to come home) Come Together: The Business Wisdom of the Beatles by Richard Courtney and George Cassidy.

"Parks are full of statues erected to honour leaders. There are no statues erected to honour committees."

"This too shall pass."

In the heat of battle, no one turns to a committee. Everyone looks to a leader. See who they are looking to. That is a leader. That is the leader.

In my much younger days, when I took a holiday job while I was working on a novel, the VP came in, furious, because the department was in a chaotic state. For the second time. He asked my supervisor,

"What do we have to do to get this straightened out?"

My supervisor looked to me. The VP looked to me. I had a second operation (holiday) up and running the following day. And I was not even an actual employee of the company. Only a holiday temp.

The VP did not say, let's form a committee to find a solution. I did not receive a smiley face key chain.

The flip-side to one aspect on group think is that people propose new ideas, however, 1. due to group think the ideas are rejected; 2. due to a lack of ability demonstrated by several members of the group, the new idea is rejected; 3 lack of ability of the "leader" the idea is rejected; there is a divisiveness among the group (for and against) we move into the mode of consensus building and the new idea is watered down to where it is palatable....

However! The biggest problem with respect to "group think" is hiding in plain sight. The word "group". In addition, if you do "win over" the other members of the group and all embrace your new idea you end up with [wait for it]

GroupThink 2.0

Now you have two conflicting ideas at play. 1. Getting rid of Group Think and 2. Consensus building. On the corporate level, you have Risk Management and Risk Assessment. There is a cost-benefit analysis that new ideas must go through.

Finally (or not) there is the needy member(s) of the group who, after having an idea rejected, refuse to accept that the idea was rejected on the basis of a lack of merit, but who feel personally demeaned, diminished, marginalised and so on.

A greater reason that people do not propose new ideas is a personal one--the lack of ability to make objective assessments.

Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Osama Bin Laden Hiding in Plain Sight Cite

The recent death of Osama Bin Laden (Geronimo ekia) in a million dollar home near Abbottabad has media tongues wagging. Why? The town is located in the outskirts of Islamabad the capital of Pakistan.
 

What we are really seeing as we watch the news is the clash between the subtle nuances of multinational Diplomatic Relations, and a simplistic view of the world.

Part of this arises from our exposure to Middle Eastern culture having been limited to the movies, Casablanca and Algiers. I will focus on the latter.

In Algiers (the capital of Algeria, a country in northern Africa), a French jewel thief (played by Charles Boyer) is hiding out in the “old quarter” in a place known to the world as The Casbah. However, the only thing we truly know about the Casbah, aside from it’s being a labyrinthine piece of ancient architecture, is what we learned watching cartoons as children.

In the Warner Brothers cartoon, a character (an amorous skunk) known as Pepe le Pew, would hotly pursue a black cat (who having ended up with a stripe of white paint down her back took on a skunk-like appearance). As he would embrace the feline of his affections, he would utter such romantic nothings as, “Come wiz me to zee Casbah”.

Back to Algiers.

In Algiers, in The Casbah, Pepe le Moko is visited each day by an Algerian Police Detective—Inspector Slimane. The good inspector knows, however, that it is impossible to arrest Pepe in The Casbah. This is the reason he is allowed to “find” him. In addition, he knows that if he arrests Pepe, he will not be able to bring him out of The Casbah. This, he has difficulty explaining to the visiting French Prefect. 

 (Now, you may call me a flawed human being, but I liked the inspector in the fez. My apologies to Turkey and to the Turkish people who’ve outlawed the wearing of the fez.)

Inspector Slimane’s admonition: “When one can’t use guns, one must work with brains.”

Now that we have a background in our limited understanding of the Middle East (Which we’ve learned from a movie set in North Africa) we shall move on to Pakistan.

Pakistan is an ally whose President is in an untenable position.

Pakistan and India enjoy a misalliance. India is Hindu, Pakistan is Muslim. Each enjoys a diplomatic affiliation with China. India is an ally and trading partner of the United States.

Pakistan is caught between having diplomatic and military ties to the United States and the West on the one hand and a people ardently opposed to the United States in particular and the West in general on the other. 

The President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, has to maintain a level of stability with a political acumen that goes beyond anything we can imagine.  

The most difficult domestic problems we deal with in the political arena are the carping of those in the opposing party or an embarrassment cause by an extreme faction demonstrating for or against a position on an issue.

Some of the comments arising from the death of Osama Bin Laden and made by experts in global diplomatic and military affairs are: 

Osama Bin Laden was in a gilded cage. He couldn’t leave his compound. (Remember Pepe le Moko.) He was actually a prisoner of Pakistan.

The Pakistani government had to have known that Osama Bin Laden was there and gave him safe shelter.

Well, if we were watching the compound for eight months, the Pakistani government also had to have known we were there.

With the operations we were engaged in (the bombing of terrorist encampments), could the Pakistani government really believe Bin Laden would be safe if they harboured him in the Mansion on the Hill?

President Asif Ali Zardari’s remarks were for the benefit of the Pakistani people.

President Asif Ali Zardari is charged with the responsibility of representing the interests of the people of Pakistan. And so on. 

There may be an element of truth to some or all of the above. This does not deny the Media the First Amendment right to express opinions; or to insinuate opinions by asking questions with an urgent tone and a forward leaning posture intended to suggest gravitas.

Diplomacy. In the refined and cultured and nuanced world of diplomacy, what is important is quite often what is unsaid, but understood. 

As my Aunt Jean once said of men’s jewellery, “I believe a man’s jewellery should be looked for but never seen.” 

In Diplomatic discussions, what we mean should be understood, not said.

A more clear explanation: From the Quotations of Slim Fairview

Diplomacy:  If it has to be explained, it isn't diplomacy.

We should understand that President Asif Ali Zardari has a job to do on behalf of the People of Pakistan. 

We should understand that we have also have a job to do.  

The Media has a job to do.  

However, most important, we should understand that in the area of International Relations, we should not use our playbook alone when we have people on our team from different countries.

This is why I posted the monograph, “The Impending Failure of Western Diplomacy in the Middle East.”  

The Link: 

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/the-impending-failure-of-western-diplomacy-in-the-middle-east

It is also the reason I posted the monograph, “What do we want? When do we want it? How do we get it?  

The Link:

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/what-do-we-want-how-do-we-get-it

When I was a youngster sitting in school, grammar school, we were taught, 

“We may not agree with what they have to say, but they have the right to say it.”

Now, we are taught, 

“They may not agree with what we have to say, but we have the right to say it.”

We have abandoned our pursuit of fulfilling our responsibilities in favour of pursuing our rights. 

Defending our rights is a good thing. 

Defending our rights is slightly different from pursuing them.

Now, we see Pakistan and President Asif Ali Zardari being vilified about the location of Osama Bin Laden’s “Casbah”.

The assailing of Pakistan and President Asif Ali Zardari is neither fair, nor accurate, nor productive. It arises from our need to eschew the news in favour of entertainment.  

Too many people, today, choose a lust for symbolic gestures over substantive gains.

Regards,

Slim 

Mail: Slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

What do we want? How do we get it?

US forces kill bin Laden in firefight in Pakistan - The Boston Globe

What do we want? How do we get it?

The issue of Afghanistan references my comments on the world relying on the Zero Sum Game approach to future planning.

It is easy to ask, "What do the Afghan people want?" However, different people in Afghanistan may have different agendas and goals. It is not sufficient to say, "What do we want, when do we want it?" The real issue is "What do we want, how are we going to get it?" Then you must add, "What do we have to give to get it?" Other Afghans have goals. Some are mutually exclusive. The Win-Win platitude is great. However, for both sides to get something, each side must give up something.

The question also relies on issues I’ve raised in my monograph, “The Impending Failure of Western Diplomacy in the Middle East.

Essential reading:

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/the-impending-failure-of-western-diplomacy-in-the-middle-east

And a viewing of my SlideShare ppt. presentation

The Future of the G 20 in Good Times and Bad

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/the-g-20-in-good-times-and-bad-5802178

Old Chinese Saying--A white horse is not a horse.

Chinese Wisdom: In the West, when you want privacy, you go into a lock room. In the East, when we want privacy, we go into an open field.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Santayana

Those who never learned history are doomed—period. Slim Fairview

From: The Quotations of Slim Fairview © 2011 Slim Fairview

Warmest regards,

Slim

Mail: slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

The Paradox of Cobb's Paradox

Needless to say, I Googled Cobb's Paradox.

My first impression is that it is based on the assumption that we know why projects fail.

Assuming we do know why projects fail, do we know why this project failed?

Assuming that we know why this project failed, could we have known why this project would have failed.

Assuming that we know why this project would have failed, was there anything we could have done about it?

Assuming that we know why this project will fail, is there anything we can do about it?

Assuming we know why this project will fail, why do we go ahead with the project?

Here is the real paradox:

Knowing that we know Cobb's Paradox, and assuming it is valid, why do we continue to discuss Cobb's Paradox?

Knowing that we know Cobb's Paradox, and assuming it is invalid, why do we continue to discuss Cobb's Paradox?

Discuss.

Regards,

Slim

ps. This material will be on the final exam.

Mail Slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Better Than Brand New--New Theories In Education

First:

I taught math, very briefly. I taught in parochial school. My students voted math their favourite subject.

There is no teacher test in the world that will tell the principal what he or she needs to know in order to say, "I can see from the results of your teacher test that your students will vote math their favourite subject."

I left teaching because I could not afford to live on the pay in a parochial school, and I refused to embrace the theories in education propounded by those hired by the "boards of ed" to improve education in public school.

"Okay, class, how much is 10 x 10?"

"Okay, class, Billy says, 10 x 10 = 99"

"Now there are some old-fashioned, draconians who insist that 100 is the only correct answer. However, even if we pretend they are right, Billy said 99. That makes Billy 99% correct."

Second

When I was in High School, we were told that only two high schools in the state required 4 years of math. I didn't go to one of those schools. I went to the other one. My grades went as follows. c; c+; b; b+; A!

I earned an exemption from the final exam. Jesuits do not believe in grade inflation. What I accomplished was hard work. Thus, I worked hard.

The problem with every theory on how to improve education that is implemented in the classroom is that it is predicated on the assumption that the students embrace the theories of the person(s) who've come up with the theory.

The results of the projected improvements in student performance are not connected to the performance of the students. The results are intended to validate the theories of the experts who've implement them. In short, the experts got paid to do that stuff.

Third

My understanding of the "every child is gifted" school of education is that every child can (wants to) learn math at a very high level. It never occurs to anyone that to learn math at a very high level means not doing something else at a very high level. Drama club, soccer, oil painting, learning to play the French Horn. Dare to suggest that to any expert and he will insist that these are not mutually exclusive. He insists on that because that was what he got paid for.

Certainly, any child can learn high-level math. I will say that again for those who will choose to pretend that they "must have missed it, still..." Certainly, any child can learn high-level math. Now, each child, learning at his or her rate/consistent with ability will take varied amounts of time. If those running the school insist on mainstreaming, the teacher in a class of 30 will perhaps, explain the lesson to 3 children once, 4children twice, 5 children three times, 6 children four times, 5 children five times, 4 children six times, 3 children seven times. This alludes to the bell curve the author referenced at the beginning of the article. Now, explain how the first three children will learn high-level math, listening to the same lesson seven times. Yes, any child can learn high level math.

To understand the use of math to obfuscate the problems in education, lets look at reading. And Professor Harold Hill.

Yes, my friends, you have trouble. Right here in River City, with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stand for phonics. You have one, two, three, four, five vowels in the alphabet. With 21 consonants you have 62 trillion, 900 billion, aught '09 combinations. No wonder your children can't read. You don't need to know phonics to talk, do you? You just think of a word and say it."

Back to math.

If your children haven't memorized the times tables (grade appropriate), your children will be spinning their wheels in math. Compare and contrast that statement with those who say,

"Memorization stifles creativity. No wonder the Chinese children and the Russian children and the German children outperform our children in international math competitions."

If any of you have doubts about the veracity or efficacy of what I have to say in this monograph, please enjoy some further reading.

"Teachers aren't allowed to teach anymore."
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2010/06/teachers-arent-allowed-to-teach-anymore.html

"How many parents want their children to get the appearance of an education?"
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-many-parents-want-their-children-to.html

"No excuse to fail."
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2010/06/no-excuse-to-fail.html

Three monographs on my blog about classroom happenings.

For my challenge to the experts, my blog contains a monograph entitled, wait for it,

Experts???
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2010/11/experts.html


Please feel free to Google me. Slim Fairview.

Sincerest regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (C) 2011 Slim Fairview

The Unforeseen in Project Management

"There are no unintended consequences--only unwanted consequences." Slim Fairview

If you have assembled a team that includes people with experience, you can minimize the unknown unknowns.

Perhaps what you mean are the unforseeables that can't be foreseen. Don't let what may happen complicate the task at hand. Too many people, (Me included) have worried about what might happen that they create problems for them selves that would not have happened it they'd been doing their jobs in the first place instead of worrying. (There is a sentence in there, somewhere, some assembly required.)

Needless to say, when the problem comes up, they declare it the result of an unknown unknown. Don't worry about it.

Assemble a team with people who have experience. (In different areas.) Keep a network of people who've had to work in crisis management situations. (It needn't have been a big crisis, the thought process is the same.)

Then get back to work. If something should crop up, (dare I say it) call a meeting.

A Small Meeting. One with a few people skilled in the particular area of contention.

Now, it should be just about tea time across the pond, enjoy a glass of chateau Fleet Street, and remember the admonition of Horace Rumpole: Never ask the witness a question unless you yourself know the answer.

Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

UR Ad $$$ @ Wrk! The FOX in the MAD House

Fox Network and the Young Viewers. UR Ad $$$ @ Wrk!

This almost seems to repudiate my belief that television advertising is not the wave of the future.

I stated earlier that the networks are trying to attract viewers who don't watch television by broadcasting programmes that appeal to viewers who don't watch television. Thus, driving away audiences that do watch television.

Now, what did Mad Men think would happen when television went from a few stations, 2,4,5,7,9,11,13 and sometimes 31 to 150 stations?

Well, ad-heaven is an optimistic way of looking at it. It would have appeared that this meant more advertising dollars and a better bottom line for the agency. Of course, the number of viewers per station would be small. This brings a new market. Niche advertising. "Yes, Virginia, there really is an all golf network."

This reminds me of the joke about the man telling his friend that, "My son got his bachelors degree. Now he's going for his masters. After that, he's going for his PhD."

When his friend asked him what all that means, he replied, "That's when you learn more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing.

None-the-less, the market forces came to the fore and the advertising industry is alive an well. Good news, bad news. The good news is that there is a television series about the industry. The bad news is, that is about the industry 50 years ago.

I've often had to be all things to all people. Well, two things to two people. At the age of 10, my one friend got a go-cart. Great on the downhill--read fast! My other friend got one of those electric toy cars. Not, fast, but it could go the distance. No hill required. There was friction between them. All I had to do was to help each friend feel he had the better car.

Good news, good news. The good news: The easy part was that at the age of 10 their egos were easily assuaged. The good news, the same holds true for clients who want so spend their advertising dollars on television, the internet, or both.

For an amusing aside: Ceo the Executive or The Executives New Clothes.
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2010/08/ceo-executive-or-executives-new-clothes.html
or The Deficit: A Moral Conundrum (This on the topic of moral conundrums more than on the deficit.)

http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/04/deficit-moral-conundrum.html

Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

The Deficit--A Moral Conundrum

The Deficit—A moral conundrum

I have only two skills: An analytical mind and the ability to speak in metaphors. Here we go.

This is an example of a moral conundrum.

You arrive at work. You clock in. You go to your machine, put your Igloo^® Brand cooler down by your machine, open it, and take out the key to your locker.

In the process of opening your cooler, a co-worker sees a delicious, imported chocolate bar sitting on top of your lunch.

You go to get your tools. You leave your cooler unattended.

Now, your company has a strict no-stealing policy. Caught stealing—you’re fired.

When you return from your locker, you see your supervisor, the manager, and a co-worker standing by your cooler. There is a problem.

Apparently, your co-worker stole your candy bar. The manager shows you the candy bar. A large piece is missing. The manager is angry. Your co-worker is upset. You supervisor looks to you for a way out.

Just then, the little Angel appears on one shoulder. He says, “Oh, be forgiving.”

Then, the little devil appears on your other shoulder. “Let him suffer the punishment, “he says.

“Be merciful. It was a good candy bar. Perhaps he couldn’t resist,” the Angel says.

“That’s the point,” the devil says. “It was a really good candy bar. The good chocolate. Don’t let him get away with that!”

“Oh, don’t be mean. It was a really, really good, imported, delicious Belgian chocolate, chocolate bar. The temptation was too great. Be forgiving, be merciful,” The Angel says.

“That’s the whole point, the devil says. It was a phenomenal, delicious, imported, expensive, Belgian chocolate candy bar. Don’t let him weasel out it. Have him fire!

Just then, as you are torn between mercy and justice, between forgiveness and punishment, thinking of that chocolate bar, you take the Angel into one hand and the devil into the other and you look at them—torn. Looking for an answer. Looking for a dignified way out.

You look at the Angel. You look at the devil. You look to the Angel for divine wisdom and guidance. You look to the devil to support your desire for vengeance. Then, it suddenly occurs to you. Both the little Angel and the little devil have their lips smeared with chocolate.

That is a moral conundrum.

Now look at the members of Congress; the members from both parties, and tell me they don’t have their lips smeared with chocolate.

Regards,

Slim

Mail: slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview