What to expect in the future--if there is one

That you cannot predict the future is not a proper rebuff to someone who tells you to get off the tracks because a train is coming.

Greek is suffering an economic crisis.  Italy is looking to cut spending. There seems to be an epidemic of austere proportions.

Germany is suggesting that private sector investors bear some of the burden of their speculation.  The scolds are everywhere but we don’t see much in standard practices when it comes to analysis.  We have experts galore, but few agree.

In the US, rising energy costs are seen as a problem that can be solved by summer.  Only a few months ago, the doomsayers were predicting $5 a gallon gas by summer.  Gas prices are declining.  For now.

China is feeling the impact of growth.  The Arab spring is turning into a very hot summer.

All agree that there are difficulties.  All agree that the problems may be around for a while.  Some have solutions.  None seem viable, practicable, or sustainable and most of what we read and hear is descriptive not prescriptive.

Hence:

The world can no longer afford to play a zero sum game.  For a while, this was the joint policy of US – Soviet relations.  (First strike capability, SALT treaties, détente.)  NATO, as evidenced by the Libyan Operation, seems more like a Maginot Line.

Therefore, a global initiative is mandatory.  It is compulsory.

It is intuitively obvious to the casual observer that an energy crisis is coming.  Increased competition for oil is what is causing prices to go up at the pump.  Not our failure to drive hybrids or use mercury vapor bulbs rather than incandescent bulbs.

Nuclear power can no longer be seen as a plan for the future.  Not unless you are planning for a disasters.  Such plans are intended to prevent disasters, not cause them.  You can have, tsunamis at the coast, floods along the rivers, fires in the forests, and if all else fails—earthquakes.

On my blog, I wrote Memo to Big Oil.  I also wrote; Nuclear Energy has lost its lustre but not its glow.  These are admonitions and cautionary tales.  Read them. Heed them.  The latter is a definite scolding of the US failure to embrace and pursue solar power over the past 50 years, and a seeming refusal to embrace and pursue it over the next 50 years.

At http://slideshare.net/slimfairview I posted two PowerPoint Presentations.  Global Management: A shift in the paradigm of corporate America and The Future of the G 20 in Good Times and Bad.

Each is a moderately concise vision of a.) How companies around the world can do a better job of going global and b.) A scenario for global disaster and the means to prevent it.  Take the time to review each.

On my blog, http://slimviews.blogspot.com/ I have posted numerous monographs explaining the fallacies and failures of Western Diplomacy in the Middle East.  No sooner than I make a case, my point becomes evident by way of the unfolding events.

The EuroCrats are quibbling while the Greek debt crisis grows larger. There seems to be no strategic planning—or non-strategic planning for that matter.  It would almost seem that Economic Development is something for discussion among the volunteers at a small town Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee.

The 21^st Century seems to be carrying forward the lust for symbolic gestures over substantive gains that hearken not to the last decade but to previous centuries.

Corporate business leaders have given precedence to the process after coming up with a plan.  The one thing they’ve forgotten is The Project.  That too has been covered in my writing.

If we are serious about the future—serious about having a future—we should get started rather quickly.

Sincerest regards,

Slim

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

Slimfairview@yahoo.com

China: The Economy and a Word Beginning with the Letter P

How will China do in the coming years?  Fine.  How do I know?  It is all about three little words. They are not “I love you”. 

They are words that begin the letter P.

Plan.  Process.  Project.

Years back two things happened to me that crystallised my perceptions.

The First:

While working on an Economic Development Committee, I observed that the committee was obsessed with the process.  Whom should we contact, include, discuss this with?  Should we write a letter?  Should we take a survey?  Should we include this in the newsletter?  Whom do we invite to the meeting to discuss this, that, or something else?

As the months passed, we eventually had a plan.  We also had a stroke of good luck. A big, important Government Official, who worked for an agency whose raison d’etre was to give money away, was coming to meet with us.

We made every effort to impress.  We arranged a tour, a presentation, a luncheon.  We even had a helicopter tour of the area.

Long story—very short.  We were told, “We give money away for projects, not plans.”  [We were shot down!]

After the rebuff, we licked our wounds.  We agreed with the one who said, “We got all wrapped up in the big P.” 

Well, no we didn’t.  The big P was project.  We were all wrapped up in the little p.  Plan.

This acceptance of responsibility is actually an abrogation of culpability.  That is correct.  Not to tell tales out of school, but it was similar to what my wife said to me in a discussion about a topic I long forgot.  However, I did not forget her assessment.

“You’re blaming me.”

“I’m not blaming you.  I’m blaming myself.”

“No you’re not.  You’re blaming me.  You’re just taking the responsibility.”

My wife spoke the truth.  That is how I know that our illustrious group member was washing his hands.

We had a plan.  However, that is not the worst of it.  The worst of it was the process.  Another word beginning with the letter P.

The Second:

The County Executive had a project.  Infrastructure.  His administration tried to float a bond issue—very low nine figures:  like $100,000,000.  That is low nine figures.

This was not for warm and fuzzy, touchy-feely programmes.  This was, as stated, for infrastructure.  The purpose?  Make the county attractive to business.

I was asked by an elected official to speak to the council.  Not as a chamber member, but as a citizen.  I spoke for 22 minutes on The Multiplier Effect.  I know this because I received an e-mail from an opposition activist who informed me that no one addressed the council for longer than 5 minutes in over two years.

Nonetheless, my contribution notwithstanding, the bond issue passed.  We had infrastructure.  This helped to blunt the effect of the first recession during the Bush administration, but not the second.  Still, we are better off than we would have been without the bond issue.

This man may or may not have had a plan.  What he did have, though, was a project.  A Project.  As in PMP^®   Project Management Professional.  Not, process management profession.  Not planning management professional.  Not, “Strategic Planning.”  Only Project!

Now, what does this have to do with China?

China has a project.  China, in fact, has several projects:  A Dam—hydroelectric power; Housing (Bubbles notwithstanding.); Currency—making the Yuan a global currency.  China is working on projects.  Elsewhere, countries are trying to come up with plans.  Elsewhere, countries are obsessed with “The Process”.

Two articles that will not please the chattering classes.  (Once a phrase having to do with the friends of Truman Capote.)  The Chattering Classes.  Those with credentials.  Okay, so maybe credentials are important.  Still, today, everyone has credentials.  Today, everyone disagrees.  A topic covered in my monograph: on experts.  http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2010/11/experts.html  

Today, China is in the news again.  This time, unrest.  The sad thing is, experts are looking to this unrest as a source of validation for their considered opinions.  They are, after all, in a fencing match with other experts.  Therefore, I offer up two more monographs on the topic of China.

Will the Facebook Revolution Spread to China?  Probably not.

http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/02/will-facebook-revolution-spread-to.html

Will the Facebook Revolution Spread to China?  Part 2. Credentialism

http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/02/credentialism.html

The way the world is moving, and I have said this before, we cannot afford to approach global matters as a zero sum game.

To underscore what I’ve just said, I will cite two experts.  (Je vous en prie, remission.)

General George Washington.  A General

Dr. Albert Einstein.  A Physicist.

George Washington, a General Washington said, to paraphrase “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

Dr. Einstein said, “You cannot simultaneously prepare for peace and war.”

In a paraphrase, Washington the General admonishes that to secure the peace we must be prepared for war.

Einstein, the Physicist admonishes, we must fight for peace.

Well, in plain English, we are all quite prepared for war.  Now that we are quite prepared for war, we should be prepared to fight for peace.  This will come when we abolish the zero-sum game mentality of international balance of trade, currency rates, and military one-upmanship.

China has a project.  Other nations have a plan.  Let’s not end up like a chamber of commerce economic development committee and find ourselves shot down.

Regards,

Slim

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