http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organization/Talent/Upgrading_talent_2260
Nice and timely article in the McKinsey Quarterly about how to treat staff and training during this economic downturn.
I can imagine how many people are still on the firing block. Now is not the time to loose your job either. However, for employer's, there is a way to treat outgoing employee's.
I think the article is worth a read, for those of you who follow this blog and look for sound info on what folks are doing world wide.
Youri
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Zimbabwe has problems!
Apparently, there is a huge cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe, which has claimed the lives of hundreds thus far. While the folks die, Mugabe is trying to hold on to the last vestiges of power. He is likened, and I don't mean to demean or degrade the Zimbabwean people whatsoever, to a roach holding on to a piece of turd (in regards to the Zimbabwean economy) trying to get all he can out of nothing.
On top of that, police broke up and attacked protesters who were protesting the government on their response to the latest cholera outbreak. Catching cholera in these times, is akin to catching polio or the black plague. People simply don't need to have this disease and countries, do not need to suffer because of it.
What do we do with Mugabe? You can't complain when things are good, and you get beat down when you complain when things are bad.
Mugabe, please leave Zimbabwe!
On top of that, police broke up and attacked protesters who were protesting the government on their response to the latest cholera outbreak. Catching cholera in these times, is akin to catching polio or the black plague. People simply don't need to have this disease and countries, do not need to suffer because of it.
What do we do with Mugabe? You can't complain when things are good, and you get beat down when you complain when things are bad.
Mugabe, please leave Zimbabwe!
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Capital Punishment in the Caribbean. Is this the real solution to crime in the region?
I had a moment to sit and ponder the recent countrywide decision in Jamaica a few weeks back, where they agreed to keep capital punishment. Assuming that capital punishment went no where, why was/is Jamaica is still a major crime capital in the region and world? The Bahamas has been grappling with the same issue at an even more feverish pace, since the last three years crime, murder in particular, have spiked to un-Godly levels.
This leads to an argument about capital punishment; that it is, in fact, a deterrent to crime. Actually, from the looks of what type of punishment allowed to continue in Jamaica, capital punishment is clearly not. Jamaica ranks third in the highest amount of murders per capita in the world. Has been for years now, although the last hanging took place in the late 80's. The argument is that it was hardly used and hence the need to "bring hanging back". But, before and, most likely, after it is re-constituted, I have a feeling that crime would not abate. I don't want to sound like a pessimist, but crime goes hand in hand with alot of other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with fear of punishment.
I would say, quite boldly, why would I feel fear or have fear, from doing something as passionate as murder, when it's something I really wanted to do or had to do? So what about the punishment? I killed that guy and that makes me feel better.
Even now proponents of capital punishment, have stopped using it as an argument because the idea of the deterrence of crime and capital punishment, cannot be correlated on any statistical relation and in my estimation, logical basis. For one reason, how do you deter someone from committing a crime they committed? This back to the future type of mentality is simply science fiction.
The second plank for the deterrence argument, sets out to suggest that folks who may commit capital crimes, would be deterred by visible and swift hangings. Fact is, this is not the case at all. Statistics from every capital punishment jurisdiction to non capital punishment jurisdiction, do not find any correlation with lower capital offences than it is with higher capital offences. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest anything to do with "punishment" and "crime" at all. The basis for it is simply neither here nor there.
How did we begin to assume capital punishment has anything to do with deterring crime? Well, it is one of the great logical fallacies of the 20th century. Something where developed societies, grappled with it and, have ended their long standing position on any defence of its effectiveness. It's only the developing world that believes capital punishment in some way deters crime. Perhaps it is a reason why they are perpetually called developing?
This leads to a second stream of thought debouched on the merits of capital punishment. And, that is the self degradation of developing countries by the proponents, who say, outright, their society is not as established as the developed countries--so, this is why they have to employ capital punishment tactics, in an attempt to reign in bad elements of their society. This is one of thee most far out ideas I have ever heard used in this debate. This argument holds as much water- and is just as effective- as the old colonial racial tactic of "breeding out" the slave population by the white master, which was then seen as the only way to "clean" the black race. It's laughable to see capital punishment proponents, switch the argument, just to make it fit into whatever rationale they have about social living and crime. Unbelievable.
Fact of the matter is however, crime, yet again, is in developed countries and regions as it is in developing societies and some developing societies, have low crime rates in spite of the capital punishment mechanism or without.
There simply is no statistical correlation with developed and developing countries, to say, on any level, or, any time, that that can hold up as an argument. There is crime in New York city, where they have abolished the death penalty and crime has spiked and declined, just as easily, without the manipulation of the death penalty apparatus or argument espoused. The highest rise in murder rates in the US was in Kansas, between the period of 1996-2007. Are proponents trying to suggest that rural, peace loving Kansas State, is more backward than New York in regards to civilization? For example
The death penalty is not employed in the United Kingdom and certainly not in England. But, crime is relatively low per-capita than any other country. Why is that? Same can be said in France.
Even when proponents make the immigrant argument in developed countries in relation to developing countries and lack of civilization, you would have difficulty making the argument. East London has a higher immigrant population than most other parts of the UK and its crime statistics, are equally comparable to that of Birmingham or Scotland, where crime is equally as high with lower levels of immigrants. In fact, Scotland is the murder capital of the UK, with higher murder rates per-capita than in any other part of the UK.
The same mixed bag of conflicting theories can be found in the varying US states, as the differences between Kansas and New York, on that level, simply do not have comparable variables. Kansas has a lower immigrant population per volume and per-capita than that of New York. So, what exactly are we trying to say? Nothing.
Fact of the matter is- and sorry to have to burst the proponents of capital punishment's bubble again- that there simply is no relation between murder and capital punishment, to suggest it as a deterrent, on any level, for any reason--long term or short term.
So, we really have to discuss the merits of capital punishment, where folks, like this author, see from the end motive of the proponents, even before they arrived to it themselves. And, that is, it is used as a form of retribution and revenge on the murderous thug who killed that innocent victim.
I don't quite understand why folks form particular quarters just don't come out and say it. Say, quite boldly; "we want to kill (but don't have the guts to do it )the person who killed somebody else. It would make feel better, to know that some punk, got killed because he killed someone else."
While I share their pain, and pray for the victims of slain family members--like I have felt the pain and grieved over a family member of mine who was savaged by a gunman--I have a problem with acting in haste and with ill regard, when I speak of this issue. Not that I am trying to protect the young punk who killed. But, because, it moves us away from other root issues for crime and murder and, it does not make enough room, once we start this slippery slope, to deal with people who may have; killed by accident; killed in self defence, but unprovable; were provoked to kill; who killed in the heat of passion and so on and so forth.
Are we really trying to suggest that a man who walks into his house to find his wife in the sweet throe's of passionate love with another man, deserved no true justice and mercy because he killed someone society may have liked and/or loved dearly? A man, who may be an upstanding citizen, who just happens to have had a bad day at the worst time? Does he deserve death, because the person he killed, was someone equally as upstanding and even more so in the society than he was?
I find the lack of mercy and justice and the abuse of the tools of justice, by the same proponents who attempt to make the case that their societies are not as civilized as developed countries and hence, the reason to employ the death penalty, a stark concern. And, I dare to say even further that the abuse of the justice mechanism, with the seemingly pervasiveness of pseudo democracy and lack of transparency in many developing countries, is a concern to be equally voiced in a time where the debate has reached Caribbean wide proportions.
Yes. I said it. Capital punishment in the Caribbean, has reached region wide debate. So, we may as well have a frank an open conversation about it, rather than acting as if these issues, are any different to any of us at any time or on any level. Especially the Anglo-phone Caribbean, who live by, basically, the same code of social conduct handed down to us by our former imperial powers. The same justice system, the same economic system and the same values for life. It's their handed down to us as a one size fit all institution, rather than a society built for our own common understanding on society.
While I have no decisive say in whether or not Jamaica or any other Caribbean country, goes the way of the noose. However, I can't help but sharpen the debate and get to the root theory and motivation behind using such a fatal device, in an attempt, I hope, to get the public to address the real issues with spiking murder rates and crime in general. And, it's not about the bible and it is not about the lack of moral values. It's something allot more stark, but the establishment does not readily face up to it, because it would display failure, perhaps on purpose, to provide basic functions made for a civil society--something where they espouse to be the vanguard of.
It's the economy stupid. No more and no less. Their is and will always be, spikes in the level of criminal activity, with the lack of resources and access to the resources, built for a comfortable human life. In some countries in Africa, corruption, on every level, is accepted because people have no other recourse to deal with their need to survive. Even the phenomenon of urbanization, has its root underpinnings in economic principles--if we are to appreciate the economy, from a greater extent than dollars and cents.
This leads to an argument about capital punishment; that it is, in fact, a deterrent to crime. Actually, from the looks of what type of punishment allowed to continue in Jamaica, capital punishment is clearly not. Jamaica ranks third in the highest amount of murders per capita in the world. Has been for years now, although the last hanging took place in the late 80's. The argument is that it was hardly used and hence the need to "bring hanging back". But, before and, most likely, after it is re-constituted, I have a feeling that crime would not abate. I don't want to sound like a pessimist, but crime goes hand in hand with alot of other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with fear of punishment.
I would say, quite boldly, why would I feel fear or have fear, from doing something as passionate as murder, when it's something I really wanted to do or had to do? So what about the punishment? I killed that guy and that makes me feel better.
Even now proponents of capital punishment, have stopped using it as an argument because the idea of the deterrence of crime and capital punishment, cannot be correlated on any statistical relation and in my estimation, logical basis. For one reason, how do you deter someone from committing a crime they committed? This back to the future type of mentality is simply science fiction.
The second plank for the deterrence argument, sets out to suggest that folks who may commit capital crimes, would be deterred by visible and swift hangings. Fact is, this is not the case at all. Statistics from every capital punishment jurisdiction to non capital punishment jurisdiction, do not find any correlation with lower capital offences than it is with higher capital offences. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest anything to do with "punishment" and "crime" at all. The basis for it is simply neither here nor there.
How did we begin to assume capital punishment has anything to do with deterring crime? Well, it is one of the great logical fallacies of the 20th century. Something where developed societies, grappled with it and, have ended their long standing position on any defence of its effectiveness. It's only the developing world that believes capital punishment in some way deters crime. Perhaps it is a reason why they are perpetually called developing?
This leads to a second stream of thought debouched on the merits of capital punishment. And, that is the self degradation of developing countries by the proponents, who say, outright, their society is not as established as the developed countries--so, this is why they have to employ capital punishment tactics, in an attempt to reign in bad elements of their society. This is one of thee most far out ideas I have ever heard used in this debate. This argument holds as much water- and is just as effective- as the old colonial racial tactic of "breeding out" the slave population by the white master, which was then seen as the only way to "clean" the black race. It's laughable to see capital punishment proponents, switch the argument, just to make it fit into whatever rationale they have about social living and crime. Unbelievable.
Fact of the matter is however, crime, yet again, is in developed countries and regions as it is in developing societies and some developing societies, have low crime rates in spite of the capital punishment mechanism or without.
There simply is no statistical correlation with developed and developing countries, to say, on any level, or, any time, that that can hold up as an argument. There is crime in New York city, where they have abolished the death penalty and crime has spiked and declined, just as easily, without the manipulation of the death penalty apparatus or argument espoused. The highest rise in murder rates in the US was in Kansas, between the period of 1996-2007. Are proponents trying to suggest that rural, peace loving Kansas State, is more backward than New York in regards to civilization? For example
The death penalty is not employed in the United Kingdom and certainly not in England. But, crime is relatively low per-capita than any other country. Why is that? Same can be said in France.
Even when proponents make the immigrant argument in developed countries in relation to developing countries and lack of civilization, you would have difficulty making the argument. East London has a higher immigrant population than most other parts of the UK and its crime statistics, are equally comparable to that of Birmingham or Scotland, where crime is equally as high with lower levels of immigrants. In fact, Scotland is the murder capital of the UK, with higher murder rates per-capita than in any other part of the UK.
The same mixed bag of conflicting theories can be found in the varying US states, as the differences between Kansas and New York, on that level, simply do not have comparable variables. Kansas has a lower immigrant population per volume and per-capita than that of New York. So, what exactly are we trying to say? Nothing.
Fact of the matter is- and sorry to have to burst the proponents of capital punishment's bubble again- that there simply is no relation between murder and capital punishment, to suggest it as a deterrent, on any level, for any reason--long term or short term.
So, we really have to discuss the merits of capital punishment, where folks, like this author, see from the end motive of the proponents, even before they arrived to it themselves. And, that is, it is used as a form of retribution and revenge on the murderous thug who killed that innocent victim.
I don't quite understand why folks form particular quarters just don't come out and say it. Say, quite boldly; "we want to kill (but don't have the guts to do it )the person who killed somebody else. It would make feel better, to know that some punk, got killed because he killed someone else."
While I share their pain, and pray for the victims of slain family members--like I have felt the pain and grieved over a family member of mine who was savaged by a gunman--I have a problem with acting in haste and with ill regard, when I speak of this issue. Not that I am trying to protect the young punk who killed. But, because, it moves us away from other root issues for crime and murder and, it does not make enough room, once we start this slippery slope, to deal with people who may have; killed by accident; killed in self defence, but unprovable; were provoked to kill; who killed in the heat of passion and so on and so forth.
Are we really trying to suggest that a man who walks into his house to find his wife in the sweet throe's of passionate love with another man, deserved no true justice and mercy because he killed someone society may have liked and/or loved dearly? A man, who may be an upstanding citizen, who just happens to have had a bad day at the worst time? Does he deserve death, because the person he killed, was someone equally as upstanding and even more so in the society than he was?
I find the lack of mercy and justice and the abuse of the tools of justice, by the same proponents who attempt to make the case that their societies are not as civilized as developed countries and hence, the reason to employ the death penalty, a stark concern. And, I dare to say even further that the abuse of the justice mechanism, with the seemingly pervasiveness of pseudo democracy and lack of transparency in many developing countries, is a concern to be equally voiced in a time where the debate has reached Caribbean wide proportions.
Yes. I said it. Capital punishment in the Caribbean, has reached region wide debate. So, we may as well have a frank an open conversation about it, rather than acting as if these issues, are any different to any of us at any time or on any level. Especially the Anglo-phone Caribbean, who live by, basically, the same code of social conduct handed down to us by our former imperial powers. The same justice system, the same economic system and the same values for life. It's their handed down to us as a one size fit all institution, rather than a society built for our own common understanding on society.
While I have no decisive say in whether or not Jamaica or any other Caribbean country, goes the way of the noose. However, I can't help but sharpen the debate and get to the root theory and motivation behind using such a fatal device, in an attempt, I hope, to get the public to address the real issues with spiking murder rates and crime in general. And, it's not about the bible and it is not about the lack of moral values. It's something allot more stark, but the establishment does not readily face up to it, because it would display failure, perhaps on purpose, to provide basic functions made for a civil society--something where they espouse to be the vanguard of.
It's the economy stupid. No more and no less. Their is and will always be, spikes in the level of criminal activity, with the lack of resources and access to the resources, built for a comfortable human life. In some countries in Africa, corruption, on every level, is accepted because people have no other recourse to deal with their need to survive. Even the phenomenon of urbanization, has its root underpinnings in economic principles--if we are to appreciate the economy, from a greater extent than dollars and cents.
Crime and its linkages to the economy, is so patently obvious, until it pains me to have to write the bold and obvious in this article.
It would be refreshing for folks to face up to the fact that allot of issues, especially in regards to providing a safe, regulated and transparent economy, is out of their hands, or, above their heads and spheres of interest. It would be better to say it and then attempt to boldly bring people, your people, into a discussion on how to move forward with providing equity for all in the market. And you have to do something about it or it will get worse. Yes we can have punishment, but the murder of an innocent is a murder of an innocent. No amount of punishment can bring them back. If the people who are predisposed to crime in general can't eat, or, live to their fullest potential in an orderly society, "their" society, they will be forced to live to their potential outside of that orderly society. Point blank! Their is no fuzzy debate or wedge issue to bring up in regards to it. If you don't include, you exclude. Just so happens that the exclusion, is fatal--in many regards.
What can Caribbean countries do to sure up their economies? I don't have a ready made, cookie cutter response to that. If I did, I would have been making a mint as an economic and social adviser to many a leader in the world. It takes allot of work and thoughtfulness, however. Also however, the answer, is not found in a text book from Harvard and it is not found, in the mandate of the IMF and World Bank--the biggest think tanks in the world. It is found, rather, in the heart of a leader and with his love for his country, to put frameworks around the levels of economic activity within his or her country, to harness that, so people can feel included in their economic process.
Caribbean leadership has to continually be on the hustle for results in the market for all people. An all inclusive society and economy. It has to be their key issue of stewardship. People are literally dying out here and we have to begin taking it death serious. Caribbean countries need leadership, to say, without fear of backlash from the elite establishment and without fear of losing their authority to an increasing economically empowered electorate--and with the intelligence to do it-- "we need to get our economy more productive through total and wholesale domestic liberalization". Forget global liberalization. In fact, that would make issues worse. Open up the market for all and sundry in the domestic sense, first. That does not mean protectionism. But, it simply means liberalization. Not privatization through foreignization. But, true, domestic liberalization. It has to come before globalization in any event. At least it should!
Attractive little catch phrases come to mind when I say domestic liberalization. For example; "we have to create job's at home" or, "you have to buy domestic".
But, while it makes the issue rather simple, in actuality, it is what it is.
Support home base and all within. Or, they don't support you.
Youri
Rebels leave small town in Congo!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hupmIzCDRrcPb4NuaSx_hAhj5JkgD94QICTG0
So the AP has it. They say they want peace and tis the reason why they are pulling out.
About time!!
Youri
So the AP has it. They say they want peace and tis the reason why they are pulling out.
About time!!
Youri
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
FDR's 'old' deal!
There is a nice discussion going on over at Dani Rodrik's website.
http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/11/the-forgotten-side-of-fdr.html?cid=141091536#comments
Its about FDR's policies and how or how not it was, to bring the USofA out of the depression. The idea of experimentation, is at the root of the discussion.
While the various posters are trying to relate that to the Obama team and how they should try new and innovative things to stimulate the economy. One side of the argument, states that FDR's policies were a bunch of hype, in regards to anything new he started that actually helped. And, the other, is quite the opposite.
While I took the notion that experimentation, ultimately leads to diversification, to say that Keynesian style economics does not work, under any circumstance as some have alluded to, is not quite fair.
The reason's behind the attempt may have been off. But, ultimately, Keynesian economics brought the USofA out of a depression--especially in regards to government spending. And, as Obama will find out, printing more money would go along way as well!!
Youri
http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/11/the-forgotten-side-of-fdr.html?cid=141091536#comments
Its about FDR's policies and how or how not it was, to bring the USofA out of the depression. The idea of experimentation, is at the root of the discussion.
While the various posters are trying to relate that to the Obama team and how they should try new and innovative things to stimulate the economy. One side of the argument, states that FDR's policies were a bunch of hype, in regards to anything new he started that actually helped. And, the other, is quite the opposite.
While I took the notion that experimentation, ultimately leads to diversification, to say that Keynesian style economics does not work, under any circumstance as some have alluded to, is not quite fair.
The reason's behind the attempt may have been off. But, ultimately, Keynesian economics brought the USofA out of a depression--especially in regards to government spending. And, as Obama will find out, printing more money would go along way as well!!
Youri
Political Warfare?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122806669714467075.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Interesting article about political warfare and the use of non military means, to combat jihad sentiments globally.
It makes a sound analogy to the effectiveness, especially during the Cold-War, about the US intelligence agencies engaging Russian intellectuals to combat the ideas of communism. Hence, undermining its effectiveness at the local and administrative level.
Youri
Interesting article about political warfare and the use of non military means, to combat jihad sentiments globally.
It makes a sound analogy to the effectiveness, especially during the Cold-War, about the US intelligence agencies engaging Russian intellectuals to combat the ideas of communism. Hence, undermining its effectiveness at the local and administrative level.
Youri
Monday, December 1, 2008
Opposition's must be mindful of leadership!
I was sitting down at my desk, trying to work on some random project--not going well, as I am fresh out of ideas. But, in any event, my mind began to wander, while I had the Internet/radio on listening to a talk show.
As I normally do, I daydream deep and long. Hence, the long winded posts on this blog. My daydream was on the positions of oppositions world wide and their plight--more particularly, oppositions, who are at the doorstep of bringing 'change' to their countries. Or, fresh new governments, who were once in opposition, making the transition the way team Obama is trying.
Oppositions have the un-envied right to oppose whatever and anything it is the current government has laid out. More often, they end up opposing good initiatives. And, sometimes, they end up causing more damage to their political organization, by appearing to be out of touch and actually road blocking, by all means necessary, initiatives that are, for the most part, based on the first best information government's have--by them, being in a position to proliferate or censor, key pieces of information to make best decisions.
This leads to another issue, the point and time the opposition, now becomes the leadership. There have been countless examples, where time, money, resources and efforts, are thrown to the side when new governments take place and cancel, without fair notice or best information--or the time to assess critical information-- projects and initiatives which are, for the most part, built for the common good. At least in established and sounds democracies.
The opposition, must be mindful of leadership in two regards. 1. their lack of true, first best information and the position to act on first best information, from a governmental standpoint and 2. their desire to appease, whoever, and cancel initiatives which may have been for the better good of their country--or, more particularly, the market place.
What must opposition's world wide, taking into account while they are waiting in the wings- some of them in vain- while aspiring to leadership, by hook, or, by crook? For one, they have to push for transparency in government activity and blast at governments, when they hide or collude to obfuscate critical information. This is a key tool for undermining a government and extracting the "trust" factor, away from individual actors in leadership and create a sense of mis-trust in leadership. Playing politics, with smoke and mirrors attached to the truth- factoids or propaganda techniques in general- are the tools of an opposition, who have at their advantage, time on their hand to gather credible, valuable and sound information from the "people" on the effectiveness and the coherence of government policy to the private sector.
Secondly, the opposition must read the road signs, in regards to electoral timing. This is not the case within Federal democracies, like the UsofA, who have a set time and date for elections. However, in the case of parliamentary systems, when a Prime Minister, has the discretion of calling an election at any particular point and time, timing, in relation to understanding the mood of current events, is critical to maximizing your effort to win the government.
Third, there are many stories and examples, where the incoming government, lost their next election within one year of them being in office. The "honeymoon" phase, in these times of national and international awareness and education through mass media, on acceptable practices and standards on government and public officials behavior, grow shorter and shorter by the decade. No longer, are folks going to sit idly by, and not agitate and make their civil opposition, more and more relevant. One must have a media source which will cater to your needs, or at least to balance out the truth which may eventually come out. Sometimes, good intentions may be smeared with negative factoids and propaganda. The ship, in my mind, has sailed on responsible journalism. Everyone is out to make a spectacle and gain political mileage, on any and every issue that they have a soft spot showing on the public.
Case in point with the USofA; before president G.W. Bush got though half of his second term, he was more than a lame duck. He was not trusted to affect public policy, by anyone in either party. He could not garner the support and coalitions needed to make policy. He ended up a sticking point and target, for other politicians who wanted to shore up their favourable stats, in opposition to whatever he said. Case and points are the Dubai Ports World deal and the Columbia Free Trade deal. Both initiatives extremely fair and reasonable, but president Bush, was simply not trusted to make the kind of judgement the process needed--whether or not he was right, or wrong.
Another case and point, the issue going on in Thailand where the former Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, just won't go away and is escalating the tense crisis in Thailand currently--after numerous changes between 2006 to the current year, where the government was asked to leave or just simply, changed. While we are no longer in the era of post-war/cold war, levels of regime change after regime change in governments. However, the reason for the change, is poignant. No foreign aided coup, just people wanting change. Thaksin is exploiting that and the global economy, to his advantage and to the disadvantage of the people of Thailand--who are at each others throats, for no apparent reason.
Fourthly, and more importantly, opposition leaders must be mindful that when they win, if they win, to treat the market with very sensitive kid-gloves. Investors are always watching for signs and signals from new leadership, as to how they will proceed with regulating the market. Or, what kind of policies they will put in place which may inadvertently affect the market functions.
The market is critical. All points discussed, affect and relate to the functioning of the market. The market is what is important at all times. Not in the form of dehumanizing capitalism, but the economy in which people participate in their society. People need money to participate. You can't get money unless you have something in which you can participate, which is of some denominated value to everyone else in the market. Its a two way street and the opposition, had better be mindful or else their term will be short lived.
Youri
As I normally do, I daydream deep and long. Hence, the long winded posts on this blog. My daydream was on the positions of oppositions world wide and their plight--more particularly, oppositions, who are at the doorstep of bringing 'change' to their countries. Or, fresh new governments, who were once in opposition, making the transition the way team Obama is trying.
Oppositions have the un-envied right to oppose whatever and anything it is the current government has laid out. More often, they end up opposing good initiatives. And, sometimes, they end up causing more damage to their political organization, by appearing to be out of touch and actually road blocking, by all means necessary, initiatives that are, for the most part, based on the first best information government's have--by them, being in a position to proliferate or censor, key pieces of information to make best decisions.
This leads to another issue, the point and time the opposition, now becomes the leadership. There have been countless examples, where time, money, resources and efforts, are thrown to the side when new governments take place and cancel, without fair notice or best information--or the time to assess critical information-- projects and initiatives which are, for the most part, built for the common good. At least in established and sounds democracies.
The opposition, must be mindful of leadership in two regards. 1. their lack of true, first best information and the position to act on first best information, from a governmental standpoint and 2. their desire to appease, whoever, and cancel initiatives which may have been for the better good of their country--or, more particularly, the market place.
What must opposition's world wide, taking into account while they are waiting in the wings- some of them in vain- while aspiring to leadership, by hook, or, by crook? For one, they have to push for transparency in government activity and blast at governments, when they hide or collude to obfuscate critical information. This is a key tool for undermining a government and extracting the "trust" factor, away from individual actors in leadership and create a sense of mis-trust in leadership. Playing politics, with smoke and mirrors attached to the truth- factoids or propaganda techniques in general- are the tools of an opposition, who have at their advantage, time on their hand to gather credible, valuable and sound information from the "people" on the effectiveness and the coherence of government policy to the private sector.
Secondly, the opposition must read the road signs, in regards to electoral timing. This is not the case within Federal democracies, like the UsofA, who have a set time and date for elections. However, in the case of parliamentary systems, when a Prime Minister, has the discretion of calling an election at any particular point and time, timing, in relation to understanding the mood of current events, is critical to maximizing your effort to win the government.
Third, there are many stories and examples, where the incoming government, lost their next election within one year of them being in office. The "honeymoon" phase, in these times of national and international awareness and education through mass media, on acceptable practices and standards on government and public officials behavior, grow shorter and shorter by the decade. No longer, are folks going to sit idly by, and not agitate and make their civil opposition, more and more relevant. One must have a media source which will cater to your needs, or at least to balance out the truth which may eventually come out. Sometimes, good intentions may be smeared with negative factoids and propaganda. The ship, in my mind, has sailed on responsible journalism. Everyone is out to make a spectacle and gain political mileage, on any and every issue that they have a soft spot showing on the public.
Case in point with the USofA; before president G.W. Bush got though half of his second term, he was more than a lame duck. He was not trusted to affect public policy, by anyone in either party. He could not garner the support and coalitions needed to make policy. He ended up a sticking point and target, for other politicians who wanted to shore up their favourable stats, in opposition to whatever he said. Case and points are the Dubai Ports World deal and the Columbia Free Trade deal. Both initiatives extremely fair and reasonable, but president Bush, was simply not trusted to make the kind of judgement the process needed--whether or not he was right, or wrong.
Another case and point, the issue going on in Thailand where the former Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, just won't go away and is escalating the tense crisis in Thailand currently--after numerous changes between 2006 to the current year, where the government was asked to leave or just simply, changed. While we are no longer in the era of post-war/cold war, levels of regime change after regime change in governments. However, the reason for the change, is poignant. No foreign aided coup, just people wanting change. Thaksin is exploiting that and the global economy, to his advantage and to the disadvantage of the people of Thailand--who are at each others throats, for no apparent reason.
Fourthly, and more importantly, opposition leaders must be mindful that when they win, if they win, to treat the market with very sensitive kid-gloves. Investors are always watching for signs and signals from new leadership, as to how they will proceed with regulating the market. Or, what kind of policies they will put in place which may inadvertently affect the market functions.
The market is critical. All points discussed, affect and relate to the functioning of the market. The market is what is important at all times. Not in the form of dehumanizing capitalism, but the economy in which people participate in their society. People need money to participate. You can't get money unless you have something in which you can participate, which is of some denominated value to everyone else in the market. Its a two way street and the opposition, had better be mindful or else their term will be short lived.
Youri
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
