Can true democracy really be practiced in a business? Would one employee – one vote make it possible not only to run a company but also make sure it’s profitable? Definitely, if you are a small jointly owned company. But how about a huge multinational with say, 250,000 employees?
Is democratic leadership that makes everybody happy just an illusion?
Imagine if all employees had to vote before a decision was made. Everybody would be looking after number one and the company would not only be ungovernable but lose money as well.
Fair decisions based on dialogue
Different stake holders should have their say and to aim for fair and emphatic decisions based on dialogue is definitely not only possible, but already practised in a multitude of companies.
Democracy – next fad in leadership theories?
With all the current emphasis on empathy in leadership I can’t help wondering if democratic leadership will soon become fashionable? The timing is right because many employees feel they have been badly treated by management during the current economic crisis.
Leaders are solely responsible
As a leader you are responsible to the board, share holders and all employees. There are no excuses for chosing the wrong path. You, and only you, are accountable and pay the price if your decisions fail. Or as President Truman put it, the buck stops with you.
Show me a truly democratic government
In all democratic countries politicians are elected because they promise the electorate they will do X,Y and Z. However, once in power they frequently proceed with doing something else. Sometimes because they discover that what they would like to do isn’t possible for, usually, financial or legal reasons. Isn’t democracy more of a concept than reality? How much say does the electorate really have? The fact that a lot of politicians say what the electorate wants to hear and then do something else, doesn’t help. To get votes by pretending you stand for something you don’t is not what democracy should be about. But that is what happens in most countries.
In fact I don’t believe you can find any democratically elected government in the world that hasn’t failed to deliver on quite a few of their promises. As we all know, private companies operating that way would eventually cease to exist.
Staff can’t have more influence than board and shareholders
It’s impossible to allow employees to have more impact on decision making than the owners and board of directors do.
Sometimes taking decisions can be severely difficult and you will have to defend them not only to shareholders but colleagues as well. It’s particularly hard if you don’t agree with some of the decisions implemented. But you still have to be able to handle criticism for them and make sure as many as possible understand, accept and are motivated by your decisions.
Do you believe perfect democracy exists in any company or government in the world? How much more democratic can the corporate world get without jeopardizing the businesses? Is it possible to ever satisfy all and sundry and still be profitable and grow? A bit of a Catch 22, isn’t it?
In a world mired by economic problems supermodel Gisele Bündchen in cheap flip flops made a maker of low-priced sandals really take off. Devote 1 minute to watch Bloomberg TV discuss the success story:
Have actually wondered when something “cheap chic” would become a huge hit and make headlines. The timing is perfect and the concept spot on for today’s world. Let’s face it, consumer spending isn’t what it used to be. A lot of people who used to buy haute couture can no longer afford it. But they still want to look chic and wear the right things.
Price lowered and endorsed by celebrities
So what’s better than a celebrity endorsement of an affordable product to appeal to people who can no longer have the means for say, Chanel? Add to that lowering the price even more and you have a winner.
And it worked, no other shoemaker in the world has had such a rally. Can’t help thinking of those flip flops as “equality shoes”. They make poor girls feel like supermodels and the ones that lost a lot of money feel they are still buying what’s trendy and chic. “Gisele wears them, darling”. They love being able to afford the same things their friends who are still mega wealthy buy.
The shoemaker actually made 195 million pairs of sandals last year and the average price was $7. That really shows how concentrating on huge volumes, as opposed to high prices, can be a winner in times like these.
Grendene´shares have doubled the last year. Compare that to the average shoe company that has risen by approximately 23%.
The power of celebrities
Personally had never heard of Grendene before despite the fact that the Brazilian company was founded 1971 and today is a conglomerate with 20,000 employees.
Grendene has been using celebrities such as Claudia Schiffer and Sharon Stone to promote their products for a long time. But despite that, I have never come across the name or any of their adverts before. It’s probably not a coincidence though, since it’s in times like these that their strategy really pays off handsomely. A world mired in deep recession absolutely loves cheap chic. And having Gisele introduce her own line of Grendene plastic sandals in such times is absolutely perfect. A lot of Westerners frown on celebrity endorsements. But it has always worked and always will, especially during hard times.
Have you come across other cheap chic concepts that have become successful recently? Do you agree that looking good for less is a concept bound to become even more popular at the moment, above all in the West, where economic recovery hasn’t yet taken place? Do you think the flip flops, and Grendene, would have been such a hit if it had produced expensive shoes? Or would they have succeeded without Gisele and Shakira? Are we bound to see more cheap chic success stories coming up?
Nowadays the market is constantly changing and businesses adapt or die. Preferably you should be a leading player who determines what changes take place and when. So, if you haven’t yet developed a culture of innovation, it’s high time you do. Even a start-up with a proactive philosophy can over time become a market leader. Do you for instance reap the benefits of ideas generated by someone in your organisation?
To succeed in developing a good suggestions is as crucial as realizing when an idea is too expensive and time consuming to be worth while. Especially if it’s questionable if the company will really benefit significantly from it.
In today’s market you need to develop and evolve on a continuous basis. If not, stagnation sets in and you are on the wrong path. What customers want and desire change all the time, competition intensifies, the need to be efficient accelerate, economic fundamentals are altered, re-financing has to be done, new techniques are introduced and your staff turn over. It’s actually easier to list what doesn’t change constantly than what does.
Nothing ever stays the same
Gone are the days when you could just sit back and run your company like a machine. Something is always happening that has an impact on your business. Or as Lewis Carrol put it: “It takes all the running you can manage to stay in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you have to force yourself to run at least twice as fast.” The same goes for risk, to prioritize stability and safety and not taking any risks would be difficult, if not impossible, in today’s integrated world.
Beware of stagnation
Catalysts for change can come from an abundance of stake holders such as; customers, you, your colleagues, the board, science, new and improved technologies, the media, new theories, world events, new competitors and your own strategic planning. What was new half a ago is already out of date.
If you haven’t yet started to innovate on a continuous basis, even change for the sake of change can actually be a good thing. It will add a momentum that break stagnation and stop mold from growing.
From here to success
Innovation equals change and shows a desire to improve. It can happen in a multitude of ways. Could be new products, new marketing, services, business processes or even changing your organization as a whole.
No matter what, the ability of turning ideas into progress is a true mark of a successful innovation. To succeed in developing a good idea is as crucial as realizing when an idea is too expensive and time consuming to be worth while. Especially if it’s questionable if the company will really benefit significantly from the idea in question.
Look at the pros and cons
Unless you have to, don’t start implementing any idea that could be lucrative. Evaluate it carefully by looking at pros and cons. A SWOT analysis is one way of determining the likelihood of succeeding and will give you a good platform for deciding if you are likely to benefit from going ahead or not.
Determine and evaluate results
Before starting a new project it’s vital to decide what would constitute success and what result would be good enough. How will you measure if it’s a success or not? Can it be achieved quickly or do you have to look at the project long term? To measure and follow up results is also a great way of determining how to succeed with future developments. What made it a success? Why was the result just good enough and not excellent? What factors contributed to an outcome that was merely OK? Why did the idea fail?
Step by step
Innovation can actually be fun and challenging. It will facilitate if you can break it down and take one step at a time. Frequently organizations start a project without finishing it. So do it gradually, take action, make sure you are making progress and finish the project. The worst that can happen is that you fail and learn from it.
How do you develop and innovate? Does your business have an innovative culture? Or maybe a culture of creating value? Do you focus on evaluating ideas and suggestions for change? How do you set goals and determine what would constitute a positive change? How do you follow up and determine what mistakes you made and learn from them? Change happens through evolution or revolution but make no bones about it development and innovation needs to be done on a continuous basis. It’s how you go about it that determines if you succeed. If you resist change you will stagnate and competitors will gain the upper hand. And then, one way or another, a revolution will take place, for better or for worse.
Loved it when I came across research indicating that might be the case. Am tired of hearing about the benefits of getting up at the crack of dawn. It’s a habit we have inherited from traditional societies when mankind rose with the sun and went to bed at sunset. But does it really suit the world we live in today?
Would US presidents age as much as they do if they didn’t have to get up at the crack of dawn like in a traditional society? Would it benefit mankind to adapt office hours that reflect the world we live in today instead of doing things the way they have always been done?
One study carried out by The University of Liege looking at how our brains are able to focus attention throughout the day found differences in rhythm between “morning” and “evening” people. Their conclusion is that early risers get tired earlier and are hence less productive.
Kanzawa claims more intelligent children go to bed later as adults
And according to another study by Satoshi Kanazawa,”Why Night Owls are more intelligent than morning larks” evening people are of higher intelligence than morning people. He claims that analysis of a large representative sample of young Americans show that more intelligent children grow up to be more nocturnal as adults than less intelligent children.
Both studies believe that evening people usually get more work done and resist the pressure to sleep better than the larks.
Do morning people have the upper hand in business?
Considering such conclusions I can’t help wondering why is it considered that when it comes to being successful in business it’s a virtue to be an early riser and that evening people will be less successful?
Honestly doubt the conclusion that evening people are more intelligent. It has nothing to do with intelligence but body rhythm, endurance and energy. For some reasons we are all different in those areas but the fact that evening people seem to be more productive could be of importance to society.
Time to rethink?
From what I understand about 20% of the population of the world are night owls and only 10% are early birds. And most of us, 70%, can handle both. Honestly why are we adapting business hours to suit 10% of the population of the world?
Intelligence enables flexibility
Kanazaka correctly points out that the more intelligent people are the more prone they are to adapt behaviour that is beneficial to the human race – as opposed to doing things the way they have always been done. Initially new behaviour is scorned but then become the norm. Much of what we do today will be considered absurd by future generations.
Flexible hours a sign of change?
More and more businesses have flexible hours above all because many businesspeople are night owls. And we shouldn’t forget that many intelligent people are entrepreneurs. The current recession is also creating an abundance of small businesses, most of them with much more flexible hours than huge corporations.
Will next generation be prepared to get up at dawn?
Another aspect is that younger people are more likely to be night owls and not happy to get up in the morning while pensioners frequently fall into the rhythm of getting up and going to bed with the sun. But they are now retiring and younger people will fill their positions. And they may not be as willing as the previous generation to adapt their body rhythm to the company. They may simply leave and find jobs where they don’t have to get up at the crack of dawn.
So is it time for the business world to wake up and realize that things are changing? Having workers coming in later and working later will, according to the studies, result in increased productivity and eliminate the afternoon fatigue so obvious in all offices.
What’s your opinion? Do you agree with the studies that night owls are more intelligent than early birds? Or do you believe it’s the other way round? Or maybe you agree with me that it’s not about intelligence but other factors? Will more and more businesses implement flexible hours? Would starting later and working later increase productivity? Is it likely that working hours will change? Will night owls have the upper hand in the future?
Far too many people today are stuck in the rat race. Just work, no play. Some so badly they have to take uppers and downers to cope.
Having a balanced life is of essence to us all. If not how can we enjoy life and, not to forget, cope with the rat race?
Blackberry on your pillow?
If you are working 18-20 hours a day, sleeping with your Blackberry, or iPhone, on your pillow, is it really worth it? After all, you can’t take it with you when you go. No health – no wealth is something that applies to all of us, and it’s sad that frequently it takes a crisis for people to wake up and realize that all work, no play has put them on the wrong path.
Dream happily in a space with no time
Unfortunately the majority of people working, or on call, 24/7 are not going to start doing yoga or meditate to bring balance into their lives. The harmonious effects of performing arts however is something that everyone can benefit from that’s frequently forgotten. Plays, ballet, opera, a concert or whatever you thrive on can transfer you to another level and let you dream happily for a while. Preferably on location with your Blackberry switched off. But, if necessary, on the computer or i-phone whenever you have time.
Devote one minute and fifteen seconds to watch the Swan Lake video I have chosen that beautifully illustrates the many aspects of life. Watching performing arts like this will bring more balance and harmony into your life. Give your life more quality and re-load your batteries. Just dream along and mindsurf into a place with no time and responsibilities. Provided of course, that you are still able to switch off and just go with the flow. If you can’t, isn’t it time to look at how you lead your life and for how long you are prepared to sacrifice the beauty that life has to offer?
Do you watch performing arts to bring harmony into your life? If so, what type of performances have the best impact on you? If not, what do you do to balance yourself, dream and get positive energy? If your life isn’t balanced, maybe it’s time for you to seriously consider if wealth at the expense of health is what you are heading for? No matter what you do and where you are you need harmony in your life. Going to a theatre near you may be a step in the right direction.
If you work or study abroad you are likely to be more creative, a better problem solver, start new businesses, be a better manager, get promoted and create new products. Provided that you integrate and adapt to the countries where you live and become bi- or multicultural.
Do you agree with the professors that the more exposure you get to different situations, problems, scenarios and cultures the more enhanced and creative your ability to solve problems will be?
Harvard Business Review article
According to research carried out by professors William W. Maddux, Adam D. Galinsky, and Carmit T. Tadmor and published in Harvard Business Review “Be a Better Manager: Live Abroad” (if you end up on an ad just click go to site) people who are international or have more than one nationality benefit from it in many ways.
Bicultural individuals scored higher than monoculturals on the different tests carried out which, as the professors put it, is good for companies. That’s not saying that monocultural people don’t have the qualities tested, merely that being international further develop those qualities in an individual. There are also, in my opinon, other ways for monocultural people that are open minded and curious to broaden their mind, be more flexible and hence increase their creativity. The comments to the HBR article agree or disagree depending on if the person has lived abroad or not.
Conclusions a reflection of future businesspeople
Already today the world is irrevocably one global market. Next generation of businesspeople will prove the professors’ findings correct. Already now young people study and work abroad like never before and are fluent in English at an early age.
Local and regional businesses will increasingly start operating on a global level and bi- or multicultural experience will hence gradually increase.
Propitious timing of HBR article
Thinking out of the box is essential in our integrated world and an ability to approach issues from different global perspectives is becoming increasingly important.
Since I have lived and worked all over the world I’m obviously biased. Have just taken the positive aspects of being international for granted and honestly not given it much thought.
The option of academically testing how exposure to different cultures increase your abilities to look at problems from new and previously alien perspectives never even entered my mind.
The world is gradually becoming one huge country and the timing of the findings published in Harvard Business Review are hence propicious. In the future more and more people will look at the world as their market and be prepared to move to the other side of the globe to get a job. If the professors findings contribute to making more people realise the benefits of becoming global citizens it will be beneficial.
Global experience makes you flexible
Have learnt a multitude from various cultures. The most educational experience was Saudi Arabia. Almost every day something happens that you have never experienced before, positive or negative. And frequently it’s simply a question of adapting or failing. The same actually applies to when I lived in Japan, but to a lesser degree.
It was a positive surprise that research published in Harvard Business Review indicate that being a “global citizen” develop your abilities. That not only international but also local businesses will increasingly benefit from global minds.
Do you agree that the world is irrevocably one global market? Will more people live, work and study abroad in the future? Is it a logical step in our integrated world that people increasingly become global citizens? Are the professors findings that global people develop their abilities in ways that benefit companies correct? Will people with a global frame of mind find it easier to get promoted, start a business or create new products? Does your company, as the professors recommend, have expatriate programs to develop better managers? Or maybe you disagree with the professors’ conclusions that the more exposure you get to different situations, problems, scenarios and cultures the more enhanced and creative your ability to solve problems will be?
Can’t help wondering why so many people on social media are just parroting others? Copying and pasting. And what’s worse that seems to account for part of what’s called creativity today.
A copy is never as good as the original. No parroting in the world will turn you into Marilyn Monroe. So be yourself.
What happened to creativity?
Have a section of humanity stopped being creative? Or is it just that too many people are lazy and hence just copy others? Don’t they realize that they will not impress the people they are trying to impress? Only ignorant people will buy what the parrots are doing. If you don’t have anything new to contribute, to say a discussion, don’t just re-write what someone else has already said. Coping and pasting from say, Harvard Business Review to make you look intellectual is not a great idea either. What’s wrong with saying that you agree or disagree?
Original ideas
If imitating others were just a social media phenomena it would be one thing. But unfortunately you have an abundance of people selling services online that haven’t got any ideas of their own. They just copy what others have done and charge for doing so. And we should not forget the copy and paste that’s becoming a problem in academia. A prominent European policician was recently caught having copied and pasted into his thesis.
But a copy is never as good as the original. No parroting in the world will change that. It may work short term but long term it will work against you. The European politician is a good example. He had to step down. Doubt that his future is as bright as it would have been if he hadn’t copied and pasted. Am sure he regrets what he did. But sincerely he should have thought of it before he cheated. Can’t help wondering if parrots, like him, have really stopped thinking for themselves?
Hard sell on social media
The amount of parroting on social media most likely boils down to people believing they have to sell themselves aggressively online. Can understand that to some degree. But don’t they understand that it’s obvious to others what they are doing? Am active on social media and almost every day someone re-writes what someone has already written to make it appear to be their new idea. One interesting phenomena are the people who are experts on all issues relating to all countries in the world, regardless of the fact that they have never even visited the country in question. But copying and pasting they certainly know how to do. Nobody, including myself, knows everything so what’s the point in pretending you do? People only lose respect for you.
Current buzz words leader, expert, entrepreneurial & innovative
The fact that many people believe they have to portray themselves in what they consider to be the right way is a major reason for all the parroting. Wouldn’t it be much better to have an honest look at yourself and decide what your strengths are? If you are not say, innovative, describing yourself so will work against you since you will be found out. Read in The New York Times that 70% of high school graduates in the US believe they have more than average leadership skills. Only 2% considered themselves below average. Truly wish their assessments were correct, but unfortunately 70% of them are not leaders and will never be leading anything. If this applied to the United States only, i.e. approximately 5% of the world’s population, it wouldn’t be too bad. But unfortunately it applies to the remaining 95% of mankind as well.
Use social media to portray the real you
What’s wrong with having talents that are currently not in fashion? Whatever talents you have you can create a lucrative niche for yourself. Why does everyone feel they have to portray themselves as business tycoons? Looking at profiles on social media today you easily get the impression that the majority of people in this world are on par with Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. It’s normal for children to imitate, but grown ups really should give up that habit.
Social media is a wonderful thing and I have met many fantastic people online, mainly thanks to my blog and Linkedin. If the parrots were just themselves and stopped pretending to be what they are not they would also start reaping positive benefits of social media. To start with they would gain respect. We are all unique and can contribute to society in different ways. That’s the beauty of humanity. Imagine how boring it would be if we were all parroting each other.
Criminal syndicates are increasingly turning from smuggling drugs to human cargo, and governments and law-enforcement agencies are, despite huge efforts, not able to do much about it. Watch Angelina Jolie talk about the desperation of refugees that make them turn to people smugglers:
Unfortunately it's not just between Africa and the Arabian peninsula people are being smuggled. And lamentably there is only so much humanitarian organisations can do to alleviate suffering.
Who benefits apart from the smugglers?
Frequently Africans are then smuggled from the Middle East to Europe at the cost of approximately $10,000 per person. The most popular destinations are Scandinavia and Britain. But once there some immigrants fail to integrate into society because they they really do not want to be in Europe, but because they can't make a living back home they felt they had no choice. Can't help thinking that all this is so unnecessary and the only ones benefiting are some vested interests and the gangsters making money smuggling them. The latter charge hefty fees of $10,000 per person but many migrants still die en route. Or remain in debt to the people smugglers with all that entails.
So how can we enable poor people to support themselves in their home countries hence depriving people smugglers of their lucrative income? Aid doesn't seem to do the trick, at least not so far. So why should more foreign aid suddenly be able to remedy the current situation?
Trade instead of aid
Am a firm believer of replacing aid with trade by helping developing countries trade themselves out of poverty. And the swiftest and easiest way of doing so would be to enable them to sell their agricultural produce on the international market.
The EU spends almost two fifths of its entire budget (EU budget for 2010 around 139bn Euros) on the Common Agricultural Program, CAP, and even pay European farmers to overproduce. Those products are then dumped at ultra low prises in developing countries, whose farmers are not able to produce at such low costs. Result – poor farmers become even poorer and developing countries even more dependent on imports to feed their population.
Scrap CAP and US farm subsidies
Scrapping CAP as well as US farm subsidies would thus go a long way towards improving the lives of poor people in developing countries and hence reduce people smugglers income. But chances of that happening are slim, unfortunately, since farmers are a strong lobby group in the US and out of 27 EU member countries only four are interested in gradually getting rid of CAP.
All consumers in the world would benefit from abolition of EU & US agricultural subsidies since agricultural products would suddenly become much cheaper. Less immigrants would would be forced to use the services of people smugglers since more of them would be able to support themselves back home. Less Westerners become farmers anyway, so why don't we press fast forward and make this world a better place for all, apart from people smugglers?
What's the point in depriving developing countries of their ability to trade themselves out of poverty? The only thing Western Agricultural subsidies achieve is preserving a profession that is in decline in the West anyway? Wouldn't it be better to take a more holistic view and find solutions that are beneficial to all, instead of just a few? We also have to improve the global trade regime that has been crafted over the years by the WTO to benefit not only multinationals in the North but also the poor in the South. But abolishing Western agricultural subsidies would make an excellent start.
Will R&D departments be replaced by crowd sourcing? Or at least partly? A problem solved is a problem halved, the old saying goes. But what happens when you share a problem with an abundance of people instead of just a few colleagues?
Research and development is usually regarded as top secret and fiercely guarded against prying eyes. However that seems to be changing a bit due to the increased use of crowd sourcing, which allows you to tap into a much wider pool of knowledge and specialist skills.
Reach out to experts you don’t know
The idea behind crowd sourcing is to harvest both internal and external knowledge to solve problems by reaching out to capable people outside your company and regular network. And more and more companies post challenges on web sites and offer a reward to anyone who can solve it.
Get some of the brainiest people in the world competing to solve your problem
A good exampel of such a web site is InnoCentive. It has a network of about 200,000 of the brainiest people in the world that will be able to look at your problem from an objective point of view. The rewards are substantial and to get $50,000 for solving a problem is normal.
A tool for industrial espionage?
Needless to say there are voices are raised against crowd sourcing in particular when it comes to security and the dangers of industrial espionage. InnoCentive believes it has solved that by being responsible for the IP process by making both the source that posts the problem and the sources that solve them anonymous to start with.
Money saver as well as new job market
Crowd sourcing is becoming increasingly popular and new sites are appearing on a continuous basis which seem to indicate that companies are increasingly regarding it as an efficient way of handling innovation. R&D is extremely expensive and by out sourcing, at least part of it, to freelancing scientists not only save a lot of money but also give companies access to some of the best brains in the world. It’s also interesting to note that it is creating a new job market for the intelligentsia of the world where they can pick and chose what they want to work with.
Goldcorp struck gold
One good recent example is that of the Canadian mining company Goldcorp, which was struggling financially and unable to find gold on its land in northern Ontario.
When a new chief executive arrived he put all its geological data online, asked for help on where the gold was located and put up $500,000 in prize money for accurate suggestions.
"They got submissions from people all over the world, including people using 3D computer modelling techniques. They found $3bn worth of gold on the property and Goldcorp became one of Canada's biggest mining companies."
Secrecy versus solutions
Where would Goldcorp be today if secrecy had been more important to them than solving the problem? Crowd sourcing actually enables small and medium sized companies, as well as individuals for that matter, to have an R&D department comprising some of the best brains in the world. With worms like Stuxnet around is it actually possible to keep anything secret nowadays? Unless of course you don’t in any way involve computers in R&D (you don’t even have to post it online for Stuxnet to get access to it).
Useful tool for governments?
And governments are starting to use it as well. It can be particularly useful when there are difficult decisions to be made, such as where the axe must fall in terms of cutting public spending. Critics on the other hand, say it has been proved that crowd sourcing for governments gets out of hand and becomes a tool for lobbyists.
Crowd sourcing in your personal life
Are you using crowd sourcing to solve your own problems? You can actually do so even as a private person. Networks such as Globe Forum allows you to post your problems to their global pool of networks and instantly have a team of experts collaborating to solve your challenge.
What are your feelings about crowd sourcing? Do you believe it’s the way of the future? Or is safety more important to you than a solution? Will crowd sourcing enable small and medium sized companies to better compete with the giants? Do you already use, or plan to use, crowd sourcing?
Even in the West, inequality and poverty are on the rise. Poverty has, in fact, reached the levels of 1933. Devote 4 minutes to watching Thomas Pogge, professor of Yale University, talking about the current international system that allows a large part of the world's population to live in abject poverty:
The global economic downturn has been pushing millions of people into poverty, or worse, extreme poverty. Add to that the fact that people all over the world are moving into urban areas to seek their fortune and we have a danger of slums increasing tremendously.
How do we keep them safe in urban areas?
There hence is a huge need to reduce vulnerability in urban settings. Half the world's people now live in cities, a share that will rise to 70 percent by 2050.
So what are we going to do to give more people in the world a decent life? If we don't do anything the amount of people living in shantytowns will rise, everywhere. Or call them homeless, if you wish.
Extreme poverty leads to crime – or worse
Countries with a lot of poverty easily gets trapped in crime or worse, become failed states. And I don't need to tell you how easily failed states can follow in the steps of Afghanistan and Somalia, do I? So it's in the interest of all of us to start eradicating poverty in the world.
And let's not forget poverty in the developed world
Frankly find it unbelievable that child poverty is on the increase even in a country like Sweden. So is poverty in all age groups, for that matter. And the same applies to Europe as a whole and the United States. Like South Koreans a decade ago, people are starting to committ suicide in Europe due to being wiped out financially. Isn't it, like Thomas Pogge put it, a crime against humanity?
Isn't it time to put Milton Friedmans theories on the shelf and, again, start implementing what Keynes ordered? Or do we really want a world where poverty is increasing and the middle classes are in decline? By now we know the side effects of Friedman's ideas as mentioned in do you concur with Joseph Stiglitz on market fundamentalism? Just look at what has happened the last few decades in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Russia. And since 2007 the American middle class has been severely affected by the same side effects of his policies. The Euro zone is currently being hit which has an impact on Europe as a whole. China has been spared to some extent since it implemented Friedman's ideas but never completely opened up their markets. And Iraq failed miserably because the shock theraphies implemented there went too far.
Negative for much of the world's population
One hundred faculty members at University of Chicago wrote a letter of protest when university president Robert ZImmer announced the creation of a $200m Milton Friedman Institute stating that "The effects of the neoliberal global order … strongly buttressed by the Chicago School of Economics, have by no means been unequivocally positive. Many would argue that they have been negative for much of the world's population." Since the time when Reagan was president the Chicago boys have dominated not only Washington but the world, not least through the IMF. So now when the recession keeps on causing substantial increases in misery isn't it time to stop implementing policies that favour multinational companies at the expense of the majority of people in the world?
Do you agree with Pogge that many of the people who support the current international system are like passive Germans during the Nazi era? Do we really want the world's middle classes and poor to be worse off? Is it really a good idea to have more people across the globe living in shantytowns? Or being homeless? No wonder Occupy Wall Street swiftly spread to 1,500 cities all over the world. Is it the beginning of a new era where 99% of the world's population say enough is enough and demand to get a share of what now goes to the top one percent? Is equality only justified if it benefits all human beings? What's your opinion? Is it time to put market fundamentalism aside and start stimulating economies in order to grow again and give more people a decent life? The Euro zone would make a good start. Or are you of the opinion that Friedman's version of capitalism is the way forward?
