Category: Business

Let’s stop messing with the clocks!

Crazy, outdated concept – adjusting clocks twice a year!

The whole concept of adjusting the clocks with the seasons, “Daylight Saving” as the Americans call it, seems increasingly ludicrous the more that one thinks about it. In the UK, it is called British Summer Time and is abbreviated to BST; I call it British Silly Time.

The expensive consequences for computer systems, airlines, railways and many other systems and organisations having to mess about with times and schedules are completely unnecessary. And I have lost count of the number of times I have heard of people missing calls or online meetings due to misinterpretations of time zones and distortions in the name of “daylight saving”.

One would have thought that people who spend the most time involved with nature would find it the most ludicrous and that among those would be farmers. However, it seems that this is not the case as there is a discussion about introducing permanent BST or even “double BST” on the UK National Farmers Union (NFU) website.

The news article is titled “Should we change the clocks?”. My answer is a simple “no”. In case the answer is unclear, I mean “no”! That is “do not change the clocks”! That is “leave the clocks alone”! That is “stop messing with the clocks”! In the UK that means “leave the clocks on GMT, the correct time”!

Does no one else understand this? Well, thankfully, many people do. For example, the whole of the aviation industry uses Zulu time (UTC) worldwide. Let’s be clear what that means. When pilots get a weather reports from any airport in the world (whether it is Heathrow or Los Angeles airport), the times are in Zulu time which is UTC/GMT. Yes everyone uses UTC.

The really funny part is that the NFU news article even states “analysts have claimed an extra hour’s daylight could be worth £3.5 billion a year to the economy”. This is the ultimate fallacy.

Let us be clear about something, in case you had not noticed: THERE IS NO EXTRA DAYLIGHT!! Where, on earth, did farmers get the idea that there is?!

Chris Madden cartoon

By John Lewis

So what next in the global merry-go-round?

Well, it is a Chinese saying, “May you live in interesting times”!

A couple of weeks ago on Learning from Dogs, there was an article reminding readers that the web has been around for 20 years and Sir ‘Tim’ Berners-Lee is still hard at it in terms of Internet innovations. And to support this, today accompanying this Post is one on what the BBC is doing to commemorate the event.

The Internet has completely reformed the way that ordinary people get access to information.  Stratfor is a great example.

From their web site:

STRATFOR’s global team of intelligence professionals provides an audience of decision-makers and sophisticated news consumers in the U.S. and around the world with unique insights into political, economic, and military developments. The company uses human intelligence and other sources combined with powerful analysis based on geopolitics to produce penetrating explanations of world events. This independent, non-ideological content enables users not only to better understand international events, but also to reduce risks and identify opportunities in every region of the globe.

One can subscribe to a range of free reports and it came to pass that a Stratfor report on China came into my in-box.

Stratfor generously allow free distribution of this report and because the relationship between China and the USA has so many global implications, the report is published in full, as follows:

Read the Stratfor report

Unwinding $1 trillion in Toxic Assets

Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve

Used toxic assets, anyone?

Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, announced that the Fed was likely to begin to sell some of the $1 trillion in mortgages, the so-called “toxic assets,” that it purchased over the last fifteen months to help stave off a total credit market meltdown. Those purchases essentially doubled the U.S. money supply, igniting fears of potential inflation should the underlying real economy recover before the money supply could be drawn back down. See earlier post.

Well, the process of tightening the money supply may be just around the corner. And increases in interest rates and the cost of everything purchased on credit – homes, cars, durable goods, and business capital expenditures – are not far behind. Increases in interest rates dampen economic activity, an unfortunate development given the current lethargic state of the U.S. economy. But it has to be done sometime – we cannot sustain such a huge increase in the money supply without paying an even higher price in terms of inflation and a weak dollar.

It will be interesting to see who buys the toxic assets and how much they will pay. Regardless, the sale will reduce the money supply which, if done in a slow, orderly manner, is a good thing for the economy. Getting the Fed out of the business of buying and selling private market securities will be an even better thing for the U.S. economy. Now more than ever we need a monetary authority that is focused on the best policies for our economy, not those that help Fannie Mae, the White House, or the Treasury Secretary save face.

By Sherry Jarrell

Less is more in manufacturing productivity

Recollections of an memorable project

Thinking about the concept of “less is more”, takes me back to a small and initially unpromising project that a maverick boss of mine persuaded me to get involved in many years ago. It provides an interesting example of counter-intuitive optimisation.

The scene…

There was a manufacturing plant which produced credit cards. The plastic cards were manufactured in sheets; this involved a lamination process which started with a “layup” of three plastic sheets and ended up with them laminated together as one sheet.

The lamination was done in a press which was heated and then cooled; this caused the plastic sheets to melt slightly and to become welded together as one.  To produce cards with flat and clean surfaces, each layup also had shiny metal plates on either side to produce a smooth finish.

The instinct … Read more of this article

Why do we cheat?

Behavioral Economist concludes that most people cheat.

In a very interesting video on the website TED, Dan Ariely, Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University, explains his research into why people think it is okay to cheat and steal.

Here is Ariely’s presentation from YouTube:

From his research, he concludes the following:

  • A lot of people will cheat.
  • When people cheat, however, they cheat by a little, not a lot.
  • The probability of being caught is not a prime motivation for avoiding cheating.
  • If reminded of morality, people cheat less.
  • If distanced from the benefits from cheating, like using “chips” instead of actual money in transactions, people cheat more.
  • If your in-group accepts cheating, you cheat more.
Dan Ariely

I quibble with the interpretation of some of his findings, which may justify a separate post on how people perceive what they do and do not know, but there are always issues of this sort with a given research project.  Where I draw the line is when he expands his conclusions to include all of Wall Street and the stock market, which is totally beyond the scope and nature of his research.

On what basis does he draw this conclusion?  As explained in this short video (as I have not read his book, though I’ve read excerpts and am familiar with the study upon which the book is based), Ariely claims that because stocks and derivatives are not in the form of money, they “distance people from the benefits of cheating,” which leads individuals who engage in the stock market to cheat more.  He alludes to Enron as proof.

This is almost too silly to spend a lot of time on trying to discredit, but I fear that a lot of people who hear his talks or read his book may be lulled into accepting what he says about the stock market as true.  But it is not! Enron is the exception, not the rule.

Companies who issue stocks are raising money to provide a good or service that is valued by society; they are rewarded by profits.  Investors who buy and sell stocks, trade derivatives, and invest in portfolios are trying to make their money go further. They are trying to earn a return on their savings.  Cheaters do not survive in the stock market, unlike the “consequences-free” classroom in Areily’s experiment.

On the other hand, these factors are in glaring abundance in the government:  politicians never “see” the taxes they spend as the hard-earned income of the citizens. And the “benefits” of cheating, including power and privilege, are amorphous and vague, and couched in the so-called morality of “doing the greater good.”  I’m surprised Ariely does not condemn the federal government using the same logic as his does the stock market.

His last take-away from this research project?  That we find it “hard to believe that our own intuition is wrong.”

I think Dr. Ariely ought to apply that caveat to the conclusions he draws about his own research.  Very interesting, very compelling, but his interpretation of the results as they apply to the stock market falls victim to the very same biases that he claims to find in others.

by Sherry Jarrell

Let there be markets

Here’s a novel idea – make markets be markets!

I apologise for the rather trite sub-heading but it was a bit of attention grabbing to promote the results of a recent conference called Let Markets Be Markets.  It was published by the Roosevelt Institute and had one very impressive line of speakers.

One of the speakers was Simon Johnson of Baseline Scenario fame, a Blog that Learning from Dogs has followed since our inception.

Here’s 8 minutes of Simon pulling no punches.

If you want to read and watch other presentations, then Mike Konczal’s Blog Rortybomb is the place to go.

As this Blog has repeated from time to time, this present crisis is a long way from being over.

By Paul Handover

Less is more!

Less complexity is more simplicity and fun!

There seems to be an upsurge of interest in the philosophy of “less is more”. A couple of recent articles about product design, in general and in a specific case, address relevant aspects of this phenomenon.

What do we know?

On one level, we tend to question: how can “less” be “more”? We know it makes no sense! This is true: it really does not make any sense, if all that we focus on is measurable, countable, sequenced information – the kind of information understood by the “left side” of our brains.

On a different level, we know that “less” really is “more”. Less complexity is more simplicity and fun; less distraction is more concentration; and so on. This makes sense when we are thinking about the whole picture – the kind of information which is handled by the “right side” of our brains.

At the moment and on this topic, there is a specific product which is exercising the minds of people who follow these things. Continue reading “Less is more!” →

Celebrity Eclipse

Can this form of holidaying still remain popular?

The Celebrity Eclipse has recently left her construction dockyard at Papenburg, Germany bound for her home base.  This enormous  new ship attracted some news simply because the exercise of getting her from the dockyard to the open sea required some ‘shoe-horning’!  This YouTube video shows why (amateur filming but a great soundtrack!):

The Celebrity Solstice leaving the dockyard at Papenburg
The Celebrity Solstice leaving the dockyard (backwards!) at Papenburg

All would wish any ship that sets out to sea safe travel.  But one wonders whether this huge ship, that must require such huge sums of money just to stay afloat, and that must have been conceived and ordered when times were much rosier, will ever be a commercial success?

By Paul Handover

Attraction

The difference that makes the difference!

Nature's 'law' of attraction

As a follow-up to my last Post on Learning from Dogs “Managing in a mad world“, I got to thinking about the so called “Law of Attraction“.

I say that because I beginning to believe that this ‘Law’ is more about what we think about and focus our attention on than anything that has a tangible force of attraction.  But it is well known that the brain (to protect our sanity!) filters out on a huge scale so this ‘attraction’ may be our minds remaining receptive or, as it were, allowing us to ‘resonate’ with others sharing our ideas and emotions.

Again, I notice this common ground between my psychotherapy clients and my business clients. Successful people tend to focus on the positive and usually have a strong belief in themselves and their abilities, and unsuccessful people who have suffered any sort of difficulty for an extended time, tend to be preoccupied with focussing on the negative and tend to have a negative self-view.

Naturally, we become orientated around our belief systems. This, I believe is where good, consistent parenting comes in because many of our beliefs are taken on from our parents. Even if the parenting style has been ‘tough’ as long as there’s consistency, balance is maintained and there is a solid reference point for the youngster to come away from.

Management styles resemble parenting styles, and why shouldn’t they, as the higher qualities of facilitating structured learning in a safe environment is exactly what good management is all about. Delegating is about empowering and confidence building. Parenting styles that are loose or have little or no structure or that are overbearing and dictatorial tend to be damaging.

Of course, there are no hard and fast rules here, just tendencies but it’s interesting how these are played out everywhere, in every situation where we are in relationship with others. Even more interesting in a recession where companies are really struggling!

How fascinating to clock the number of companies struggling badly who have an autocratic management style, where staff are told what to do and there is little empowerment, and then compare them to ones where the opposite is true and people are free to interact, communicate, feel they’re reasonably empowered and work together in an environment of mutual trust.

The correlation in this part of the South West UK where I mainly work is significant. It’s as if  when we feel empowered and we’re working together with a group of like-minded people, all problems and challenges are solvable, because our self-belief is high and we visualise success. Also, adversity is seen as a challenge and one that can be mastered.

We certainly are living in interesting times!

By Jon Lavin

Kucinich’s Early Retirement Idea is Nuts!

Save a job – retire earlier! Duh!

Democratic U.S. Senator Dennis Kucinich

Representative Dennis Kucinich (Democrat – Ohio) is on the media circuit promoting his rather novel idea on how to “create” jobs for younger people who are trying to enter the work force but can’t because of the recession.

The Congressman has proposed legislation that would allow people to take voluntary early retirement at age 60 instead of age 62, as the law now stands.

Kucinich, who ran for the Democratic nomination for President in both 2004 and 2008, estimates that about 25% of those eligible to retire at age 62, or about 1 million people, would choose to take early retirement under his plan. He claims that this is a conservative estimate, since about 70% of those who can retire at 62 do so now.

These early retirees would, of course, collect social security earlier, after having worked fewer years and contributed less to Social Security. And then we’d have to assume that these workers would be replaced by the younger people now looking.  And that they would generate the same tax revenues for the government that the early retirees did.

What a plan!  Lock in higher costs, with no guarantee of any benefits.  This is the kind of logic that put the U.S. into this pickle in the first place.

How does Mr.  Kucinich propose to pay for this plan?  Why, with government funds, of course!  Specifically, with the “extra” unspent stimulus and TARP funds.  This, despite the fact that he has spoken repeatedly about voting against the TARP funds because he opposes government interference in the private economy. But, hey, he goes on to say, “Since the money is lying around anyway, let’s use it!”  You’d think tax revenues fall out of the sky!

I do not know which is worse, the hypocrisy or the ignorance.  What folly! This man has absolutely no business talking about how to create jobs when he has no idea how the economy actually works.

Here’s an idea that is guaranteed to help the economy recover.  Why doesn’tMr. Kucinich take voluntary early retirement!

By Sherry Jarrell