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!”→
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 (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?
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.
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!
How often does a great conference on an emerging subject attract local, national and global participants to a quiet corner of the UK? Not often, I suspect.
Nevertheless last Friday, 2010 February 26, it happened again at LikeMinds 2010! The first time it happened was in 2009 on October 16th. Back in February 2009, two people met having got to know each other using Twitter, the popular social media tool/service. Scott Gould is a Devon-based web and experience designer. Trey Pennington is an American social media and business consultant. They met in Exeter and set the date for a half-day event which became LikeMinds 09. A local conference centre was the venue. People came from far and wide to became part of the inaugural gathering. Afterwards, they knew that they’d started something and felt the need to repeat it.
This time, just over four months later. More came to LikeMinds 2010, in the same relatively small venue. The same loyal bunch of social media specialists came back and brought more with them. There was more buzz and activity. This time, it lasted a full day and was followed by a business-oriented summit event at a prestigious location.
It was good to be there. It was good to meet new people. It was good to get a real sense of what is going on in human social communication. And all of this in my local city of Exeter, Devon, England.
There is more to come on this conference! But to give you a flavour, here is the talk by Chris Brogan … after I’d had lunch with him!
And, I am sure, more LikeMinds conferences to come.
Growth in final GDP hides disturbing weaknesses in economy
The U.S. GDP grew at an annual rate of 5.9% in the last quarter of 2009 which may look good at first glance, but when we dig a little deeper, we find some concerns about the implications for sustainable growth. A large fraction of this reported growth came from businesses selling off accumulated inventories, which has more to say about past production than current. Exports were also a significant source of fourth quarter growth, driven in large part by a weak dollar.
Weak dollar both helps and hurts the economy
Of course, a weak dollar is a very mixed blessing for the economy, and is hardly a sign of a strong or recovering economy.
Real residential fixed investment increased 5.0 percent, helped along by the extension of the home purchase tax credits from the federal government.
New housing helps spur growth in GDP
Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 6.5 percent. This figure nets out nonresidential structures, which decreased at a troubling rate of 13.9 percent, and equipment and software, which increased 18.2 percent. Investment in equipment and software consists of capital account purchases of new machinery, equipment, furniture, vehicles, and computer software; dealers’ margins on sales of used equipment; and net purchases of used equipment from government agencies, persons, and the rest of the world. Own-account production of computer software is also included, which is production performed by a businesses or government for its own use.
Again, the underlying figures show that those variables most associated with building a sustainable productive capital base for the economy – nonresidential fixed investment –are declining at an alarming rate. This, combined with a 9.7% unemployment rate and the specter of rising debt levels, energy prices, and taxes, paints a picture of a slow to non-existent recovery to a robust economy any time in the next year.
A friend on another site just posed this question.
Why is it that a recession is described as two or more successive quarters of “negative growth”, but being out of recession is just one quarter of (estimated) growth?
I felt emboldened to pen an answer as follows ….
In Britain, the definition of recession-emergence is from the same school of economics as growth predictions for next year (any year), which are always about 5 zillion% more than actually turns out to be the case.
Recession in Britain
The cunning idea is that future growth will be vast enough to cover the even vaster existing debts and commitments. And, of course, by the time we KNOW what the growth actually turned out to be, most people will have forgotten the predictions on growth from the financial and economic wizards running the country. That’s also one of the great things about a new mess or crisis; it always takes the mind off previous crises, which are likely to be ongoing but less in the media and therefore not to be bothered about too much.
This is, of course, in addition to the fact that growth in itself is incompatible with reducing global warming, but here we are getting a bit too technical.
Well, that’s how we do it in Britain anyway. How do you manage it over there?
by Chris Snuggs
A reply from a U.S. economist.
Hello there Chris!
Recession in the U.S. is also defined as two successive quarters of negative GDP growth. At least, that’s how its officially defined. And to add my answer to your friend’s question — either the economy is either in a recession — i.e., two or more consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth — or it isn’t, which means that the string of negative GDP growth rates is broken. And that only takes one quarter of positive growth.
Most of the economists I know personally tend to look at a bigger picture than the stated GDP figures, however. I focus on capital and labor utilization rates as I believe that they are more important measures of a well-functioning economy. The final GDP figures in both of our countries are national income accounting figures, and have all the weaknesses of any income statement variable. They are flow variables, which ignore the stock of economic wealth. For example, if you invest $100 this year in the stock market, and it grows in value by $20, only the $100 is counted. The increase in wealth is never captured in measures of GDP.
Another problem with current measures of GDP and GDP growth is that government spending is considered on par with private spending, which brings into question the sustainability of growth measures based on GDP, although President Obama and perhaps Prime Minister Brown are both fine with growth rates being fueled by large increases in government spending. Finally, a significant fraction of economic activity, like the value of work in the home — is not measured.
So, yes, the official measurement of GDP is all wrapped up in technicalities. But most economists I know pay little attention to it. They are more concerned with how well the economy is functioning, whether the growth is sustainable, and whether people who want to work can find work. If you are unemployed, the economy is in a recession, regardless of what the GDP figures say!
I’ve been asked many times over the years for advice on investing. “What is the market going to do?” “Should I be invested in stocks or bonds?” And, especially in the last few weeks, “Should I hold U.S. or foreign government bonds?”
A U.S. treasury bill
Those are some good questions! The answers are not as “good.” The factors that drive the yields on treasury bills and bonds are complex and, despite Ben Bernanke’s pronouncements to the contrary, less well understood than stock returns, and I don’t have a crystal ball, but I can at least begin to frame an answer to these questions here. I will come back to expand on this topic over time, as markets, economies, and world events evolve.
The return on both bonds and stocks is measured as the percent change between the market price today, and the cash flows received later. The cash flows of a bond, namely coupon payments and principal, are specified in a contract; if they are not paid, the issuer is in default, and the bondholder has the right to take them to court. The cash flows on stock, dividends and capital gains, are residual; they are discretionary, and are paid out only after debt payments and other obligations are paid. For this reason, bonds are considered to be less risky than stocks, and the nominal yields on bonds are generally lower than those of stocks. The risk-adjusted returns on stocks and bonds may be the same, but the nominal yields on bonds are typically lower.
There is an important distinction between the nature of the returns on bonds and stocks. With bonds, the future cash flows are known. Movements in the bond’s yield are determined simultaneously with movements in the bond’s price. Once a bond is issued, only changes in interest rates (yield, risk) drive unexpected changes in its price. Stock prices, on the other hand, fluctuate as either risk or residual cash flows change. As a result, changes in a bond’s price, hypothetically at least, are a much cleaner indicator of the market’s expectations of future market rates of interest than a stock’s price.
One problem that distorts the information about expected future interest rates that is revealed by changes in the bond’s price is that bonds are less frequently traded than stocks, so the price data on bonds is less comprehensive and complete. In addition, the reported price data that form the basis of bond yield models often diverge from actual market-clearing prices, so that bond pricing models may not describe actual market behavior. Lastly, there is such a tremendous volume of economic and policy information, some of it conflicting, that is crammed into this one variable, the bond price which, given the coupon and principal, summarizes the market’s referendum on future interest rates.
by Sherry Jarrell
Next time: Sources and types of risk in U.S. and other bond prices.
Learning from Dogs was created by a few people who felt compelled to promote the values of “integrity”, which is often in short supply in the modern world, though perhaps it always has been to some extent in all civilisations. Is dishonesty an eternal part of Human Nature? We like to think not …..
Well, “Integrity” includes being honest, open and dedicated to the truth, even if this is personally inconvenient. It may seem a somewhat forlorn hope to promote something that for an important minority of people is and will probably remain an alien concept, these being people who put self above group. However, the recent Toyota fiasco reminds me that perhaps integrity’s time has indeed arrived, for this is THE INFORMATION AGE. It is NO LONGER easy to hide the truth, which tends to come out now with greater frequency due to a variety of factors including most importantly the Internet. But there are other reasons, too. To take Britain, for example, we now have the “Freedom of Information Act”, which – despite some limitations – has done wonders in allowing the free press (another essential ingredient of course, and sadly lacking in so many countries) to reveal wrong-doing, principally by appallingly-incompetent governments.
Toyota chief Akio Toyoda
As for Toyota, what has staggered me is that the company KNEW of these accelerator & brake problems several years ago. Indeed, people began having crashes as far back as 2006. Yet only recently has it done anything serious about putting things right. One has to wonder what on earth possessed the Toyota bosses to think that they could get away with it, which on the face of it seems to be exactly what they were trying to do. Who was advising them? It seems to me to have been INEVITABLE that the truth about their cars’ problems would come out, so even from a cynical and selfish point of view they should have recalled the defective cars at least two years ago. But quite APART from the wisdom of doing that in practical, business terms (the result of delay being to devastate the company’s image to a far greater extent than would otherwise have been the case) there was a MORAL aspect to the problem, too. By ALLOWING the problems to go unresolved they put people at risk. And not just ANY people, but their customers! As has been said before, but sadly with all too much frequency, “You couldn’t make this up.”
How could the world’s number one car manufacturer get it so utterly and totally wrong, both from a moral and practical point of view? I am wondering if Toyota can recover from this. Yes, I know they are big, but there are PLENTY OF CHOICES for people seeking to buy a vehicle. Who in their right mind is now going to buy a car from a company which A) made defective cars (and MILLIONS of them) and B) HID THE TRUTH while people were dying in crashes?
One reason may again be the Japanese obsession with “face”. It was probably difficult for the world’s number one company, which seemed capable of nothing but success, to admit publicly that it had got things badly wrong. The Chairman is now admitting this, but to be frank it reminds me of the old expression about getting blood out of a stone, or being dragged kicking and screaming to the confessional. And from what I read today he seems to be blaming the troubles on the fact that “the company may have grown too quickly.” I could describe this utterance with an extremely rude word or two but as this is a family site I will refrain. Let’s just say that the company WASN’T HONEST.
I remember as a kid growing up in the shattered London of the1950s the lessons I got from teachers and parents. One of those which stuck in my mind was “Honesty is the best policy.” This has never been more true as it is now. For the Brave New World we dream of honesty is a sine qua non. We must be honest with ourselves, our friends, families, companies and the public. There is no other way to happiness. Will Toyota’s disaster be a lesson for other companies? NOBODY can get it right all the time and there is no dishonour in the occasional failure, only in the lies involved in trying to cover it up. How many times has this been demonstrated? Had Nixon come clean at once about Watergate he might have survived, but the cover-up was worse than the deed.
On a practical note, I sincerely hope that the families of those killed or maimed in Toyota accidents will sting the company for every yen they can; that is no more than the company deserves.
By Chris Snuggs
[BBC News had an item on the 24th that makes interesting watching. Ed.]
There are many people who might represent the subject of entrepreneurship. It is likely that a calm analysis of the candidates would select someone with a broad range of characteristics which had been identified as generally accepted as typical. But this would be to fly in the face of the nature of entrepreneurship itself!
How can the sense of the personal distortion of reality required to see a different path be communicated by someone identified as a “typical” entrepreneur?
With that in mind, the following video captures such a motivational performance that any selection process that might have been used has been abandoned in selecting Jason Calacanis, the controversial and abrasive founder of multiple “dot com” ventures, mainly in the broad area of web publishing.
Say what you like about his activities during his various ventures, and who knows whether it is as unprepared as it appears to be, his performance in this video is pure gold in the annals of motivational presentations for entrepreneurs. He starts slowly, sets the scene, describes his story and steadily builds momentum and intensity. As the stakes increase, so does the passion. Balanced by a substantial level of self-analysis, this is a gripping personal story. If you are interested in entrepreneurship, set aside the next half hour or so, sit back and enjoy this:
While many factors arise in describing entrepreneurs, the one issue that comes up time and again is the simple choice between two different paths. He captured that!
Learning from Dogs 