In April 1947, The Assembly line of Ford plant is halted for the day of Henry Ford's funeral

Our world is constantly, a "new idea!"

Throughout my life and on many different occasions, I have heard a reason for doing something stated as, “we always do it this way.” Of course, there is some merit in doing something because it was proven to work in the past. If we are familiar with what we have done, then we will have a certain degree of confidence in doing it like before. If it has worked in the past, then we readily assume that it will work in the present. And, it might.

So, why consider doing it differently? If we do something a certain way because, “we always do it that way,” then what are we giving up by not trying a different way?

Consider Henry Ford and his invention of the Ford assembly line. He decided to have the cars move to the workers instead of the “we always do it this way” of having the workers move to the cars. That simple switch revolutionized the automobile industry. How did he think of this? I’ll bet he didn’t know exactly what the result would be when he decided to change his assembly line. I’ll also bet he was operating on a hunch. He decided to do something that wasn’t the way it had always been done.

How can we get out of the rut of doing something the way it has always been done? One way is by using the old education saying of, “start with a clean slate.” Literally, start out with nothing from the past. I’m not saying we shouldn’t use past knowledge, but I am saying we should set it aside as much as possible in order to have a fresh new look at what we are trying to do. Do some “what if-ing.” Consider the implications and consequences of the “what if’s” and then, if they seem reasonable, try them.

I'm starting with a clean slate!

Starting out with a clean slate allows the creative part of thinking to be manifested. As long as we use our critical thinking to help assess the creative output from our mind, we should be able to have fresh approaches to problems, while still using what we know from the “way we have always done it.”

For a change, consider trying new approaches to some of the mundane parts of your life. Instead of mowing your grass by going back and forth, try going round and round. Instead of going to the grocery store using your usual route, try a completely different one that takes you past a new area. Instead of eating a salad at the beginning of the meal, try eating it at the end of the meal. There are many times during a normal day that we could change our approach and reason of “we always do it this way.”

I'm eating my salad for dessert!

By getting rid of the reason, “we always do it this way,” we will be able to have a new look at our future. Too often, people are stuck in the past by not trying new ways of doing things.

Think about it – if you always do things a certain way based on previous methods, then your vision of the future is like the past. You have nothing new to look forward to. This is especially true for those of us who are “up there in years.” We have so much history that we can’t imagine a new and different way of doing something. “That’s the way we’ve always done it!“

How about a fresh and new look on life? Let’s use the philosophy behind the statement, “we always do it this way” sparingly.

Consider changing the statement to, “we always DID it that way, but now we are considering new ways.“

Please consider a comment for a new way.

The World of Business

A total of six contributors are identified and presumably dozens of others were also involved in the selection, organization, and discussion of a full range of business topics that begin with “When firms started”(Page 2) and conclude with “Business etiquette tips” (Pages 254-261). Think of this as an anthology of generally brief (i.e. one-page) items (approximately 120 in number) rather than as a dictionary, encyclopedia, “history of….” etc. There is a British flavor to phrasing and spelling but the geographic scope is definitely international. As I worked my way from one entry to the next, I occasionally responded with comments such as “I didn’t know that” or “Oh yes, I had forgotten that.” Here are two that caught my eye:

“Some business giants of the past” (Pages 83-91): Andrew Carnegie, Walt Elias Disney, Henry Ford, William Gibbs (previously unfamiliar to me), Ray Kroc, Alfred Krup, William Hesketh Lever, John Pierpont Morgan, Akio Morita, John Davison Rockefeller, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, Sam Walton, and Frank Woolworth.

“Bubbles that burst” (Pages 164-170). Eight are discussed, including the current “credit crunch” that that has squeezed millions of individuals as well as companies, industries, and even countries. Of special interest to me (because I knew little, if anything about them) are “The Mississippi Bubble” (with a Scottish businessman, ironically bearing the name of John Law, playing a prominent role) and “Railway mania” in the UK (in the 1840s) and in the US (up to 1873). “The railway bubble burst in the ‘Panic of 1873,’ the same year as America’s first successful train robbery.”

One word of caution about this delightful as well as informative book: Do not place it in what the English refer to as the “loo” because those who begin to examine it may not reappear for quite some time.

The Story of American Business: From the Pages of The New York Times
Nancy F. Koehn, Editor
Harvard Business Press (2009)

This volume provides a wealth of material that originally appeared in The New York Times from May 11, 1869 (“East and West,” an account by an unnamed correspondent of the celebration at Promontory Point when the railway first connected New York and California) until September 28, 2008 (“The Richest Man and How He Grew That Way,” Janet Maslin’s review of Snowball, Alice Schroeder’s biography of Warren Buffett). The material is carefully organized according to three major themes: the corporation, American business and the changing nature of work, and the defining moments in technology. As Koehn suggests, “Taken together, these aspects provide us a kind of wide-angle lens on some – though by no means all – of the most important individuals and events that shaped American business history and that, in turn, did so much to give form to our own time and our possibilities in it.”

Most readers will check out the Contents and then select articles of special interest to them. Others may prefer to proceed through one section to the next. Whatever the approach, the reading experience shares much in common with a situation in which a person begins to clear out an attic, cellar, garage or storage area and finds several boxes filled with clippings of articles from The New York Times. Some are about the rise of big business, the emergence of Wall Street, “merger mania,” major business leaders; other articles examine the changing nature of work such as the movement from farm to country and the emergence of labor unions; still others examine the “transportation revolution” (e.g. railroad, automobile, and commercial flight) and communication breakthroughs such as radio, television, and the Internet. There are at least some photographs such as one of a Northern Pacific locomotive in 1900 and another in which Henry Ford sits in his car next to a horse and buggy in 1933. However, the bulk of the material consists of narrative text.

Congratulations to Nancy F. Koehn on a brilliant achievement!

“Eu Vi o Mundo” por Cícero Dias(1907-2003)

Pela definição conceitual, uma “revolução” se dá quando são observadas transformações radicais de âmbito econômico, social, político, artístico e científico. A Primeira Revolução Industrial aconteceu entre 1760 e 1850 e teve como protagonista a Inglaterra, grande produtor mundial de algodão. Com a introdução do vapor usado como fonte de energia nas máquinas e locomotivas, o país deu início à automação da produção de tecidos e de outros produtos, antes feitos à mão, e agilizou o sistema de transportes de pessoas e de mercadorias com a introdução das linhas férreas.

De acordo com Fernando Teixeira, pesquisador e professor da Universidade Metodista (Unimep), a Inglaterra era o único país que, naquele momento, estava em condições de exercer esse papel na economia mundial, pois havia passado por uma revolução burguesa, no século anterior, que criou condições favoráveis ao desenvolvimento do capitalismo. “Havia uma política protecionista que tornou o comércio externo superior ao consumo doméstico. As leis voltadas às demandas capitalistas, os cercamentos de terras sem obstáculos e o domínio colonial foram alguns dos vários fatores que colocaram a Inglaterra em condições de liderar a Europa a partir do final do século XVII”, afirma Teixeira.

A Segunda Revolução Industrial teve início em 1860 e gerou mudanças no processo de industrialização que se estenderam até o início da Primeira Guerra Mundial. Com o surgimento da eletricidade, a produção em série nas linhas de montagem proposta por Henry Ford (conhecida como “fordismo”) e o método de administração científica baseada no conhecimento de Frederick Taylor (“taylorismo”), a produção industrial ganha um novo ritmo. O protagonista da Segunda Revolução Industrial passa a ser os EUA que, às vésperas da Primeira Guerra, detinham 40% do PIB dos países desenvolvidos.

Terceira Revolução

Recentemente, na década de 1990, alguns autores afirmaram que estávamos vivendo uma Terceira Revolução Industrial, impulsionada, do ponto de vista tecnológico, pelo surgimento de novas Tecnologias de Informação (TIs) e pelo advento da eletrônica, em substituição à eletro-mecânica, no setor industrial. O conceito ainda é polêmico e divide a academia. Mesmo assim, há um consenso: as TIs têm causado profundas transformações na organização do trabalho em todo o mundo.

“Trata-se de um processo, é preciso tempo para avaliar se o atual momento histórico poderá ser chamado de Terceira Revolução Industrial”, afirma Sérgio Queiroz, pesquisador e professor do Departamento de Política Científica e Tecnológica (DPCT), da Unicamp. Para ele, é difícil definir se as mudanças trazidas com as TIs podem ter provocado uma nova “revolução industrial”, já que, em alguns setores, não houve mudanças “radicais”. É o caso dos meios de transporte, que são os mesmos da Segunda Revolução Industrial com tecnologia aprimorada, e dos meios de produção, ainda baseados na automação, que deixou de ser repetitiva para ser programada pelo computador.

Além disso, diferentemente dos processos ocorridos nos séculos XVIII e XIX, atualmente não há um país protagonista. “Pode-se pensar no Japão e na China, que estão crescendo em ritmo acelerado. Mas eles não estão ditando as regras da produção atual, como aconteceu anteriormente com a Inglaterra, na primeira revolução, e com os Estados Unidos, na segunda”, afirma Queiroz.

Para Teixeira, durante o período inicial da industrialização, as técnicas primitivas de produção poderiam resultar em grande produtividade. Atualmente, no conceito de Terceira Revolução Industrial, isso já não é mais possível devido às exigências da produção de bens de capital, em termos científicos e tecnológicos. “A diferença mais surpreendente entre a Terceira Revolução Industrial e as duas anteriores é a possibilidade de uma produção descentralizada, em que os componentes de um determinado produto podem ser fabricados em diferentes lugares. O mundo globalizado diminui tempo e distância em escala jamais alcançada, o que deve ser atribuído à aceleração do ritmo dos transportes de mercadorias e da informação”, afirma.

A idéia de Terceira Revolução Industrial é caracterizada por uma redução expressiva dos custos de produção e de preço dos produtos automatizados, e pela aceleração do ritmo de produção. “Dos anos 80 para cá, os computadores tiveram uma queda de preços de cerca de 20% ao ano”, afirma Fernando Mattos, professor da pós-graduação em Ciência da Informação e do Centro de Economia e Administração da PUC de Campinas. Para o pesquisador, as Tecnologias de Informação provocaram, também, uma redefinição das dimensões de espaço e de tempo. “O fluxo das informações passou a ser quase instantâneo e, assim, as distâncias ficam encurtadas”, explica.

No Brasil, o total empregado no Setor de Informação ainda é baixo se comparado aos países desenvolvidos. O setor concentra cerca de 18% da mão-de-obra empregada, que se apropria de mais de 37% da massa de rendimentos. Além do maior nível de renda, uma média de 54% dos trabalhadores do setor têm carteira assinada (contra 35% da média nacional) e aproximadamente 40% deles têm curso superior (contra 20% da média nacional).

Tecnologia X postos de trabalho

O advento das TIs e o aumento da importância do complexo eletrônico no processo industrial causaram uma mudança nos postos de trabalho, marcada pela redução do número de trabalhadores com atividades operacionais e pelo surgimento de vagas voltadas para os profissionais responsáveis pelo gerenciamento e pela coordenação da produção. “Há uma necessidade de maior qualificação para ocupar os postos de trabalho que lidam com as TIs. O trabalho intelectual passou a ter uma importância maior nesse setor específico”, explica Mattos.

A diminuição de determinados postos de trabalho e o surgimento de outros é, para Queiroz, uma característica do capitalismo e foi observada também na Primeira e na Segunda Revolução Industrial. “A produção está cada vez mais mecanizada, o que exige menos trabalhadores lidando diretamente com as máquinas”, afirma.

“Há uma tendência para se tentar justificar o desemprego macro-econômico pelas inovações tecnológicas”, explica Mattos, que acredita que problemas sociais da atualidade, como o desemprego, devem-se ao baixo crescimento das economias dos países, e não às novas tecnologias. “Tecnologias sempre foram criadas. As que tanto nos fascinam hoje têm um efeito menor do que tiveram as indústrias química e petroquímica nos anos 50 e 60. A globalização está acentuando as diferenças entre os países e a concentração de renda, mas isso não é uma questão tecnológica”, conclui o pesquisador.

Para Teixeira, a força de trabalho no Setor de Informação tem sido cada vez menos necessária, mas a questão do trabalho não deve ser limitada aos efeitos da automação. “A atual competitividade internacional e as políticas de corte neoliberal favorecem iniciativas empresariais de flexibilização da força de trabalho. É com a insegurança estrutural e permanente do emprego que se pode, com certa tranqüilidade, oferecer trabalho com salários mais baixos”, complementa Teixeira.

A atual insegurança no trabalho é abordada por David Harvey, em A condição pós-moderna. Para Harvey, a força de trabalho está enfraquecida devido ao alto desemprego, à competição do mercado e à redução da força sindical, o que facilita o controle por parte dos empregadores. Assim, os trabalhos em tempo integral e com segurança (como carteira de trabalho) tendem a se reduzir, ao passo que postos de trabalho flexíveis e autônomos – que criam uma insatisfação coletiva – tendem a aumentar.

Fonte: Com Ciência

Henry Ford, perhaps the first businessman to market driving and automobiles to the world, famously wrote in his 1922 book “My Life and Work” that:

“I will build a car for the great multitude. It will be large enough for the family, but small enough for the individual to run and care for. It will be constructed of the best materials, by the best men to be hired, after the simplest designs that modern engineering can devise. But it will be low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one — and enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God’s great open spaces.”

Armed with ambition and determination, Ford did exactly that. From Detroit, the Model T was introduced into the marketplace circa 1908, quickly becoming the commodity of the new century. It was affordable, easy to learn and repair. And with a network of local distributors, the car rapidly flooded onto American streets and into American homes, much like Miley Cyrus and Robert Pattinson have broken into the hearts of teenage girls everywhere.

‘heeeeey, it’s a party in the USA!’

Such was the gusto of Ford’s marketing that in 1931, Aldous Huxley depicted Ford as the Christ of AD 2540 London, and his systems of mass production as the bedrock of a homogeneous, mass-produced society in “Brave New World”. Little did Ford know that even today, his vision would become so ingrained in the American psyche.

In the quote above, we can see a logic emerging. “No man” “will be unable to own one”, or “enjoy with his family”, the “blessings of hours of pleasure in God’s great open spaces”.  Engineering, machinery, motoring. This is the realm of men.

Akin to the Futurist Manifesto by F. T. Marinetti (written just 1 year after the introduction of the model T), Ford sees a world in which, through the car, man is able to be the king of his family and the ruler of his world. He loves his home and he loves his country. By embracing the car, he is able to drive closer to God. After all, we all know driving is a spiritual activity – it’s a form of meditation through which manliness can be achieved. Manhood is defined by what’s under the hood.

However, there’s no logical reason for masculinity and motoring to be linked so strongly, but even today we can see this belief, this mythology is repeated wherever we look.

Deep within Ford’s mainstreaming of automobiles and automotive culture in general, somewhere along the way, this mythology was attached to it, and carried forth even to the current day. Throughout 20th century American popular culture, the idea that ‘car is man’ was repeated in every conceivable way that today, we accept it as truth. Motoring is synonymous with masculinity.

‘hmm, which to pick? The car, the girl, or the cougar….?’

That’s the myth. Over the next few weeks (or however long it takes), we’ll be looking at how Ford’s vision has dug and entrenched itself into the logic of a nation and the ego of a people. From NASCAR to Nightrider, bikers to Barbie dolls, we’ll look at specific examples from US pop culture over the past 100 years, looking at how driving has been driven by gender.

Maybe then, we can debunk this myth. We live in different times to Henry Ford. With the collapse of the US car industry, perhaps now’s the time to rethink how we approach motoring and driving, or atleast the ways that it’s marketed to the masses. Let’s re-examine the mythology of the American automobile…

Next post: The driving nation

Happy drivin’!
Mark

Mona Lisa - betraktet som verdens fremste kunstverk.

- Jo, dere har all verdens muligheter. Det har gjennom det seneste hundreåret vært en vedvarende vekst i antallet journalister i Norge, sier jeg.

Så legger jeg til: – Men akkurat nå er det litt arbeidsledighet i mediebransjen. Det skyldes for det første finanskrisen, som har rammet mediene hardere enn noen annen næring. For det andre gjennomgår mediebransjen store omveltninger fordi både folk og penger flyttes fra klassiske medier som fjernsyn og aviser til de internettbaserte kanalene.

Men likevel sier jeg som så:  I det lange løp vil veksten fortsette. Det vil bli behov for stadig flere som på uavhengig grunnlag er i stand til å innhente, foredle og formidle informasjon.

- Hva skal jeg gjøre for å slippe å jobbe i Se og Hør, spør en av elevene.

- Du skal la være å søke. Bare en brøkdel av norske journalister jobber i kjendisredaksjoner.

- Er det best å studere journalistikk i Norge eller i utlandet?

- Jeg anbefaler de norske høgskolene, hvor Høgskolen i Bodø kanskje er den aller beste. Norske høgskoler har små kull og er tilpasset norsk virkelighet. I utlandet er journalistutdannelsene fabrikker. Men selvsagt vil alle kunne ha nytte av etpar år i en fremmed kultur, langt borte fra mamma.

Hva har Leonardo da Vinci å gjøre med dette? Ganske mye. Han er kjent som verdens mest kreative menneske, og malte det som betraktes som verdens beste kunstverk, “Mona Lisa”. Men han hadde ett problem: Han leverte ikke i tide.  Også “Mona Lisa” var et bestillingsverk, og da Vinci leverte tre år for sent. Tre år etter deadline! Da ville han ha hatt sparken i enhver norsk redaksjon i nesten tre år allerede.

Medieviteren Martin Eide har sagt det så klokt: Journalistikk er kreativitet i en industrilignende setting. Det er lett å huske det skapende, men glemme at det meste som produseres av journalistikk skjer innenfor gitte og stramme rammer: Du må levere det som er bestilt med riktig kvalitet til rett tid. Sånn sett innebærer yrket som journalist  også i seg deler av den samlebåndslogikk som Henry Ford var en banebryter for.

Derfor ville ikke Leonardo da Vinci ha hatt en sjanse i Harstad Tidende – eller i noen annen redaksjon.

Jo, det er et helvete å være journalist, men det er i det minste bedre enn å jobbe.

Fraţii mei, să priviţi ca o mare bucurie când treceţi prin felurite încercări, ca unii care ştiţi că încercarea credinţei voastre lucrează răbdare.Dar răbdarea trebuie să-şi facă desăvârşit lucrarea, ca să fiţi desăvârşiţi, întregi şi să nu duceţi lipsă de nimic.

[Iacov 1.2-4]

Cînd toate par să-ți stea împotrivă, amintește-ți că avionul decolează împotriva vîntului, nu împreună cu el.

Henry Ford

Cuvîntul Meu, care iese din gura Mea, nu se întoarce la Mine fara rod

Richard Ligon may have been a failed planter, but he was a successful promoter of plantations. His book on Barbados was reprinted in 1673, and, according to April Hatfield, owned by planters in Virginia. She believes his influence there was enhanced by the presence of his brother Thomas, who was a cousin and business partner of William Berkeley. In the late 1650’s, Thomas bought 2,000 acres, including some land from William Byrd. Hatfield also thinks Thomas Willoughby may have amplified Richard Ligon’s importance, since Willoughby was the agent for Ligon’s Barbado’s partner, Thomas Modyford.

Ligon didn’t create the structure of the single crop plantation with a cheap, intimidated labor force. That probably happened in Tudor Ireland. What he did was describe how successful men responded to failure within a culturally accepted framework.

When men arrived in Barbados they substituted tobacco in the equation, following the example of Virginia and Maryland. They also replaced the subdued Irish with gangs of indentured servants. They were so successful they failed to make any money: when planters in every colony sent tobacco to London, prices dropped from the glut.

In response to the crisis, Alison Games reports Barbados planters agreed in the 1630’s to stop growing tobacco for two years. The problems were repeated in 1640 with a poor cotton crop. That was the year James Holdipp, a land speculator who made money from cotton, tried sugar. Within five years, James Drax had made the crop a success and begun the substitution of slaves for indentured servants.

Thomas Kuhn suggests that when an intellectual structure like the idea of a plantation is new, it’s pliable enough that individuals are rewarded for applying it to new situations. It’s only after time, when there’s less scope for innovation, that the cultural pattern begins to ossify and men begin to blame their failures on their methods rather than examining accepted wisdom.

The tendency to look to the past, rather than experiment was reinforced by religion. Growers in Barbados came from many traditions, including Anglican, Irish Catholic and Scots Presbyterian. As their animosity to Drax shows, most were hostile to John Calvin and Puritanism.

However, while they did not accept Calvin’s idea that an irrational God had determined, before they were born, if they were saved or damned, they did accept the corollary, that success was a sign of grace. Thus, when they were confronted with the failure to make money with a plantation, their response would have been, like good Christians, to reexamine their past actions to see what they had done wrong to violate the natural order of good crops.

In the 1640’s, the successful planters were the ones like Drax with the mental abilities to master the distillation process. When he turned to a captive labor force he could train and retain, the flow of knowledge to future small land holders stopped. When Humphrey Walrond was stoking frustrations to find support for the royalists in 1650, many complained Drax was hiding his knowledge, and therefore causing their failure.

Failure was built into the use of sugar because the plant exhausts the soil. For men who did not have the German or Japanese sense of maintaining the quality of land, that meant they needed a constant supply of new land. The solution for failure was migration, more land, more slaves to work that land, and more debt. In 1640, men left Barbados for Trinidad. Then they tried Antigua and Jamaica, then South Carolina. It was a solution with a built in limits: usable land is not an infinite commodity, and after the banning of the slave trade by the British in 1807, neither were slaves.

Kuhn suggests the longer the period of unpredictable results, the more men cling to their ideas, and the more likely a solution, when it comes, will come from an outsider who simply ignores the existing set of solutions. Such concepts are recognized as threats, and, Kuhn says, only become dominant when the followers of the new become more common that defenders of the old.

And so, tobacco and cotton farmers in Barbados attacked Drax before following him.

In the American south, cotton farmers resented the control of New England mill operators who set commodity prices, and thus limited their rewards. Rather than expand their concept of a self-sufficient plantation to one that included its own textile mill, they sought more land to produce bigger crops, unmindful of the arithmetic recognized by building contractors.

When Henry Ford decided the solution to retaining a skilled labor force wasn’t to enslave them, but to pay them more, and noticed the consequence was that he produced more customers, plantation owners were outraged. Their whole economy was built on the cheap labor required to increase their production on new, cheap land for a mill industry that kept commodity prices low, especially after World War I when fashions changed and demand for cotton dropped.

When they finally did bring mills into the south they were substituted into the existing formula. They offered cheap land, meaning few taxes or regulations, and controlled labor. However, there turn out to be limits to how cheap those can be made, and industry owners who have adopted their solution have migrated to areas with even cheaper labor. Again, their failure was inherent in their success: when you look at the areas with serious economic problems today they are along the fall line in the Carolinas where the textile mills have left, and those left behind again are blaming the successful rather than trying to solve the contractor’s conundrum.

Notes:
Cahill, Hugh. “A True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados, 1673 Edition,” King’s College Book of the Month, September 2007.

Games, Alison. Migration and the Origins of the English Atlantic World, 1999.

Hatfield, April Lee. Atlantic Virginia: Intercolonial Relations in the Seventeenth Century, 2007.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962.

Ligon, Richard. A True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados, 1657, much extracted.

What a lazy day I’m having… I woke late morning, treated myself to coffee and toast in bed – and a long, fabulous catch up chat with my eldest daughter.  So good to reconnect after a busy week.  A chance to mull over the events and share funny stories.

This afternoon I’m meeting my youngest daughter at the local cinema to see Michael Jackson’s This Is It… we had tickets to for one of his shows in July – so finally having time together to see the film will be a special for us.  Have you noticed how we can bumble along in life, putting things off until tomorrow, things we’d really like to do or have… and then when someones life comes to an end suddenly,  it does come as a shock and put ones own life into perspective doesn’t it?  We realise just how precious our time here is… What have you been putting off that you’d really like to do?

After the film I’m meeting my eldest daughter – we’re off to Windsor to an art gallery where Fabian Perez, the Argentinian, now LA based artist,  is unveiling his stunning new collection of paintings.  As the proud owner of 2 pieces of his art work, I’m always excited to meet the artist – nothing to do with the fact he’s drop dead gorgeous ;)  My daughter who is an art/film student will love this experience, as well as sipping on champagne – and preventing me from making another purchase!   Going to these events always adds sparkle to my life… to see someone who from ’some where’ and ’some how’ has achieved outstanding success – from living in Buenos Aires – becoming a painter… and who is now internationally recognised and who has been chosen as one of the official artists of the London 2012 Olympics!  Fantastic… Mmm… his story focuses me on my goals and Henry Ford’s famous quote springs to mind ‘if you think you can do a thing, or think you can’t your right’ which is it to be?

After our champagne, we’re off for dinner and to admire Windsor Castle by night… it always looks spectacular at night – lit to perfection, it seems to tower (literally) over you as you walk along the winding road that stretches around its solid walls…

This is a perfect day – a day of fun with my girls, a day of treats and remembering live is meant to be FUN!  I’m so aware that they will be flying the nest over the next few years, it’s great to have days like this with them.  What fun things will you do today?  What could you do?  Who would you choose to share your time with?  Who could you call today for a catch up?

Happy Saturday everyone!  Ps… here’s a link to Fabian Perez’s web site www.fabianperez.com

An idealistic is a person who helps other people to be prosperous – Henry Ford

“Erguei-vos … e não temais.

Se tiverdes fé do tamanho de um grão de mostarda, direis a esse monte:

“Passa daqui para acolá…”

E ele passará.

Nada vos será impossível.”

Jesus

“Guardai-vos de toda e qualquer avareza porque a vida de um homem não consiste na abundância de bens que ele possui.”

Jesus

“Um cuidadoso exame de todas as nossas experiências passadas, pode nos revelar o fato surpreendente de que, tudo o que nos aconteceu, foi para o nosso bem.”

Henry Ford

“Oitenta por cento da humanidade não sabe o que quer. Se perguntarmos a quinze por cento o que quer, dirá alguma coisa vaga sem a menor definição. E, finalmente, somente cinco por cento sabe o que quer, como quer e porque o quer.”

Henry Ford

“Faz apenas aquilo que puderes dizer.”

A. Dumas

“Devemos seguir sempre o caminho que conduz ao mais alto.”

Platão

“Linha de Produção” por Di Cavalcanti (1897-1976)

*Por José Roberto Heloani e Cláudio Garcia Capitão

Um dos objetivos mais recentes da saúde mental não se restringe apenas à cura das doenças ou a sua prevenção, mas envidar esforços para a balhar em excesso e a divertir-se muito pouco; outras, pelo contrário, passam os dias a divertirem-se; outras ainda não conseguem fazer nem uma coisa nem outra. Sabe-se hoje que tanto o trabalho, quanto a diversão em proporções satisfatórias são critérios para avaliar um funcionamento psíquico saudável. Na realidade, ao contrário do que muitos possam supor, a organização do trabalho não cria doenças mentais específicas. Os surtos psicóticos e a formação das neuroses dependem da estrutura da personalidade que a pessoa desenvolve desde o início da sua vida, chegando a certa configuração relativamente estável, após o período de ebulição da adolescência – quando as condições sociais são relativamente favoráveis –, antes mesmo da pessoa entrar no processo produtivo. No entanto, “o defeito crônico de uma vida mental sem saída mantido pela organização do trabalho, tem provavelmente um efeito que favorece as descompensações psiconeuróticas” (Dejours, 1992:122).

Atualmente, observa-se uma pressão constante contra a grande massa de trabalhadores existente em quase todo o mundo. Uma ameaça com objetivo certeiro faz com que milhares de pessoas sintam-se sobressaltadas, pois a úniimplementação de recursos que tenham como resultado melhores condições de saúde para a população. Na visão de Bleger (1984), não interessa apenas a ausência de doenças, mas o desenvolvimento integral das pessoas e da comunidade. A ênfase, então, na saúde mental, desloca-se da doença à saúde e à observação de como os seres humanos vivem em seu cotidiano. Para Dejours (1994), a psicopatologia tradicional está alicerçada no modelo clássico da fisiopatologia das doenças que afetam o corpo. Dedica-se, exclusivamente, ao diagnóstico das doenças mentais, dos transtornos mentais orgânicos, da esquizofrenia, dos transtornos do humor e dos inúmeros transtornos de personalidade. O debate, porém, que este artigo pretende explorar abrange as condições de milhares de pessoas sem imunidade que, embora suportem as pressões, conseguem, de alguma forma, escapar de um transtorno psicótico severo, mas que se mantêm, por assim dizer, no campo da normalidade. Não é raro encontrar pessoas que, por uma condição de sua psicodinâmica interna, possuem a propensão a tra ca ferramenta de que dispõem, sua força de trabalho, pode ser dispensada a qualquer momento.

O desprezo assola o universo do trabalho e traz conseqüências drásticas para todos os que têm em seu trabalho sua única forma de sobrevivência. Contudo, a força de trabalho exigida precisa de especial qualificação, mesmo que seja, como antigamente, para apertar um simples botão. Assim, para a maior parte das atividades, exige-se um trabalhador complexo, que saiba muito mais além do que seria preciso para a execução de determinada tarefa. Acompanhando a tecnicidade do mundo, vai-se, paulatinamente, necessitando de um trabalhador com maiores habilidades, ágil, que saiba lidar com uma nova representação de mundo, mesmo que seja para ocupar um cargo simples como o de telefonista. Essa pessoa tem de dominar sua língua, em alguns casos outro idioma, tem de ter rapidez tanto manual, como na voz e na mente, além de uma bagagem de informação disponível enquanto recurso pessoal para, ante qualquer dificuldade, utilizá-la.

Assim, o mundo do trabalho torna-se, de forma rápida e surpreendente, um complexo monstruoso, que se por um lado poderia ajudar, auxiliar o homem em sua qualidade de vida, por outro lado – patrocinado pelos que mantêm o controle do capital, da ferramenta diária que movimenta a escolha de prioridades –, avassala o homem em todos os seus aspectos. Alguns são absorvidos, exigidos, sugados. Outros alçados a postos de poder e de liderança que reproduzem o capital virtual. Outros, por assim dizer, alguns milhões, são jogados como a escória cuja água benta do emprego, da possibilidade do trabalho, não veio a salvar. Esse princípio de realidade adentra e fere o psiquismo humano, fazendo com que as pessoas sintam-se exigidas; o sentimento de impotência e de desvalorização, que leva as pessoas pouco resistentes a degenerar-se rapidamente, avilta de si qualquer potencial humano que pudesse se somar às conquistas da civilização.

Paradoxos do Trabalho

A barbárie do capital instaura na contemporaneidade a desumanidade das relações humanas, que se desqualificam quase totalmente, surpreendendo com a forma e a fôrma na qual o homem atual vai colocando-se. O capital, por meio do trabalho, organiza e estrutura o mundo. Só que hoje ele não tem mais nomes, expressa-se por Fundos. As empresas são gerenciadas por executivos, não mais por seus donos. Podem mudar de cidade, de nome, de país, de ramo de atividade, deixando seus trabalhadores em pleno mar de incertezas e retirando-lhes a identificação com sua prática diária e com a empresa para a qual trabalham.

No pensamento e análise precisos e pontuais de Ianni (2000), é principalmente no neoliberalismo que se dá a dissociação entre o Estado e a sociedade civil, adquirindo o primeiro características de um aparelho administrativo das classes e grupos que detêm o poder, configurando-se como blocos dominantes em escala mundial. O que se observa é um Estado comprometido com a possibilidade de facilitação da produção e dos mercados, tendo em seu bojo a fluidez do capital produtivo e especulativo, da alta tecnologia, da informática, etc. No entanto, sempre em sintonia com as políticas geradas pelo Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI), Banco Mundial (Bird), Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC), Grupo dos 7, Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) comprometidas em facilitar e incrementar a produção, com praticamente nenhum cuidado em relação aos resultados de suas políticas, sua repercussão social ou conseqüências diretas na vida de milhões de pessoas.

Se o homem passa a maior parte de seu tempo trabalhando, suas relações pessoais fora de casa deveriam ter um valor afetivo de extrema importância. No entanto, as relações de companheirismo e de amizade no trabalho não se concretizam, pois elas são passageiras, imediatas, competitivas e as ligações afetivas, os vínculos não podem estabelecer-se, já que com cada alteração rompem-se os laços, perdem-se as pessoas e daí, além do castigo do desemprego, há a solidão, a perda irreparável. Fala-se em corrosão do caráter porque ninguém, nem os que teriam todas as razões para estarem satisfeitos com o sistema já que representam seu próprio ideal, encara seu emprego num horizonte a longo prazo. O comportamento de curto prazo, como Sennett (1998) observou, distorceu qualquer senso de realidade, confiança e comprometimento mútuo. As empresas descartam seus funcionários e os que podem fazem o mesmo. As pessoas parecem não mais estarem preocupadas com o significado do seu trabalho ou com a oportunidade de vivência e troca coletiva. A preocupação volta-se para a acumulação de um valor de troca, como se todos se convertessem em uma ação de mercado, cujo preço é julgado por outrem. A verdadeira identificação com o trabalho parece viver de um objetivo que não chega a concretizar-se: acumula-se aprendizado, dinheiro, experiência, aumentam-se as páginas do currículo, tudo para o próximo processo seletivo já que o trabalho atual será apenas momentâneo.

No presente, ao contrário da classe de mineiros descrita em Germinal, por Zola, o que encontra-se são pessoas isoladas, esquizóides, que olham o colega como alguém não confiável, não só pelo fato do que o outro realmente é, mas, muito mais, pelo que representa: sofrimento e dor. No universo pós-moderno “são muitos os que colocam em plano muito secundário, ou simplesmente esquecem, o povo, as classes, os grupos e os movimentos sociais, assim como as correntes de opinião pública e os jogos das forças sociais [...] Em especial, esquecem as formas de organização social e técnica do trabalho, compreendendo as condições sob as quais se desenvolvem e realizam a produção, distribuição, troca e consumo, processos com os quais se funda uma parte fundamental da ‘fábrica’ da sociedade, em escala nacional e mundial” (Ianni, 2000).

Retrocedendo na História, assim como sugere Marx (1996), mais dependente aparece o indivíduo, e, conseqüentemente também o indivíduo produtor e o conjunto ao qual pertence. De início, esse aparece de um modo ainda bastante natural, no seio da família e da tribo, esta uma família ampliada. Mais tarde, surge nas inúmeras formas de comunidade resultantes do antagonismo e da fusão das tribos. Somente no século XVIII, na “sociedade burguesa”, é que as diversas formas do conjunto social passaram a apresentar-se ao indivíduo como simples meio de realizar seus fins privados, como necessidade exterior. Todavia, a época que produz esse ponto de vista, o do indivíduo isolado, é precisamente aquela na qual as relações sociais (e, desse ponto de vista, gerais) alcançaram o mais alto grau de desenvolvimento.

Não pretende-se nesse breve artigo sobrepor o homem atual àquele encontrado no século XVIII, no que se refere, por exemplo, ao trabalho e à forma como ele se organiza. Mas, ao contrário, esclarecer algumas das determinações históricas que fizeram com que o trabalho fosse e tivesse a forma atual e porque a relação com o trabalho deve ser de sofrimento, de pena a ser cumprida, de trabalho forçado e não algo ego-sintônico, motivado e prazeroso. Seriam apenas as relações de propriedade e de exploração? Ou a própria produção cria aquele que consome, que, por sinal, cria a própria Produção. Para Marx (1996:31), “a produção é também imediatamente consumo. Consumo duplo, subjetivo e objetivo. O indivíduo, que ao produzir desenvolve suas faculdades, também as gasta, as consome, no ato da produção, exatamente como a reprodução natural é um consumo de forças vitais”. Se a produção coincide com o consumo dos meios que obrigatoriamente foram utilizados e gastos para que ela ocorresse, o próprio ato de produção vai ser, como se verá, em todos os seus momentos, também ato de consumo. O resultado, em síntese, é que a produção é consumo, e que, imediatamente, é produção. “Cada qual é imediatamente seu contrário. Mas, ao mesmo tempo, opera-se um movimento mediador entre ambos. A produção é mediadora do consumo, cujos materiais cria e sem os quais não terá objeto. Mas o consumo é também mediador da produção ao criar para os produtos o sujeito, para o qual são os produtos” (Marx, 1996:32).

Para entender quais as determinações históricas da relação homem x trabalho na modernidade, tem-se de penetrar na “máquina” que tece sua trama nevrálgica, a produção que cria seu produtor e consumidor, com base no momento em que foi gerada. Então, o trabalho configura-se como o representante da força dos impulsos que o homem emprega para executálo, para poder ou não consumir o que foi por ele produzido, abrindo possibilidades de constituição de subjetividades, correspondentes a cada época histórica, que tem, por domínio, uma forma de produção.

Sujeito, trabalho, produto, consumo, lucro. Elementos constitutivos de um intrigante eixo gravitacional, em que consumidor e produto mantêm uma relação eqüidistante. Para Adorno e Horkheimer (apud Rouanet, 1983:147) “a atrofia da imaginação e da espontaneidade do consumidor cultural moderno não precisa ser reconduzida a mecanismos psicológicos. Os produtos mesmos, a partir do mais típico, o filme falado, paralisam aquelas faculdades por sua própria constituição objetiva. São feitos de tal forma que sua compreensão adequada exige rapidez de reflexos, dotes de observação, competência específica, mas também a absoluta suspensão da atividade mental do espectador, se este não quer perder os fatos que se desenrolam diante de seus olhos… o espectador não deve trabalhar com a própria cabeça; o produto prescreve todas as reações: não por seu contexto objetivo – este se esvai no momento em que é submetido ao pensamento – mas através de sinais. Toda conexão lógica, que exija esforço intelectual, é escrupulosamente evitada”. O produto posiciona o consumidor na mesma situação de uma linha de montagem e não se restringe apenas a filmes, mas a amplo universo de necessidades criadas, consumidas sem qualquer reflexão, como se os efeitos da paralisia mental sofrida na produção fosse transferida em gênero, número e grau, para aquele que o adquire.

No que se refere à produção, e por que não dizer o mesmo para o consumo, a situação que se encontra na atualidade não surgiu por geração espontânea, mas ocorreram marcos no capitalismo, que, para melhor rendimento e maior produção, desenvolveu métodos, muitos dos quais, aperfeiçoados em diversas versões. Taylor (apud Heloani, 1994) formulou uma forma de organização do trabalho caracterizada pelo amplo funcionamento das tarefas e concomitante o monitoramento dos movimentos dos trabalhadores. Tal forma rígida de controle objetivava a eficiência como meta e princípio. O modelo de Taylor, por seu lado, foi aperfeiçoado por Henry Ford, que desenvolveu a concepção de linha de montagem. O trabalho, então, é dividido de tal forma que o trabalhador possa a ser abastecido de peças e componentes através de esteiras, sem precisar, desse modo, movimentar-se. A administração do tempo passa a se dar de forma coletiva, pela adaptação do conjunto dos trabalhadores ao ritmo imposto pela esteira. O fordismo não se limitará apenas à questão disciplinar no interior da fábrica. Ele incorporará, tal como o taylorismo, um projeto social de “melhoria das condições de vida do trabalhador”. O projeto social fordista revela-se um projeto político que objetivava assimilar o saber e a percepção política do trabalhador para a organização.

Até a crise do paradigma taylorista-fordista de produção, o modelo de Recursos Humanos e a própria concepção de administração estiveram articulados com concepções oriundas da engenharia, especialmente com a de produção, como também, com a lógica militar, expressa tão bem pela utilização de vocábulos pertencentes à caserna, tais como: logística, tática, estratégia, etc. Em conseqüência das transformações sociais e das ocorridas no cerne do capitalismo, a abordagem da engenharia foi perdendo espaço e começou a ser questionada à medida que o modelo fordista de desenvolvimento entra em crise – perde sua eficácia – em fins dos anos 60 e começo dos 70. Tal mudança não foi produto simples e acabado de uma visão mais humanista ou de um longo e bem-cuidado processo de conscientização, mas conseqüência de uma necessidade premente de responder a uma nova estrutura econômica e a um novo modo de regulamentação social; em suma, a uma nova realidade que se apresentava e que exigia respostas rápidas por parte do capital.

*José Roberto Heloani é Professor e Pesquisador da Universidade Estadual de Campinas e na FGV-SP(jheloani@fgvsp.br).

*Cláudio Garcia Capitão é Psicólogo Clínico, Professor e Pesquisador em Psicologia na Universidade São Francisco (cgcapitao@uol.com.br).

Fonte: Revista São Paulo em Perspectiva 17(2): 102-108, 2003

Leia a segunda parte deste artigo AQUI

Luther Burbank was one of the great American Inventors, as important as Thomas Edison and Henry Ford, both of whom were friends of his. He suggested to Ford the use of factory automation processes. As a botanist he developed more than 800 strains and varieties of plants over his 55-year career. Burbank’s varied creations included fruits, flowers, grains, grasses, and vegetables. He developed a spineless cactus (useful for cattle-feed) and the plumcot.
Burbank’s most successful strains and varieties include the Shasta daisy, the Fire poppy, the July Elberta peach, the Santa Rosa plum, the Flaming Gold nectarine, the Wickson plum, the Freestone peach, and the white blackberry. A natural genetic variant of the Burbank potato with russet-colored skin later became known as the Russet Burbank potato. This large, brown-skinned, white-fleshed potato has become the world’s predominant potato in food processing.
Though most people have heard his name (often in reference to schools names), few know about the contributions he made to the American food table. He also was very spiritual and was referred to in “Autobiography of a Yogi” by Paramahansa Yogananda
“His heart was fathomlessly deep, long acquainted with humility, patience, sacrifice. His little home amid the roses was austerely simple; he knew the worthlessness of luxury, the joy of few possessions. The modesty with which he wore his scientific fame repeatedly reminded me of the trees that bend low with the burden of ripening fruits; it is the barren tree that lifts its head high in an empty boast.” (Yogananda, 1946, p. 352)

Quality Time With Kids

Recently I met up with my second cousin at my grandfather’s funeral. She’s this gorgeous, smart, upper middle class early 20-something with a father (my cuz) that has always been a successful entrepreneur, running his business from home. Here’s the kicker…

She mentioned how she is looking for a job in marketing and I asked her if she was interested in freelance or consulting work and she said, “Oh, no I would never work for myself. I want to go to work and have a structured environment and I can leave work at work. I don’t want to be like my dad.”

What? Did I hear her right?

Here I am promoting entrepreneurism, especially to our children, and with this amazing role model she was choosing the other path. I can tell you why.

She saw how hard her father worked and how many hours he spent flying around the country. This stood out more than her privledged lifestyle, how they could fly out for a vacation at a moments notice or the fact that her dad was just a couple feet away in his home office.

How do we as parents make sure we are not leaving a bad impression on our children? I’m not saying it’s bad to work for a company, however we do have a responsibility to make sure our children are receiving quality time with us and are left with a positive image of entrepreneurial pursuits. Here’s how.

We have to position ourselves in our businesses so that we are there to consult, direct, delegate. The key here is the word DELEGATE.

Henry Ford was notorious for this. He surrounded himself with the brightest and the best and called on them to solve problems and create. He simply listened and made final decisions. Oddly he was not the most “book smart” guy, just smart enough to get good people on his team and delegate the work to them. Where do you start the delegation process? Who on earth could do it better than you? How can you pay for someone else to do the work?

You begin small. Hiring a virtual assistant is a must these days. You can hire someone from India, Pakistan, U.S.A, Canada and the list goes on. You would be utterly amazed at what they can take off your plate, giving you more time to make money doing what you love. Check out elance.com.

Can you let go of the reigns? You need to always be on the lookout for someone to mentor, someone you can train in your craft. Not only does this help another it helps you. Most young adults work for minimum wage and sometimes for free just to learn your craft, your skills and experience. Put out an ad on Craigslist, connect with teachers at the local community college and ask around.

Can you afford this? Can you afford not to? The virtual assistant can be very inexpensive and save you tons of time. Crunch the numbers and I bet you could pay an assistant for a month and make the money in the back end because you have more time.

Now you have more time for the kids. Wasn’t this the whole point? Talk to you kids about your business and why you do it. Don’t complain in front of the kids, but speak realistically about the difficulties. Inspire them and they will inspire you.

by The Economist, November 12, 2009.

Brazil has long been known as a place of vast potential. It has the world’s largest freshwater supplies, the largest tropical forests, land so fertile that in some places farmers manage three harvests a year, and huge mineral and hydrocarbon wealth. Foreign investors have staked fortunes on the idea that Brazil is indeed the country of the future. And foreign investors have lost fortunes; most spectacularly, Henry Ford, who made a huge investment in a rubber plantation in the Amazon which he intended to tap for car tyres. Fordlândia, a long-forgotten municipality in the state of Pará, with its faded clapboard houses now slowly being swallowed up by jungle, is perhaps Brazil’s most poignant monument to that repeated triumph of experience over hope.

Foreigners have short memories, but Brazilians have learned to temper their optimism with caution—even now, when the country is enjoying probably its best moment since a group of Portuguese sailors (looking for India) washed up on its shores in 1500. Brazil has been democratic before, it has had economic growth before and it has had low inflation before. But it has never before sustained all three at the same time. If current trends hold (which is a big if), Brazil, with a population of 192m and growing fast, could be one of the world’s five biggest economies by the middle of this century, along with China, America, India and Japan…(continue reading)

While I am still held up here with whatever this is, I have realized that those who oppose the leadership of this country are being marked, spied on, and otherwise identified as extremist because we do not subscribe to the policies and aims of those wanting to bring this country into an oppressive one government rule.  A few years ago, this would not be the case.  For one thing politicians cared about what the people back home thought.  A few years ago, we wouldn’t be bombarded with stealth like messages that carry double meaning so that the general public is deceived.

That has caused me to wonder what Henry ford was thinking bring people from Yemen to work in his factories in Dearborn.  Yes it was Henry Ford that infiltrated this country with the first Muslim population in this country.  Now there could have been others, but bringing from I understand was about 30,000 Yemenis at one time, that would have to be small community moving in.  Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything against any people groups the right to country of opportunity, but the fact is that the land of opportunity is being robbed of all the opportunity.

Every day I here in the news from all networks that this business is failing, and that business is failing.  Then congress wants to pour more taxes on business so that the ability to make enough money to have the profits to put back into the innovation and development doesn’t exist.  These are not the mega businesses, but the average business both small and medium.  The companies  that spur new hires and new products are the target.

Remember the President’s comments as then the candidate told Joe the plumber, shouldn’t the little person share in the wealth that you are creating?  That’s a paraphrase.  but the idea of redistribution of wealth from working to build a business to not be able to eat of your own labors.  At this rate, there will be no  opportunities without the governments approval.   That’s why I went back to school to prepare myself for the uncertain future.

So in my humble opinion we are losing the drive to create.  The government is follow the path of Enron. Ultimately what this will do is cause this once great land to become a mire shadow of its former self.

And that’s the way I see it today!!

Like fish stranded by a fast retreating tide, most mainstream economists, commentators and governments tend to be flapping around frantically and aimlessly, unaware of the real cause of their distress.  The  more cautious among them hope for a slow return of the tide;  most merely hope against hope that somehow, sometime, all will return to what it was.  It almost certainly will not.

Nobody saw it coming.  This is an oft repeated mantra about the global economic crisis, which is also — and equally erroneously — referred to frequently as a financial crisis.  But it is certainly true that most mainstream economists and commentators continued to talk up the economy even as the first serious signs of collapse became evident.  And most also tended to refer to it — at least initially — as a purely financial affair.

They did so out of an almost religious belief in the market and, in most cases, an obvious absence of knowledge about economic history.  Clearly blinded by the chimera of Stock Exchanges and the smoke and mirrors of booming futures and derivatives trading, they lost sight — if ever they had it — of the real productive economy.  Their god was profit and their church, the market.

So when the economic bubble began to deflate, punctured by what was an effective pyramid scheme based on sub-prime mortgages in the United States, they did not question church or deity;  the search was for individual sinners, those who had abused the rites and rituals that they believe guarantee profits ever after.  So instead of rational appraisals, there were frequent outpourings of dogmatic incantations and calls for regulatory patches to repair the sub-prime hole that had begun deflating the economic bubble.

And there is the continued insistence by any number of economists and commentators that the crisis could not have been foreseen;  that its precise cause and probable consequences still remain a mystery.  But this is simply untrue.  For 20 years and more, the warning signs have existed — and have been pointed out, although usually from the more radical margins of economic debate.

However, even that standard bearer of free market capitalism, The Economist magazine, warned in 1999 that the spectres of over-capacity and over-production were haunting the world economy.  A survey by the magazine of international demand, supply and capacity resulted in the conclusion that a time of glut leading to stagnation, was on the cards.

This was something that had been pointed out even earlier by the likes of economic historian Robert Brenner in the United States.  He was not alone.  Economic commentator T. N. Vance in the US was raising warnings in the 1950s and the so-called oil price crisis of 1973 led to a veritable flurry of analysis on the margins of economic debate, illustrating what probably lay in store.

However, these commentators and economists not only looked to productive capacity and the related sources of supply and demand in the world economy, they based their analysis on the much earlier work of Karl Marx and his collaborator, Frederick Engels.  In 1848 Marx and Engels wrote that the then relatively new capitalist economic system needed to expand its market globally;  it needed to “nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere”.

It was a system, they wrote, that has “conjured up such gigantic means of production [that it] is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells”.  This, they maintained, would lead to crises and to “an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production”.

But the mass of free market praise singers grew as the world recovered from the barbarity and destruction of the second world war and a lengthy economic boom began.  The collective attitude of the praise singers was well summed up by economics Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson.  In 1970 he told a conference of his peers that the days of crises — of boom and bust — were over.  “The National Bureau of Economic Research has worked itself out of one of its first jobs, namely business cycles,” he claimed.

Three years later came the first crisis.  But it failed to dent the psuedo-religious belief in the market and the system as it existed.  Sinners were found:  the oil producers and their “artificial” lifting of the oil price.  What was needed was merely some adjustment;  there had apparently been too much tinkering with the market.

This attitude was summed by British Labour Party prime minister James Callaghan in 1976 when he said:

“We used to think you could just spend your way out of recession by cutting taxes and boosting government borrowing…that option no longer exists…it worked by injecting inflation into the economy.  Each time that has happened…unemployment has risen.”

Callaghan’s statement announced the turn away from what was known broadly as the Keynsian approach to that advocated by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, an  approach now labelled neo-liberal.  Thirty years later, neo-liberalism has been found wanting and, without apparent irony, history is now repeating itself:  the present British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has increased government borrowing and embarked on a policy of spending as a solution to recession.

But this begs the main question:  is this merely another recession/depression, one of the cyclical slumps inherent in the system, or is it something different?  The answer is probably both yes and no:  yes, it is one of the slumps inherent in the system and no, it’s underlying cause is no different from those preceding it.  However, it is by far the greatest crisis the system has suffered, the cumulative result of decades spent ignoring a growing and fundamental fault.

The economic history of the modern, capitalist, world is peppered with examples of booms and slumps, of struggles for economic supremacy by individuals and exploiting minorities in regions, countries and blocs.  All the while, productive capacity and the ability to manufacture more with less grew as mechanisation and the bloody history of colonial plunder replaced plantation slavery and the dehumanising horror of the workhouse.

Peasants and self-sufficient communities, driven off their lands by force or taxes, swelled the ranks of the sellers of labour who, at one and the same time, became the purchasers of the very products they helped to make, distribute or provide the raw materials for.  Their wages and conditions improved only after desperate and often bloody struggles.

However, there were always some employers who realised the link between the worker as producer and as consumer.  None more so than Henry Ford.  He had little regard for workers, but understood that the survival of the system demanded the ability to sell, at a profit, the products that the sellers of labour create — and buy.  In his 1922 autobiography he noted:

“…Our own sales depend in a measure upon the wages we pay.  If we can distribute high wages then that money…will serve to make storekeepers and distributors and manufacturers and workers in other lines more prosperous and their prosperity will be reflected in our sales”.

But he too did not foresee the looming absurdity of over capacity and over production that now afflicts almost every manufactured item, but is especially obvious in the textile, garment and motor vehicle industries.  Take vehicle maker Toyota, for example.  This year the company estimates that production will be more than 30 per cent below its current, 10 million units a year capacity.  It now contemplates reducing output by another 1 million vehicles.

Such reductions in capacity mean more and more unemployment and less and less purchasing power.  It also means tumbling prices as competition intensifies and this, in turn, leads, on a global basis, to a race to the bottom in terms of wages and conditions.

South Africa — and especially the garment centres of Cape Town and Durban — have already borne the loss of tens of thousands of rag trade jobs.  Vehicle makers and component suppliers in the Eastern Cape have also been badly hit and are gearing up for even more job losses.

So far, government and its “social partners”, business and labour, have responded with a policy framework that amounts to financial bailouts and short-term retraining at half wages for retrenched workers.  This is based on the almost certainly forlorn hope that there will be an economic revival in the short to medium term.

The hope is forlorn because the mircrochip revolution is continuing apace.  These slivers of silicon lie at the heart of vehicle assembly lines, televisions, cell phones, the national power grid and the automated machines in factory and home.  They make work faster, easier and cheaper, using less and less labour.

This technological advance could herald a world of plenty for all.  It could liberate humanity from drudgery and poverty and repair the destruction already wrought on the physical environment.  But it could only do so on the basis of collective action for the benefit of the majority.

Our present anarchic system of minority ownership, based competition and the need to accumulate increasing levels of profit in order to compete even more successfully, works against such a development.  There is already evidence of where this may lead:  to fortified islands — whether suburbs, cities, or regions — of affluence in a global sea of desperate poverty and increasing savagery.

So we are faced with a stark choice, not just nationally, but internationally:  start to transform radically the economic system to one based on co-operation, under collective, democratic control — or persist with the existing system of competitive, minority control, whether by individuals, companies or states.  It may amount to a choice between planetary survival or annihilation.

The left delights in grave robbing, which helps to explain why support for inheritance taxes (which go by the more honest moniker, death duties, in the U.K.) remains so high among progressive activists.

But having the tax man shake down corpses is only one way the left helps fund both the welfare state and the progressive movement’s broader program of activism. Liberals love taking money away from dead philanthropists by subverting their charitable foundations.

The topic of fidelity to donors’ intent came up on the “Glenn Beck Program” today (video here) during a discussion of the left-wing entitlemania group AARP’s (American Association of Retired Persons) support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) version of ObamaCare, which the House barely approved in the dead of night over the weekend.

The guest host said he couldn’t figure out why AARP decided to back socialist medicine.

Suggesting that there was a time when AARP wasn’t liberal, commentator Ann Coulter said

I tend to think the simpler explanation is [conservative writer] John O’Sullivan’s, that any organization that is not an explicitly a conservative organization will be taken over by left-wing loons eventually, from Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation, the Catholic Church for a while. Unless, I mean, it could be the choral singers of East St. Louis. Any organization that is not an expressly right-wing organization will be taken over by left-wing loons and that has certainly been true of AARP going back years and years.

Indeed, the grants handed out nowadays by the Carnegie Foundation (proper name: Carnegie Corporation of New York) and the Ford Foundation have little in common with the beliefs of those two foundations’ creators.

As Martin Morse Wooster, senior fellow at Capital Research Center (where I work,) has written both Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford

“were heroic entrepreneurs who strongly believed in free enterprise and traditional virtues…[yet]liberals or leftists control the foundations that serve to perpetuate their names.”

Carnegie formed various nonprofits with specific objectives such as the Carnegie Institution of Washington, the Carnegie Hero Fund, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which still largely mirror the late industrialist’s wishes.

But Carnegie “ran out of ideas while he still had half his fortune to spend,” Wooster writes. He created the Carnegie Corporation without indicating that it was to spend money on. “Freed from any restrictions, the Carnegie Corporation became a pillar of liberalism.”

Henry Ford and Edsel Ford created their charity to avoid confiscatory inheritance taxes but they didn’t leave instructions on how the charity should be run. Henry Ford’s grandson, Henry Ford II, largely gave up control over the charity in 1948 and “[t]he result was that liberals quickly seized control of the foundation, and Henry Ford II resigned as a trustee of the Ford Foundation in a protest over the foundation’s leftward drift,” according to Wooster.

The longer a foundation exists, the farther it moves away from the ideals of the donor, Wooster writes. This “problem of donor intent”—is “a particularly acute problem for conservative and libertarian donors, given that the sorts of people who want to be program officers or presidents of foundations are usually liberals or leftists.”

Text: Psalm 119: 5, 10, and 11

Main Point: What does your life say about God?

A true story is told of a Ford Motor Company machinist in Detroit who became a Christian. In light of that experience he became a devout follower of God and desired to right his many wrongs.

He had been stealing parts and tools from Ford for many years. The morning after his conversion, he acted out his public confession of Christ by taking all of the stolen tools and parts back to his employer. He explained his situation and recent conversion to his foreman and asked for his forgiveness.

This response by an employee was without precedent. Mr. Ford, who was visiting a European plant, was cabled concerning all the details of this matter with a request for his response.

Mr. Ford immediately replied with his decision: “Dam up the Detroit River and baptize the whole city.”

A commentator noted, “Baptism is a public proclamation; our lives should be the same.”

In light of today’s sermon title, I ask, “What does your life say about God?”

Henry and Richard Blackaby have written, “Why is it that some Christians seem to go much deeper in their walk with God than others? It is because these individuals have committed themselves to pursue God until his presence is powerfully real in their lives.”

For the remaining Sundays of this month, we are going to spend time in the longest chapter of the Bible – Psalm 119.

Now Psalm 119 is 176 verses long and to give you an idea of just how long 176 verses are, if I were to preach a verse of Psalm 119 every Sunday, it would take me, minus vacation, Easter, and Christmas Sundays, (5 Sundays/year), almost 3 and 3/4 years to preach it. But, I am not going to do that, unless I felt led to.

Some have suggested that this Psalm was written not by David or Solomon but by someone well after their time – Ezra. Even though the book bearing his name appears toward the middle of the Old Testament, chronologically it comes toward the end, well after David and Solomon and the time of Israel’s kings, because Ezra is a part of the return from Exile that took place in the latter part of Old Testament history.

Chuck Swindoll informs us in his introduction to the book of Ezra, that Ezra was a part of the second group of Jewish refugees who returned to Jerusalem 80 years after the first group, led by Zerubbabel, returned to rebuild the temple.

The second group, led by Ezra, came to reestablish worship. The third group came around a decade and a half later and was led by Nehemiah. Their mission was to rebuild the walls around the city.

One of the characteristics about Ezra that Swindoll notes indicates a link to Psalm 119 and also allows us to understand portions of it, especially those which speak of enemies and those who do not follow God. In Ezra 7:10 we read, “Ezra had determined to study and obey the law of the LORD and to teach those laws and regulations to the people of Israel.” Ezra, in addition to teaching the laws, the ways of faith, to the people also encountered a problem during his tenure in Jerusalem.

Many of the Jewish leaders had taken up the practice of intermarriage with the various groups that lived in and around the Jewish remnant. This was forbidden by the Jewish law and caused Ezra, as we read in chapter 9, to weep and mourn before God and to, as we read in chapter 10, demand public confession and repentance of those who were guilty. And that is what happened.

Ezra was committed to following God no matter what. He was passionate about God and living for God and he devoted himself to studying, applying, and following God’s word.

I think that it is very plausible that Ezra wrote Psalm 119 because of both his desire to follow God and his disappointment and frustration with those who did not. I think that we could say with some assurance that this Psalm is Ezra’s “Spiritual Autobiography.”

But, this wonderful Psalm describes any one of us who desires to follow hard after God. It can be our spiritual autobiography as well.

There are three verses that express the heart, the desire, and the passion of a person who seeks God and the security of a personal relationship with God. They reveal three characteristics, three qualities, which are essential for living a life in which God is evident.

All three verses appear in the first two sections of Psalm 119. Now I say sections because some of you might have a Bible that has section titles for Psalm 119. That is because Psalm 119 is divided into 22 sections and the first verse of each section begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This structure perhaps was used to enable this Psalm to be used in corporate worship, like a liturgy or responsive reading.

Verse 5 is the first verse that I want to examine as evidence of a life that is in passionate pursuit of God. “Oh, that my actions would consistently reflect your principles!”

In this verse the Psalmist says it is my intention that my life reflect God’s intention by illustrating His principles in my actions. This is intention of desire.

That little word “Oh!” says a lot about intention doesn’t it?

We often say:

“Oh, how I wish that . . “

“Oh, nuts, I messed up . . .”

“Oh, I forgot to call so and so. .  “

Our daily life is filled with intentions:

“Today, I am going to clean out the garage.”

“Tomorrow, I am going to visit Aunt Alice.”

But what is meant here is that the speaker has a deeper intention in mind. It is an intention to live out God’s way in every single action of every single day.

Now we are aware that our best intentions some times go unfulfilled for a variety of reasons such as unseen interruptions or a last minute change in plans. But once again this not what the Psalmist speaks of.

He is speaking of a character issue. He speaking of an internal desire to do what is right to live the right way, and to make the right choices. Choices that reflect the very character of God in a person’s life.

In thinking of intentions, I am reminded of the story of the lady who found out that she had a skunk in her basement. Confounded as to how to get rid of it, she called the local police for help.

Their advice was to lay a trail of breadcrumbs from the cellar door entrance into the yard so as to lead the skunk out of the basement. She followed their advice.

A few days later she called the police again asking for help. For now she had two skunks in her cellar.

The woman’s and the police’s, intentions were good. But, the outcome was not what anyone expected or wanted. The same holds true for us. Sometimes we act with all the right motives, all the right intentions. But, the outcome is, shall we say, “stinky.”

In our intention to live for God sometimes the outcomes are not what we planned. But, that does not mean we give up. It means that we continue to act in a manner that reflects God’s principles.

Nor does it mean that God has given up on us. For He truly knows when our intentions are right even we the outcome is not what it should have been.

But, again the Psalmist speaks of an intention of desire that consistently, day in and day out, indicates in his actions a reflection of God Himself.

If you were to write your spiritual autobiography, would this intention of desire be a theme in your story?

In verse 10 the Psalmist says, “I have tried my best to find you-don’t let me wander from your commands.” This is a statement about intention of direction.

God is sometimes hard to find. Sometimes God hides. Why? Maybe He wants to determine how serious we are about following Him.

As I reflect on this aspect of following God [intention of direction], I recall a tactic that I sometimes use with my boys. When I am ready to leave a location, a room, the house, even here at the church, and they are not following me because they are procrastinating or do not want to leave. I simply say, “Okay see you later!” and head out for the door.

Whoosh! They are right behind me! “Wait, wait daddy!” I hear in a voice filled with almost panic and they follow me where we need to go.

Now the Psalmist is not saying that God is playing a trick on us. What he is saying is that he has tried to find, and follow, God as best as he can but he does not want to wonder away.

There are times when parents, allow their  kids to wander away, within reason, to help them gain the internal ability to stop and say, “Wait, I need to find mom and dad and get back with them or I will be lost.”

When I said a moment ago God sometimes hides on us, it may also be due to the fact that we are in danger of taking our relationship with God for granted and thus become vulnerable to temptation because as we have so often heard, “familiarity breeds contempt.” But, there is another reason.

God is God. He is wholly other. And there is a mystery to God that we cannot penetrate or should not penetrate.

The Psalmist knew this. To him, worship was awe struck worship. It reflected the tremendous mystery and majesty of God that drove someone like Isaiah to his knees as he confessed that he was unclean in the midst of holy and righteous God.

If we assume that Ezra wrote this Psalm, then we could certainly understand these feelings expressed in verse 10 as he surveyed the spiritual condition of the Jewish exiles and the challenges they faced from those who opposed their return and the re-establishment of their faith and places of worship.

Ezra faced moments when he was not sure what to do. He was not sure whom he could trust. He was not clear as to the outcome of decisions made.

But Ezra, in his study and in his leadership, searched diligently for God’s direction and presence in the face of times of uncertainty about what to do next. However, because of his study, because of the intent desire to “consistently reflect God’s principles in his actions,” Ezra had the confidence that God would help him not to wander away. He had developed the internal controls of faith and obedience.

This verse gives us a picture of a person who was seeking God with all of himself in spite of the gray and uncertain areas of life that he faced. He knew that God was somewhere and he desired to make sure that God would not let him get away.

Every once in a while Susan and I hear Jonathon talking about something related to the past and he will say, “you know mom, you know dad, back in the old days when everything was in black and white.” We know that there are many things that are black and white. But, we also live in a world where there is a lot of gray when it comes to choices and decision and we are not sure what direction to go.

In those moments we need to be like the Psalmist and plead with God to keep us from wandering from his commands. We need this intention of direction as part of our daily lives if we want to live passionately with God and for God.

In your story, how would you describe this intention of direction?

Finally, we move to the next verse, verse 11 where we read, “I have hidden your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.” This is an intention of commitment.

Now the previous two verses also speak of commitment with regard to desire and direction. But, verse 11 speaks of an intention of the heart and soul that goes very, very deep.

The Psalmist basically says, “I have incorporated your word, your law, your ways, God into the core of my being so that I will not intentionally do or say something that separates me from you. It is my commitment to hold deep within me your word to me so that I will not act disobediently.

Quite frankly, now days such a commitment seems almost fanatical. But, does it have to be? Is it fanaticism? No and no.

As I read through this Psalm this past week, I came to a very modern verse, verse 143: “As pressure and stress bare down on me, I find joy in your commands.” Speaks to us today doesn’t it?

As pressure and stress bear down on us in this time and place, where does joy come from? For some, it comes from power. For others it is wealth. Yet for others it comes drugs or alcohol.

By hiding, by concealing, God’s word in his heart, the Psalmist meets the pressure and stress of life with joy in God’s directives as he allows it to shape his actions and his intentions (motives).

The picture of verse 11 is of someone who has intentionally read, studied, and meditated upon God’s word so thoroughly that he goes to it automatically in verse 143 during times of stress and pressure because during those moments of stress and pressure our character is most revealed.

In the writing of your spiritual autobiography, is there a theme, an indication, of steady and sure commitment to God and His ways and word? In moments of stress and pressure do you find relief, do you find joy in the commands and directives of God?

CONCLUSION:

At the end of Ezra 7:9 we read this interesting statement “ for the gracious hand of His God was on him.” Then in verse 10 we read “This was because Ezra had determined to study and obey the law of the Lord and to teach those laws and regulations to the people of Israel.”

Before Ezra set out to Jerusalem to provide spiritual leadership to his people, he came to a place of decision. And his decision was the answer to a question regarding his relationship to God and either he was going to have a relationship with God or he wasn’t.

He made the choice to have one; one that was not casual or convenient, but one that was complete. He made the decision to follow God wholeheartedly and that is made clear in verse 10 as it is stated that Ezra determined to study and obey the law of the Lord.

What about you? What does your spiritual autobiography say about your relationship with God? What about us? What does our congregational autobiography say about our relationship with God?

Ezra made the right decision well before he made the hazardous journey to Jerusalem. And in the making of that decision, he kept remaking that decision over and over and over again because he kept deciding to passionately and wholeheartedly follow God.

Two questions to close: 1. How much of you does God have? 2. How much of us does God have? There is only one correct and final answer – all of us. Do our lives say that? Amen.