Das einzige, wozu die Zeitschrift “The Economist” noch taugt, nachdem sie von grünen Hobbyökonom-Journalisten gekapert wurde, sind die Daily Charts, in denen jeden Tag interessante Statistiken knapp und einfach präsentiert werden.

Hier vergleichen sie die Grösse von Kreuzfahrtschiffen. Die neuesten Schiffe sind regelrecht riesige Monster geworden.

Il seguente articolo è tratto dalla versione stampata del ben noto “The Economist”. E’apparso il 26 novembre 2009 e la versione originale (in inglese) è disponibile on line qui.

L’articolo descrive lo stato attuale dell’Eni, il colosso energetico italiano ed è interessante, a mio parere, sotto due aspetti. Il primo, di carattere globale e a mio parere di gran lunga più importante, legato alle questioni geopolitiche che saranno sollevate dalla recente scoperta, in Kazakistan, del più grande giacimento petrolifero al mondo. Il Kazakistan è una regione pericolosamente incastrata tra Russia e Cina e nei prossimi anni bisognerà tenere conto di questo nuovo elemento per analizzare le strategie di queste – come pure delle altre – potenze mondiali. Tale delicatissimo argomento meriterebbe centinaia di post a parte e per il momento lo lascerò in standby. Il secondo aspetto, di carattere locale e assai meno importante per i destini del pianeta, riguarda l’ennesima dimostrazione di potenza del presidente del consiglio della nostra amata Italia. Infatti nella parte finale dell’articolo si scopre, o si ricorda ai meglio informati, che Scaroni, il capo dell’Eni, è quanto meno un uomo vicino al cavaliere. Aggiungendo a ciò il meccanismo di nomina del consiglio dell’Eni descritto sempre in questo articolo, si arriva alla conclusione che, oggi, Berlusconi controlla di fatto anche il settore energetico italiano. Leggendo bene tutti i dati, dall’inizio alla fine dell’articolo, e ricordando di chi si sta parlando, ci si rende conto dell’enorme importanza di tale fatto.

L’Eni sfida i suoi critici.

Il gigante dell’energia italiano cresce quando alcuni vogliono che si restringa.

L’Eni, un gruppo operante nel settore del petrolio e del gas, controllato dallo stato e fondato nel 1953 per aiutare l’Italia a sfuggire dalla dipendenza dalle società estere, sta crescendo. Il 23 novembre ha annunciato  di aver acquistato dalla Heritage Oil, una piccola società di esplorazione, una quota di diversi giacimenti petroliferi in Uganda. In ottobre ha annunciato la scoperta di un grosso giacimento di gas in mare aperto in Venezuela e la concessione dell’autorizzazione a sviluppare un gigantesco giacimento petrolifero in Iraq. Già ora sta sviluppando uno dei più grandi  giacimenti al mondo, Kashagan, scoperto di recente sotto al Mar Caspio. Si prevede che entro il 2012 l’Eni produrrà l’equivalente di più di 2.1 barili al giorno (b/d) di petrolio, in crescita dagli 1.8 b/d dello scorso anno.

Ci sono segni di tensione. Lo sviluppo di Kashagan è stato afflitto da sconfinamento dei costi, ritardi e cambiamenti di termini imposti dal governo del Kazakistan. I debiti dell’Eni ammontano a oltre il 40% del suo capitale, un livello più alto della maggior parte dei suoi pari. Quest’anno ha redistribuito i suoi dividendi in anticipo. I profitti sono calati del 59% nei primi nove mesi dell’anno rispetto allo stesso periodo dello scorso anno, a 4 miliardi di euro (6 miliardi di dollari), su vendite che sono calate solo del 27% a 61 miliardi di euro. Prezzi dell’energia più bassi e calo della domanda hanno naturalmente ridotto i profitti dell’Eni su produzione, raffinazione, commercializzazione e prodotti petrolchimici.

Una parte della società che non ha sofferto è l’enorme divisione gas ed elettricità dell’Eni, che è altamente regolamentata. La sua attività principale consiste in metà di Snam Rete Gas (SRG), che è il più grande distributore di gas d’Italia oltre che il possessore dei più grandi impianti di stoccaggio del gas del paese e delle condutture che trasportano il gas in tutta l’Italia. L’anno scorso, nonostante il rialzo del prezzo del petrolio, la divisione gas ed elettricità  ha apportato più entrate dell’esplorazione e della produzione.

Paolo Scaroni, il capo dell’Eni, vede il mix di spavalda esplorazione e faticosa distribuzione, peculiare della società, come una virtù. “La SRG ha creato profitti significativi per gli azionisti e tenerla all’interno del  gruppo ci aiuta a monte”, dice.

Ma altri, tra cui i regolatori e Knight Vinke un activist asset manager che possiede circa l’1% di azioni Eni, non ne sono così sicuri. Glen Suarez, managing director di Knight Vinke, afferma che aziende di servizi e aziende  energetiche  sono business completamente differenti: “Gli investitori cercano dividendi regolari dalle aziende di servizi, che richiedono profitti stabili, e accettano la volatilità delle aziende energetiche in cambio della crescita del prezzo delle azioni”. Suarez argomenta che mescolare i due aspetti all’Eni ha gravato la divisione petrolifera di pesanti debiti, una divisione servizi più conveniente e investitori confusi. Inoltre sostiene che il frazionamento della società in tre entità separate – in petrolio, fornitura del gas e linea di distribuzione – aumenterebbe il suo valore totale di 50 miliardi di euro.

Tale proposta andrebbe bene all’autorità italiana per l’energia elettrica e il gas, la quale a settembre ha osservato che l’Eni detiene il controllo del 67%  del gas che gli italiani consumano e la maggior parte delle infrastrutture per la fornitura. L’autorità ha raccomandato la separazione della proprietà delle unità stoccaggio e trasporto di SRG. Le autorità  di  Brussels, intanto, stanno indagando su un eventuale abuso di posizione dominante da parte di Eni.

Scaroni afferma in modo pio, “Non abbiamo un monopolio delle idee e i nostri contatti con Knight Vinke sono stati utili”. Ma è inverosimile che egli debba fare qualcosa che non vuole. Il governo possiede il 30% di Eni e sembra  contento di tale strategia. Dell’attuale consiglio dei nove dell’Eni, sei sono nominati dal governo e descritti come indipendenti; tre di essi sono direttori di società dell’impero di Silvio Berlusconi, il primo ministro italiano, e un quarto è un politico della Lega Nord, uno dei partiti appartenenti alla coalizione di governo. Scaroni, a sua volta, è un azionista di lungo corso del club calcistico Milan, di proprietà di Berlusconi.

Le journal britannique The Sun avait rédigé un rapport prophétique intitulé « Big Brother’s Coming » le 1er août 1989. Cet article exposait brièvement les plans secrets du gouvernement qui consistaient à implanter, sous prétexte d’une pandémie de grippe porcine, des micro-puces à chaque individu afin d’avoir un contrôle absolu sur les populations.

Le rapport aurait pu être rédigé aujourd’hui où les gouvernements s’apprêtent à mettre en œuvre un programme de vaccination massive contre « la grippe porcine » avec des vaccins non testés et toxiques. De nombreuses sources avancent que les gouvernements fourniront des nano-puces qui seront introduites dans les seringues.

Les MICRO-PUCES CODÉES implantées dans chaque individu nous relieront tous à un ordinateur pilote qui pourra retrouver n’importe qui à tout moment. Que vous le voulez ou non, les plans pour un tel système sont déjà en cours.
 
Le projet secret est présenté comme un service de protection de la population par les hauts représentants du gouvernement. Néanmoins, certains initiés qui s’opposent à ce plan affirment qu’il s’agit simplement d’un autre moyen pour que les dictateurs contrôlent leurs sujets.
 
Émetteurs
 
« Les agents de haut rang de la sécurité nationale tentent de convaincre des sources de l’administration Bush de mettre en œuvre le projet qui permettra l’implant d’un petit émetteur dans chaque homme, femme et enfant », affirme Davis Milerand, un critique de l’intervention gouvernementale qui confie avoir reçu des fuites provenant d’un informateur dans la place.
 
« Ils essaient de dire que c’est un moyen qui permettra aux autorités de retrouver facilement des personnes et des enfants portés disparus, mais aussi des criminels et des espions ».
 
Injections
 
« Mais avec l’incroyable technologie avancée dont nous disposons aujourd’hui, toutes les informations vous concernant peuvent être contenues dans une toute petite puce qui sera connectée à l’ordinateur du gouvernement.
 
Chaque organisme gouvernemental sera au courant des activités passées et présentes de n’importe quel individu à n’importe quel moment ».
 
D’autres sources soutiennent que ces petits émetteurs peuvent être injectés aux humains sans trop de mal grâce à de petites armes et sans qu’ils ne s’en rendent compte au cours d’un programme de vaccination national.
 
« Les gouvernements n’auront qu’à inventer quelque chose comme le vaccin contre la grippe porcine », explique Milerand.
 
« Imaginez un peu qu’on nous dise qu’il existe un vaccin contre le sida.  Les gens se bousculeraient pour se faire vacciner.
 
Les médecins eux-mêmes ne sauraient peut-être pas ce qu’ils injectent.  On pourrait leur faire croire que les micro-puces sont des implants génétiques qui reprogramme le système immunitaire et lui permettent de combattre certaines maladies ».
 
Il ajoute : « Le programme exigera que tous les employés du gouvernement fédéral et local soient vaccinés. »
 
« Ce n’est qu’une question de temps. Tout le monde aura une micro-puce implantée sur lui et nous serons tous des esclaves du gouvernement ».
 
Reproduction Interdite

.Tous droits réservés SpreadTheTruth.fr

.Toute reproduction même partielle, entrainera des poursuites judiciaires conformément au code de la propriété intellectuelle
Source: forum prison planet
spreadthetruth

Honnêtement, j’espère que c’est un fake, c’est trop gros sinon !!!!
je me pose serieusement la question, même si ça ne m’etonnerais pas, regardez par exemple ArticleEconomist1988GetReadyforthePhoenix_001-1, dès 1988, the economist parle d’une monnaie mondiale pour juguler les problèmes économiques.

Les Anglais sont tellement dégénérés que même si on leurs dit la vérité, ils ne comprennent pas.

Ce qui est troublant c’est que ça sonne très vrai, c’est exactement ce que nous craignions, c’est ahurissant.

Regardez cette vidéo, on parle sur fox news d’une puce implantée qui peut tuer la personne !!!

Je ne sais pas quand est ce que les gens vont prendre la mesure du monde qui se met en place, je ne sais pas si ils vont se révolter, mais ils ont interêt parceque en face nous avons des malades mentaux qui fonctionnent comme des nazis ou des khmers rouges et qui vont nous exterminer comme des chiens.

Nous sommes des pions, nous sommes totalement manipulés, l’histoire suit un plan, et même si il y a le paramètre du hasard, la puissance de ceux qui tirent les ficelles est si forte qu’ils sont capables de réaliser leurs projets, même les plus fous.

Les gens ne croiront jamais à un tel projet, en plus du lavage de cerveau et du tittytainment, les verroux psychologiques bloqueront toutes réflexions rationnelles, il suffit de jeter un coup d’oeil à l’histoire pour s’en persuader.Que ce soit les Cambodgiens, les chinois, les russes les juifs, les tutsis, ils sont tous allés à la mort sans combattre, c’est humain de croire à la vie jusqu’au bout.

Je doute donc qui nous arrivions à faire prendre conscience à beaucoup de gens, mais la noblesse humaine doit nous pousser à le faire quand même, nous nous devons d’alerter le plus de gens possible.Je sais que beaucoup sont zombifiés, mais en réalité nous n’avons pas le choix.Le plus triste et le plus grave c’est que les gens n’ont aucune culture, ne connaissent rien à l’histoire et surtout ils n’ont aucune curiosité.C’est cela le plus grave.

Les temps sont grave, Vincent nous a dit que la ville de Paris n’avait pas authorisé la manifestation anti vaccination grippe A pour aujourd’hui à 14 heure deevant l’hotel de ville.
Ils ont peur de la vérité, sinon pourquoi interdire ce rassemblement ?

The Economist has an interview with Radley Balko of Reason, Hit and Run, and The Agitator. The latter is the first blog I found lo those many years ago, and one of the few blogs I read every day. Radley has also been an engaging guest on the Ron Smith show on WBAL in Baltimore.

Anyway, his thoughts on the militarization of the police and on the Libertarian movement are interesting (and quite nicely mirror my own). This is a good read.

That said, I think there’s reason for some optimism for libertarians. The generations raised on the internet will be more educated, aware, and informed than any before them, and I think that has instilled in them some naturally libertarian instincts, particularly when it comes to issues like government transparency, accountability, censorship, and police power. Perhaps I’m a bit pollyanna-ish, but it’s at least possible that once the Obama administration proves just as inept, corrupt, and hopeless as the Bush administration, the younger people who flocked to Obama will start to understand that the problem isn’t who’s running government, it’s that government power itself corrupts–and that we’re better off keeping as much of our lives as possible off limits to the whims of politicians instead of this repeating cycle of putting all of our hope into the idea that someday, the right politicians will finally get elected.

The last sentence is so important, and really is the reason for optimism, that at some point all these smart people will stop thinking ‘their guy’ can take government power and make it all right (see the irony in healthcare). Trust me, you are not going to be happy when Sarah Palin is running your healthcare.

If you don’t already, I highly recommend reading both Hit and Run and The Agitator.

O Brasil que decola

Por Luiz Leite

Muitas vezes me vi constrangido ao ver como a mídia internacional reportava o Brasil para o resto do mundo. Em várias ocasiões me encontrei absolutamente constrangido tentando responder a perguntas embaraçosas acerca dos nossos muitos problemas sociais… Ter o Brasil identificado com Ronaldô e Kaká, crianças de rua, samba e mulheres voluptuosas me causava um tédio quase mortal.

Dia desses, sacolejando num trem no interior da Índia, julgando-me o único cara pálida entre os morenos indianos, fui surpreendido por um espanhol da Catalunha que me abordou falando um português, certamente por ter me bisbilhotado enquanto absorto escrevia em meu diário as impressões do último dia. Não condenei o espanhol. Jornalismo e curiosidade é mesmo uma combinação necessária. Certamente mencionará algo de nossa conversa em um de seus artigos. Aqui faço o mesmo.

O Espanhol, jornalista, estava, como eu, a caminho do Paquistão, ele correspondente do jornal para o qual trabalha, eu pastor em viagem missionária. Depois de algum tempo de conversa animada sobre política e economia, o assuntou da religião tomou importante lugar na pauta. Ateu, questionou com argumentos ora razoáveis, ora pífios, os postulados da fé cristã; Viu-se em alguns momentos desarmado em sua intelectualidade e acabou cedendo aqui e ali, e aos poucos, por falta de conhecimento teológico, viu-se obrigado a calar e ouvir as razões da fé.

Passadas algumas horas tirou de entre as coisas um exemplar da THE ECONOMIST, conceituada publicação semanal britânica e, com mais conhecimento de causa, uma vez que é comentarista de economia e política, começou a falar da matéria imensa (de 14 páginas) acerca do Brasil, publicada pela revista. Ainda que esboçando certa desconfiança com respeito aos números impressionantes da economia brasileira, reconheceu que estamos nos levantando de forma surpreendente. 

Pela primeira vez nestas conversas de estrada e aeroporto fora do Brasil, ouvi comentários cuidadosos e uma expressão de respeito diante do país que há muito apresentava vocação para grandeza, mas que que pateticamente até a pouco continuava tão minúsculo como os biquinis das garotas em suas milhares de Ipanemas espalhadas generosamente por sua costa infindável.

O Brasil mudou. E muito. Ainda que a oposição torça o nariz e desconverse, ainda que acuse os indicadores sociais como forjados, manobra populista e eleitoreira, ainda que desmereça o governo atual dando ao governo anterior os créditos pelas conquistas que temos colhido, o fato é que o Brasil de hoje é um país melhor, mais sólido, mais firme…

Ver o Brasil na capa da THE ECONOMIST e ler a imensa matéria louvando as conquistas de um país que há pouco tempo atrás estava chafurdado numa dívida externa enorme, olhado com desprezo por muitos como uma imensa república de bananas é realmente motivo para se orgulhar, mas que ninguém se engane, temos ainda muitas questões sérias a serem tratadas.

A capa da THE ECONOMIST chamou a atenção pela criatividade. O lúdico inteligente faz rir, mas ao mesmo tempo envia uma mensagem bastante grave. Os países cristãos que experimentaram a prosperidade acabaram ejetando o Cristo vivo do cenário e, deslumbrados pelas riquezas, elegeram a Mamon por deus. Espero e oro que em nosso caso, apenas a ignorância da idolatria seja ejetada.

Lahore, Paquistão, novembro de 2009

The Economist magazine sells well amongst the executive class in Madrid – particularly the younger 20s to 40s crowd who often have international business experience. I don’t think it unfair to say that many look to it as a source of inspiration as to what their country could achieve if it had a more entrepreneurial outlook. No, that’s wrong. The Spanish are naturally entrepreneurial (particularly Madrileños). Let’s say: If it had a better political economy for entrepreneurial activity.

This 20 to 40 generation look at places like the USA, Germany and UK (fools!) and want to emulate them, at least in a business sense. But they are held back by numerous factors, including: swingeing tax rates, barmy employment laws (it’s virtually impossible to sack staff), bureaucracy that can literally drive you mad and the casual acceptance of corrupt business practices. In few other countries is the maxim ‘it’s not what you know, it’s who you know’ more important than in Spain.

In the last decade or so these issues have been ‘papered over’ somewhat – the economy was booming, job opportunities and wages were increasing, Madrid itself grew at a cracking pace – but the recession (“la crisis economica”) has blown up the status quo and the background grumbling about the impossibility of doing proper business has become more of a loud growling.

Yesterday (26th Nov ‘09), The Economist magazine published an article headed Unsustainable. Well worth a read. But even more interesting, I thought, was the readers’ response section. Check that out to hear the growling I’m talking about here.

Sample comment:

(what) are the incentives for anyone to finish high school if it´s easier to go to work to Zara or Corte Ingles instead of going 5 or 6 longs years to university to have a salary of only 2000 euros.

– AlexLib

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.

Questo articolo è tratto dalla versione stampata del più autorevole settimanale economico del mondo, “The Economist”.  La versione on-line è disponibile qui.

L’articolo è molto breve ma denso di significato. Sarà interessante per chi segue le tendenze nelle dinamiche economiche mondiali.

Segue la traduzione.

Made in China.

Lo scorso anno la Cina ha sorpassato la Francia in qualità di terzo più grande mercato al mondo per le opere d’arte dopo America e Gran Bretagna. Grazie al cambiamento della linea politica che una volta vietava di possedere, ereditare o scambiare opere del periodo pre-comunista, gli acquirenti cinesi stanno ora recuperando terreno alla grande. Oggi a Honk Kong sono venduti all’asta più tesori cinesi che a New York, Londra e Parigi. Il mese scorso alla Sotheby’s (famosa casa d’aste inglese, tra le più importanti al mondo, N.d.T.) di Honk Kong è stato stabilito il record mondiale per un pezzo d’arredo cinese, quando un trono del periodo Qianlong, fatto di prezioso legno zitan e intagliato con draghi, è stato aggiudicato per 11 milioni di dollari (circa 7,4 milioni di euro, N.d.T.).

España es “el nuevo enfermo de Europa”. Así califica la situación económica española la revista especializada ‘The Economist’. Que otros países europeos ya hayan empezado a ver la luz al final del tunel, mientras que la economía española se redujo por sexto mes consecutivo demuestra que las consecuencias de la crisis nos han dañado más que al resto.

La tasa de paro en España sólo es superada por Letonia dentro de la UE. Para la revista un claro ejemplo de que los españoles nos “emborrachamos del ladrillo” antes de que estallara la burbuja inmobiliaria en 2007. Por ello, España entró en recesión en un país ya “debilitado”.

Según ‘The Economist’, nuestra economía tardará más tiempo en recuperarse y necesitará apoyos “extra” si se quiere que España vuelva a crecer a partir de 2011.

La publicación económica repasa la coyuntura actual española, a raíz de unas jornadas organizadas en Madrid en las que el presidente del Gobierno español, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, insistió en que la recuperación económica ya ha comenzado.

Para la revista Zapatero “es el eterno optimista” pese a la realidad de la situación y a las críticas que el presidente ha recibido por intentar ocultar en un primer momento la crisis y la magnitud de los problemas. Aún así Zapatero se ve capacitado para salir de la recesión y sacar a España del pozo de la crisis.

Pero hay muchos más problemas que, según ‘The Economist’, no permiten a España despegar. Un sistema laboral “injusto e ineficaz” que llevan a un alto coste del despido de los trabajadores con contratos indefinidos lo que perjudica la productividad, aunque para la ministra de Economía, Elena Salgado, da mayor “flexibilidad”.

“Los trabajadores incompetentes con contratos indefinidos están protegidos”, dice la revista, y no se impulsa ni se forma a los jóvenes.

A España sólo le queda una salida que, tal y como recoge ‘The Economist’, vendrá de la mano del resto de la UE, pero que el tirón de Francia y Alemania será a corto plazo, por lo que España tendrá que “hacer mucho más para poner orden en casa”.

Artículo extraido de EL MUNDO.es

Para leer el artículo completo, pinchar aquí.

a primeira frase deste artigo da The Economist resume nossa política externa em poucas palavras…

“HOW should you deal with elected leaders who view their domestic opponents as agents of foreign powers and occasionally muse about invading their neighbours? Brazil has some experience of this question after ten years of the presidency of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. Its answer has always been simple: hug them close. This week that approach was stretched a little further when Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was received in Brasília on a state (…)

Brazil risks overstepping the mark in its desire to be seen as an important country. Earlier this month, when Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, was in Brasília, President Lula talked about Brazil helping to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His suggestion of a football match between Brazil and a mixed team of Israelis and Palestinians is nice enough. However, Brazil has failed to settle far simpler disputes between Argentina and Uruguay, Venezuela and Colombia, and Honduras’s political rivals…”

artigo completo aqui

Joy and excitement as The Economist calendar arrived from the States this morning. An illustrated look at the year ahead – written and illustrated by the cartooning legend that is Kevin KAL Kallaugher.

I wrote about it briefly before, but at the time I hadn’t actually seen more than the little previews on KAL’s website. I’ve finally had a chance to look at all 12 months up close, and it’s fantastic!
The main illustration every month refers to about a dozen wildly different current and historical events, all put together in miraculously coherent scene.
In addition there are other little relevant drawings sprinkled around the written part of the calendar.

KAL himself also features on every page of this calendar – in good “Where’s Wally?” style – usually reading a copy of the Economist.

It’s a terrific piece of work, and really I can’t recommend it enough.
A brilliant gift for anyone interested in cartoons!

I began the previous post with a parenthetical slur on Americans (of which I am half-one), propping myself up on two creaky stereotypes:

1. that Americans can’t (really) speak English, and
2. that political correctness is in part to blame.

Specifically, the issue was which of these two words was correct in the specific context:

• Sex, or
• Gender

Well, I thought I might regale you once again with the opinion of Johnny Grimond, our (The Economist’s) doyen of usage and author of our official Style Guide, in which style quite often becomes a window into a very British, ironic and sophisticated worldview. Here is Johnny on the matter:

Gender is nowadays used in several ways. One is common in feminist writing, where the term has a technical meaning. “One is not born a woman, one becomes one,” argued Simone de Beauvoir: in other words, one chooses one’s gender. In such a context it would be absurd to use the word sex; the term must be gender. But, in using it thus, try to explain what you mean by it. Even feminists do not agree on a definition.

The primary use of gender, though, is in grammar, where it applies to words, not people. If someone is female, that is her sex, not her gender. (The gender of Mädchen, the German word for girl, is neuter, as is Weib, a wife or woman.) So do not use gender as a synonym for sex. Gender studies probably means feminism.

See also Political correctness

That said, I seem to remember reading somewhere–and I wish I knew where–that Sandra Day O’Connor started using gender instead of sex when she got to the Supreme Court, because she was worried that the word sex would conjure up all the wrong images in her (male) colleagues’ minds during deliberations.

The most interesting, thought-provoking writing I’ve read on the internet recently was not from of a newspaper, magazine or even a blogger. It was an open thread asking the question “what exactly is premium content,” populated with interested and expert individuals. While the attitude (and intelligence level) of many internet commenters is often unpleasant at best and downright ignorant at worst, in certain situations it is the readers who provide the best content. This is one of the best things about the internet, even though I have only recently begun to encounter it on a regular basis.

This kind of thing doesn’t only happen on posts solely dedicated to creating discussion, though (the above post on premium content was deliberately created for commenters). Take my favourite TV blogger, Alan Sepinwall, who ends his review posts with the sentence, “What did everybody else think?” I often find myself, after reading a post, looking through the comments for the discussion that occurs there. The highlights are always when Sepinwall himself gets involved or, even better, when a director or producer or writer of a show enters the fray.

Part of the reason that comments on Sepinwall’s site are more helpful than not is his enforcing of 6 simple rules for commenting, which are not overly strict but keep a great deal of internet douchebaggery out. The other, and larger part, is the relationship that he builds with his readers by responding to comments and occasionally doing columns where he answers reader mail or even offers to answer any and all TV-related questions asked in an eight hour window. This serves not only to make him more accessible as a blogger but draws return readers.

I rarely see this on more official bloggers, such as The Economist’s Lexington blog. While I enjoy the content of both, I am rarely inspired to comment on Lexington but always respond to Sepinwall’s posts when I have something to say. While it is obviously time consuming to read and respond to comments, I believe columnists, bloggers and other types of online writers will benefit from striving for a more intimate relationship with readers.

I still remember the time I e-mailed a writer from The Globe and Mail to thank him for writing an article with an unconventional take on global warming and got a response: it gave me the warm and fuzzies. I felt special. In addition to connecting with readers on an individual level, comments can serve as a rudimentary form of market research. Take this crude example: posts about “Mad Men” on Sepinwall’s blog routinely get close to 400 comments per episode, while shows like “Lie to Me” (not a bad show by any means) garner far fewer (10-30 per episode). This type of information could give writers a signal of which topics are deserving of long, investigative articles and which only need a headline and a few words.

(Ethiopian News) –
Fed up with awards for the best? The World in 2010 asked the analysts at the Economist Intelligence Unit, a sister company of The Economist, to identify the world’s worst country in the year ahead. Previous winners of this dubious honour have included (pre-2001) Afghanistan and Turkmenistan.

This time, the champion is in Africa. Plagued by civil war, grinding poverty and rampant piracy, Somalia will be the world’s worst in 2010.

Calling Somalia a country is a stretch. It has a president, prime minister and parliament, but with little influence outside a few strongholds in the capital, Mogadishu. What passes for a government is protected by an African Union peacekeeping force guarding the presidential palace. Most of the country is controlled by two armed, radical Islamist factions, al-Shabab (the Youth) and Hizbul Islam (Party of Islam), which regularly battle forces loyal to the government. Both demand the imposition of strict Islamic law, in what would amount to the Talibanisation of Somalia. Al-Shabab took responsibility for suicide-bombings in Mogadishu in September that killed 17 peacekeepers; America considers the group an al-Qaeda ally.

Poor countries are often defined by their weak health, education and income measures, but conditions in Somalia are mostly too wretched to record. What little data can be gleaned are truly awful: according to the UN’s World Food Programme, more than 40% of the population need food aid to survive, and one in every five children is acutely malnourished. The constant fighting has internally displaced more than 1.5m people, with a third living in dire, makeshift camps. Aid workers have been able to supply them with less than half the daily water needed.

Somalia would be little noticed were it not for its fastest-growing industry: piracy. Somalia drapes over the tip of east Africa and into the Gulf of Aden, one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. More than 20,000 merchant vessels pass through the Gulf each year, an inviting target for Somali pirates, who have developed a lucrative business seizing and holding ships for ransom. The International Maritime Bureau counted around 40 successful hijackings in 2008 and another 31 in the first half of 2009. Warships from the European Union, the United States and other powers now patrol the waters, but pirates have shifted their attacks farther offshore.

Somalia’s future is bleak. What little income it can muster comes from its diaspora, but remittances have slowed with the global slump. International agencies have promised more aid, but lack of security stands in the way. Peacekeepers are too few in number to make a difference. Most disturbing, many young Somalis are becoming increasingly radicalised, leaving little hope that the political situation will stabilise. The world’s most failed state, regrettably, threatens to become a bigger problem for the rest of the world.
Source – Ethiopian Music Video

Down under in Melbourne, Solid Gold Creativity has embarked on an intriguing investigation into sex (or “gender”, as the Americans among you might prefer in this context) in journalism.

She found that only 27% of the articles in The Monthly, an Australian magazine, were written by women. Counting only “major” articles, defined as those longer than 3,000 words, 20% were written by women.

With a research assist from Phillip S Phogg, she then turned her attention to America, where she found that women wrote:

• 27% of the articles in The Atlantic Monthly, and
• 30% of the articles in the New Yorker.

(Both of those are five-issue averages.)

So, naturally, I offered to supply the relevant metrics for The Economist.

At first, I started counting the articles in our current issue by author’s sex. (You out there cannot know who the authors are, of course, because we don’t have bylines, but I have an internal list to aid me.) Then I realized that this doesn’t give a good picture, because we are too small. If one or two people are on holiday, that skews the numbers. Then a freelancer writes the odd piece; or somebody writes a big piece and a box to go with it; or several people collaborate on one story, and on and on.

So instead I counted the editorial staff, both total journalists (ie, correspondents + editors) and editors. (I defined as editors only colleagues who actually edit a section in the magazine or a part of the website, not those who have editor as part of their title on their business card.)

Here is what I found:

Of the 84 journalists (I tried to correct for those on sabbatical, those half-retired, and so forth) 19, or 23%, are women.

Perhaps more interesting: Of the 21 editors, 8 are women, or 38%.

In other words, those women who do work at The Economist have twice the chance to become an editor that men at The Economist have. Innaresting, ain’t it?

And if I had excluded the website from the numbers and counted only the magazine, the share of women would have gone up both among total journalists and editors.

That said, the percentages are still well below 50%.

Now, I quite like something that Solid Gold Creativity said in her comments:

… I’m not so interested in the “reasons” for this absence of female thinkers/writers. I can always think up a hundred reasons why something is one way or another. My interest is not “why”; my interest is what’s so…

In that spirit, let’s find out more…

In Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, she writes,

Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. By what criterion of justice is a consensus-government to be guided? By the size of the victim’s gang.

The logic behind this statement is simple and largely self-evident, though often ignored in policy discussions. It should be noted that the article I write about below has nothing to do with the above quote – which is precisely the problem.

A November 19th article from The Economist ponders the question of how governments can best raise revenue through taxes. To the author’s credit, he states in the first paragraph:

Although spending cuts could, and should, be the preferred route to prudence, taxes are all too likely to be part of the mix—at least judging from the experience of those countries that have already acted.

Unfortunately, the article concludes that developed countries would do best to focus on “efficiency” rather than “fairness.” If a government’s goal is to pursue the utilitarian goal of the “greatest good for the greatest number,” this preference for efficiency over fairness would be correct. However, any government with such utilitarian goals is an abomination.

The author does make some important points about alternate tax systems. Taxes on consumption, including a value-added tax (VAT), are regressive; meaning the lower an individual’s income, the higher he is taxed. Consumption taxes do, as the author points out, encourage saving – but they simultaneously discourage spending. Corporate taxes, it is noted, are particularly market-distorting. The critical numbers of the article can be found in the graph below (click to enlarge).

The author also illustrates an interesting phenomenon that often goes overlooked. Very collectivist (communist, socialist, fascist, etc.) have government revenues that make up a relatively large percentage of GDP, when compared with economically liberal countries such as the U.S. Russia, for example, has government revenues equal to 47.7 percent GDP, while the U.S. has government revenues equal to 33.7 percent GDP. But these percentages do not tell the whole story. It is also important to look at the components that make up these percentages. In Russia, non-tax revenues (largely related to state-owned oil companies) make up 14.5 percent of GDP, while in the U.S. non-tax revenues comprise only 5.7 percent of GDP.

At first, this may seem to be a much more efficient way for governments to raise revenue (though, to be sure, the article never makes this claim). It is easy to understand why a person unfamiliar with the record of history may see no difference between a government-run entity earning revenues and a private firm collecting profits. Is there any real difference between the Russian government selling oil and ExxonMobil selling oil?

The answer is a definite “yes”.

History and economics  both teach us that no central body can determine the amount of goods and services needed by individuals. Only the invisible hand of market forces can provide society any degree of efficiency. So even if government raises its revenue through so-called production instead of taxation, there will still be massive transaction costs and inefficiencies on both the supply and demand side. And of course, the government has incentives that conflict with offering the best product at the best prices. Governments typically have two goals: 1) gain power, 2) create social value. Yes, these are often at odds;  and yes, the second is often a means to the first. Regardless, governments are not motivated by profits. And the profit motive is the driving force behind real economic efficiency.

But all of this talk of efficiency misses the point. I’ll return now to the point of the quote I began with.

When reading such articles, it’s easy  to get wrapped up in the author’s arguments and lose the ability to distinguish the forest from the trees. Though the free market is far more efficient than a centrally-planned market, is that really a concern when so many tax systems and government sources of revenue violate individual rights? ExxonMobil has vast resources at its disposable to best its competition. But the one thing it does not have is the ability to coerce by force. Only by offering its customers the greatest value at the lowest price can it win in a free market. While the Russian government (or any other government) only has to pass laws – backed, of course, by men with guns – to maintain its supremacy. Take the U.S. Post Office, for example. If FedEx and UPS were allowed to carry mail, would the USPS have any chance at remaining viable? Of course not. Only by regulation and force can the USPS continue to provide income for the U.S. government.

So whether you are concerned with efficiency or freedom, the property confiscated by government should be reserved only for the protection of our individual rights.

One final thought from Ayn Rand on the subject:

There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls; to accept “just a few controls” is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of the government’s unlimited, arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual enslavement. As an example of this process, observe the present domestic policy of the United States.

“The love affair with business started in the 1980s and has grown into a mighty passion backed not just by money but by glamour and class. In 2009 the money ran out, but the mood was one of such chaos and confusion that it was hard to tell what was going on underneath. In 2010 it will become clear that the class and glamour are draining away from business too. It will be the end of the affair: business will be cool no longer.”

“… In 2010 the decline of the MBA will cut off the supply of bullshit at source.”

By Lucy Kellaway From The World in 2010 print edition, more at The Economist

Share

Preach it, sister!

I must read this memoir:

photo courtesy of Google Image search

The author, Carlene Bauer, was recently interviewed in The Economist’s More Intelligent Life. 

I love their description of the book and feel like it’s one that I could really identify with:

Like all coming-of-age tales, this one mixes the painfully familiar (“we were exhilarated by our loneliness because it meant we were being tested, or destined, or chosen”) with the exotic (“my heart would flutter and whirr like a hummingbird until I said it: God“). Bauer describes an awkward youth of evangelical Christian schools and camps against a soundtrack of unbelievers (the Smiths, the Cure, the Replacements, the Pixies). Having looked to such models as Sylvia Plath and Virginia Woolf for a sense of how to live, Bauer moves to New York City and waits patiently for her life to start. She yearns for a way to be both coolly intellectual and cosily devotional—to both love God and love the world [...]

You can read the whole interview at the link provided above.  Despite a few crucial differences between the author and I (I’m still a believer, like The Monkees), this sounds like one memoir I need to read.  The Smiths?  Check.  Virginia Woolf?  Check.  Wants to love God and the world?  Check.  Not Republican?  Check.  Not that shoe-obsessed?  Partial-check.  Wine, food, and 30 Rock?  Check, check, check!

On Writing Well

1. Do not be stuffy.
2. Do not be hectoring or arrogant.
3. Do not be too pleased with yourself.
4. Do not be too chatty.
5. Do not be too didactic.
6. Do your best to be lucid.

These are eminently sensible general rules to which I now presume to add a few that are more specific:

1. Do not separate a subject from its verb.
2. Always remain in the active voice.
3. Use few (if any) adjectives and adverbs.
4. Never use the word “thing.”
5. Avoid using direct address.

6. Do not break any of these rules until you have published a non-fiction book or The New Yorker has published one of your essays.

In my opinion, the best sources for comprehensive advice on good writing are:

The Elements of Style (50th Anniversary Edition)
William Strunk and E.B. White

On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing (30th Anniversary Edition)
William Zinsser

On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft
Stephen King

Fortunately each of these three is available in a relatively inexpensive paperbound edition.

Photo by Hamed Saber

The Economist decided to wage an all front attack against humility in leadership and management. One of Its recent columns discusses what kinds of leaders make the best CEOs. The argument?

In general, the corporate world needs its flamboyant visionaries and raging egomaniacs rather more than its humble leaders and corporate civil servants. Think of the people who have shaped the modern business landscape, and “faceless” and “humble” are not the first words that come to mind.

It looks like this claim comes just out of the best management books of the beginning of the last century. As Bill Taylor from Harvard Business Review Blog points out, most of the claims in the column are not only wrong, but plainly misleading:

The crux of The Economist’s argument relies on what’s known as the Great Man Theory of History. After trumpeting the virtues of business geniuses such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Lou Gerstner, and Jack Welch, it then generalizes from this handful of larger-than-life moguls: “The best ambassadors for business are the outsize figures who have changed the world and who feel no need to apologise for themselves or their calling.” It’s an intriguing essay and a good read. It’s also a false choice — and a bad reading of history. For one thing, when it comes to larger-than-life CEOs, I can name as many scoundrels and failures as I can geniuses and world-changers.

My view? Three things are wrong with The Economist’s view.

First, the assumption that there is only one way. Maybe, for some companies and in certain situations, the flamboyant visionaries are the best fit as CEO’s. But not in every situation. Some companies need the quiet leadership behind the scene, the steady hand that improves and creates processes that lead to growth and innovation. Taylor’s choice of the historic Great Man Theory seems appropriate. It too claimed that only certain people are fit for leadership roles. We know today that this attitude was plain wrong.

Second, the assumption that the flamboyant visionaries must be in the top of the pyramid. You can be in a leadership role and create change in your company, without being the CEO, especially if the CEO in that company needs to deal more with management issues, where the “raging egomaniacs” are just not cut out to do the job. Management and leadership are different things that require different talents. The column refers to Bill Gates. We need to remember what Bill Gates is doing today: As Marcus Buckingham and Donald O. Clifton: write in their book Now, Discover Your Strength:

“…[Y]ou will excel only by maximizing your strengths, never by fixing your weaknesses. This is not the same as saying ‘ignore your weakness’. The people we described did not ignore their weakness. Instead, they did something much more effective. They found ways to manage around their weakness, thereby freeing them up to hone their strengths to a sharper point. Each of them did this a little differently. Pam liberated herself by hiring an outside consultant to write the strategic plan. Bill Gates did something similar. He selected a partner, Steve Ballmer, to run the company, allowing him to return to software development and rediscover his strengths’ path…

Third, when you read the column you feel almost like there have never been hugely successful leaders that changed the world while acting humbly. Has humble leaders never brought change and created value to society? Michael Dell comes to mind as someone who succeeded doing both. The research and consulting advice that The Economist is complaining about did not come out of thin air and it is based both on empirical evidence and experience. But what does that have to do with anything. The Economist wants a good story. A flamboyant leader, even if he will be less effective.

I am amazed how even a respected journal like The Economist falls prey to the conventional wisdoms and continues to harbor management principles that are almost a hundred years old, although we have so much research and experience suggesting otherwise.

Elad

The World in 2010, our (ie, The Economist’s) annual sister publication, is now out. This is a magazine in which we and our invited guests take shots at prognosticating the coming year.

My piece is this one on the Constitutional Convention that California is all but certain to call in 2010.

For you regular readers, this (ie, other constitutional conventions) is what I was researching in September when I eulogized James Madison.

On a more general note: Those of you who go to The Economist’s website a lot might already have started noticing some changes. There will be more over the coming month or so. These changes have been long in the making and were partially cooked up at our powwow last year.

One great thing is that, even though much of the site will be behind a subscriber wall, all incoming links will in future take you directly to the article, whether or not you are a paying subscriber. This means I can keep sending you there.