...which is soon to be superseded by the N+1 loan or bail-out or call it whatever you like, whereby EU (& possibly IMF) dish out money so that Greece can continue to support what is arguably the most expensive and least productive Public Sector in modern history .
In a recent blog article (here for an overview), IMF's P. Thomsen claimed that the IMF is not the one asking for more austerity in Greece and imposing crippling taxes. That, on the contrary, Greece would benefit from a more investment-friendly programme; and that there is a lot of work to be done on the fiscal side.
So much is true. I cannot fault Thomsen on the above in the least. After all, it IS the Greek government that is imposing taxes and collecting on them. It is the Greek government that resorts to pensions cuts, cuts in medical cover and education, rather than reduce the Public Sector payroll and mismanagement.
It is the Greek government that chooses to cut pensions to poverty level rather than work selectively: 7% of pensions in Greece account for 45% of the spending; it is the Greek government that is maintaining a largely unproductive public & semi-public sector at a crippling cost; it is the Greek government that is further raising taxes this year while talking about inspiring and supporting growth; it is the Greek government that is not reviewing the country's inflexible labour law that, for example, can cost an employer a hefty fine simply because someone called in sick and another employee came in the sick one's place (up to euro 10k per case); it is the Greek government that has no survival minimum, no unemployment benefits for +80% of unemployed; best case scenario, it takes 1 month to actually register a new company and many pages in hard copy; total taxes and contributions in case of profit distribution is 69-72%; a license to operate a cafe in a northern suburb of Athens costs between 1500 - 3000 euro in "consideration money". There are 1,5 million unemployed, 1.0 million public sector employees, municipal employees, contractors, and state-owned company employees of all sorts, and ~2.0 million employed in the private sector who are asked to create value to support the country; it is not working.
It is unfortunate that a country that has very low spending on unemployment benefits (minimum), no survival minimum, poor (and thereby inexpensive) medical services and underpaid medical personnel, very low educational spending, etc, should be incapable of balancing out its imbalances.
So, Thomsen is right - and one wonders how much he and his team actually know about what is really going on behind the scenes in Greece.
And when information such as the above comes to light, the government is quick to respond defensively, lashing out in all directions.
Then, the matter is quickly buried and life goes on: the next Troika / "institutions" evaluation, the negotiations, suppliers to the Public sector remain unpaid, etc etc, the evaluation goes through with agreement on "compromise measures" and another lump of money is released;
and thus the story goes!
馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚
Wednesday, 14 December 2016
Thursday, 17 November 2016
Barak Obama Delivers a Speech at the Niarchos Cultural Centre in Athens, Greece
His last speech on foreign soil as President of the US.
Labelled "remarks" by the White House PR team, the speech was mostly about democracy (after all, a Greek word - and an Athenian invention) and equality.
So I listened to it.
Unsurprisingly, it was very well delivered - President Obama is a master of public speaking; expressive, simple, always with a touch of humour and accessible, friendly.
As to the content, it was in a word, simple as well. It was an excellent speech to motivate youth; I would have liked my son to be there, not only for the thrill of listening to the President of the US speak to you but also because what he says is easy to grasp and that makes youth feel they have communicated, albeit remotely, with an important personality of human history.
In all its simplicity, the speech did have some somewhat daring highlights. For one, Barak Obama did say that politicians know there are things to do - but they lack the political courage to implement them; he also mentioned that investment flow into countries that make things easier for investors - manifestly not the case of Greece at present, for example. On another plain, he did suggest that democracies do not move forward in a linear manner, but sometimes move backward in order to move forward again. And he did not forget to mention that, in a democracy all people are created equal regardless of their differences (which differences, especially economy-related, are exacerbated by the effects of global access to information). The latter may be a diplomatic reference to his successor, who extolled different ideals during his campaign.
Interestingly, he called the European Union one of the "most important political achievements of the 20th century". The audience clapped (the euro-confused Greek government remained silent, fortunately.)
President Obama also pointed out (in more diplomatic terms) that democracy is a global, historical and powerful brand name, older than Christianity itself, invented and first implemented in (ancient) Athens. So Athens is the cradle of democracy, a fact that, presumably, many Greeks and most Greek politicians are happy to forget.
Other than the personal interest of the President, one wonders what the purpose of this visit was. It certainly offered Greece another 15 mins of fame, positive fame this time round. From another standpoint, that of the citizen, his presence and his speeches did make people proud. So in all, Greece reaped psychological benefit. Which, in a sense, is non negligible.
President Obama at the Acropolis of Athens, 16th November 2016 (photo from the White House)
And for all its simplicity, his remarks had a positive effect on many people, not only those present at the Niarchos Foundation. For that too, people in Greece are grateful.
In a nutshell, it would seem that the US President made Greeks a present: the last visit of the first non white President of the United States of America, was in Greece. And that is now a part of history.
Let's hope he enjoyed the visit as well!
Labelled "remarks" by the White House PR team, the speech was mostly about democracy (after all, a Greek word - and an Athenian invention) and equality.
So I listened to it.
Unsurprisingly, it was very well delivered - President Obama is a master of public speaking; expressive, simple, always with a touch of humour and accessible, friendly.
As to the content, it was in a word, simple as well. It was an excellent speech to motivate youth; I would have liked my son to be there, not only for the thrill of listening to the President of the US speak to you but also because what he says is easy to grasp and that makes youth feel they have communicated, albeit remotely, with an important personality of human history.
In all its simplicity, the speech did have some somewhat daring highlights. For one, Barak Obama did say that politicians know there are things to do - but they lack the political courage to implement them; he also mentioned that investment flow into countries that make things easier for investors - manifestly not the case of Greece at present, for example. On another plain, he did suggest that democracies do not move forward in a linear manner, but sometimes move backward in order to move forward again. And he did not forget to mention that, in a democracy all people are created equal regardless of their differences (which differences, especially economy-related, are exacerbated by the effects of global access to information). The latter may be a diplomatic reference to his successor, who extolled different ideals during his campaign.
Interestingly, he called the European Union one of the "most important political achievements of the 20th century". The audience clapped (the euro-confused Greek government remained silent, fortunately.)
President Obama also pointed out (in more diplomatic terms) that democracy is a global, historical and powerful brand name, older than Christianity itself, invented and first implemented in (ancient) Athens. So Athens is the cradle of democracy, a fact that, presumably, many Greeks and most Greek politicians are happy to forget.
Other than the personal interest of the President, one wonders what the purpose of this visit was. It certainly offered Greece another 15 mins of fame, positive fame this time round. From another standpoint, that of the citizen, his presence and his speeches did make people proud. So in all, Greece reaped psychological benefit. Which, in a sense, is non negligible.
President Obama at the Acropolis of Athens, 16th November 2016 (photo from the White House)
And for all its simplicity, his remarks had a positive effect on many people, not only those present at the Niarchos Foundation. For that too, people in Greece are grateful.
In a nutshell, it would seem that the US President made Greeks a present: the last visit of the first non white President of the United States of America, was in Greece. And that is now a part of history.
Let's hope he enjoyed the visit as well!
Wednesday, 9 November 2016
Advice to Take On A Spelling Journey
Today I should probably be babbling about the latest US elections, congratulating my American friends on their new president or commiserating with them for having the lesser votes take the spoils (Ms Clinton had slightly more votes in her favour than Mr Trump). But I do not vote in the US so there is not for me to say anything other than, "best of luck!" and, "you never know!"
As a side remark inspired by these US elections, most European countries excepting the strict north are blessed with idiotic politicians anyway; we seem to be suffering in the REIGN of the MORON in many European countries, especially in the south.
As a diversion, I thought I would delve in spelling instead.
And begin with the ubiquitous apostrophe: ' Especially as it confers with s, along with other considerations.
There is a widespread misuse of this apostrophe with the consequent incomprehensible results in the text being offered -- so much so, that it could be intentional, or a fad. But there is no indication of a fashion trend for misusing the apostrophe, so it must be illiteracy. Either that or a glitch in the spell-checker, which comes back to illiteracy -- of the programmer.
Here is a variety of apostrophes:
IT + S:
It's = it is OR it has. Nothing else. As in, "it's a very nice day today", "it's been a long time",
Its = possessive that which belongs to it: "it's been the longest game in its history", "the sun shone, ITS rays reflecting off the silver...". NO apostrophe when it mes to the word "it".
Use an apostrophe to show possession:
We use an apostrophe to show possession: when the possessor is singular, the ' goes before the s. When plural, after the plural "s". The exception is (1) when the plural word itself does NOT end in an s: i.e., children, people,OR (2) a non-plural word ending in an "s".
John's car= the car that belongs to John.
Julia's bedroom= i.e. the bedroom attributed to Julia.
The car's upholstery= the upholstery of that car.
The voters' response= the response of many voters
The voter's response= the response of one voter
(1)"The men's chambers"= chambers for many men
(2) "Charles' latest purchase is a bicycle..."
Apostrophe with plurals:
The plural is usually formed by adding an "s" at the end. There is NO apostrophe. No exceptions! To use an apostrophe is a superlative blunder.
One car. Many cars. One girl. Two girls. "Pearls melt in vinegar". "The results of this election are dire". NO apostrophe for plural.
Contractions:
We use an apostrophe to replace letters in contractions, mostly the words, not, is, have, us, are, will...
IS: "The weather's moody today"= "the weather IS moody today"LET'S= let us
Reminder" you / we + have, are:
-You've= you have, "you've been a good student..."
-YOU'RE= you are, NOT "your":"you're diligent and your marks have gone up..."
-WE'RE= we are "we're sure of our course..."
-WE'VE= we have "we've gone far enough in these fields; Let's turn back..."
Time related (temporal):
All in a day's work"= the work of one day
"Three days' notice"= it is more than one day
"A month's salary"= one month
"Six months' bonus"= many months
I hope this can be of some little use to some people, somewhat interested in ridding their texts of common mistakes...
As a side remark inspired by these US elections, most European countries excepting the strict north are blessed with idiotic politicians anyway; we seem to be suffering in the REIGN of the MORON in many European countries, especially in the south.
As a diversion, I thought I would delve in spelling instead.
And begin with the ubiquitous apostrophe: ' Especially as it confers with s, along with other considerations.
There is a widespread misuse of this apostrophe with the consequent incomprehensible results in the text being offered -- so much so, that it could be intentional, or a fad. But there is no indication of a fashion trend for misusing the apostrophe, so it must be illiteracy. Either that or a glitch in the spell-checker, which comes back to illiteracy -- of the programmer.
Here is a variety of apostrophes:
IT + S:
It's = it is OR it has. Nothing else. As in, "it's a very nice day today", "it's been a long time",
Its = possessive that which belongs to it: "it's been the longest game in its history", "the sun shone, ITS rays reflecting off the silver...". NO apostrophe when it mes to the word "it".
Use an apostrophe to show possession:
We use an apostrophe to show possession: when the possessor is singular, the ' goes before the s. When plural, after the plural "s". The exception is (1) when the plural word itself does NOT end in an s: i.e., children, people,OR (2) a non-plural word ending in an "s".
John's car= the car that belongs to John.
Julia's bedroom= i.e. the bedroom attributed to Julia.
The car's upholstery= the upholstery of that car.
The voters' response= the response of many voters
The voter's response= the response of one voter
(1)"The men's chambers"= chambers for many men
(2) "Charles' latest purchase is a bicycle..."
Apostrophe with plurals:
The plural is usually formed by adding an "s" at the end. There is NO apostrophe. No exceptions! To use an apostrophe is a superlative blunder.
One car. Many cars. One girl. Two girls. "Pearls melt in vinegar". "The results of this election are dire". NO apostrophe for plural.
Contractions:
We use an apostrophe to replace letters in contractions, mostly the words, not, is, have, us, are, will...
| aren't | are not |
| can't | cannot |
| couldn't | could not |
| didn't | did not |
| doesn't | does not |
| don't | do not |
| hadn't | had not |
| hasn't | has not |
| haven't | have not |
| he'd | he had, he would |
| he'll | he will, he shall |
| he's | he is, he has |
| I'd | I had, I would |
| I'll | I will, I shall |
| I'm | I am |
| I've | I have |
| isn't | is not |
| it's | it is, it has |
| let's | let us |
| mustn't | must not |
| shan't | shall not |
| she'd | she had, she would |
| she'll | she will, she shall |
| she's | she is, she has |
| shouldn't | should not |
| that's | that is, that has |
| there's | there is, there has |
| they'd | they had, they would |
| they'll | they will, they shall |
| they're | they are |
| they've | they have |
| we'd | we had, we would |
| we're | we are |
| we've | we have |
| weren't | were not |
| what'll | what will, what shall |
| what're | what are |
| what's | what is, what has |
| what've | what have |
| where's | where is, where has |
| who'd | who had, who would |
| who'll | who will, who shall |
| who're | who are |
| who's | who is, who has |
| who've | who have |
| won't | will not |
| wouldn't | would not |
| you'd | you had, you would |
| you'll | you will, you shall |
| you're | you are |
| you've | you have |
Reminder" you / we + have, are:
-You've= you have, "you've been a good student..."
-YOU'RE= you are, NOT "your":"you're diligent and your marks have gone up..."
-WE'RE= we are "we're sure of our course..."
-WE'VE= we have "we've gone far enough in these fields; Let's turn back..."
Time related (temporal):
All in a day's work"= the work of one day
"Three days' notice"= it is more than one day
"A month's salary"= one month
"Six months' bonus"= many months
I hope this can be of some little use to some people, somewhat interested in ridding their texts of common mistakes...
Wednesday, 5 October 2016
Politically Correct
I read somewhere that two footbal players in Czech, caught making sexist remarks, were punished (to train with the womens' team).
By so doing, the team management showed us that they are sensitive to eradicate sexist attitudes and are decisive about it. In turn, the players accepted their plight, proving they are aware of their transgression.
So, in all, what has been achieved is a public chastisement of a opprobious remark about women said in public -- or dangerously close to public.
We did not eradicate the sexist thought, we punished people for saying it...
Of course any negative, largely unwarranted remark, based on offensive stereotypes, is hurtful to the victim of the remark. So, not saying something is better than its actionable counterpart; at least it spares the victims the public humility.
It also spares the unsuspecting (children, for example) from being gratuitously introduced to such human intolerance.
But what are we doing about eradicating such thoughts? What can we do? Not much, I don't think:
1) it's a matter of social education and this is impossible to ontrol -- and, do we want to?
2) It's a matter of changing peoples' perception of reality and their acceptance of the differences between themselves andtheir surroundings (for that is, basically, the foundation of many politically incorrect remarks).
3) It's a matter of making the phrase "politically incorrect", presently no more than marketing blurb pushed to extremes in its application game, mean something and be perceived as meaning something: i.e. to attain a position of respect.
4) Does not look like it's going to happen tomorrow. Too much control has never succeede; it also requires a melt-down of democracy (which is happening, but very slowly).
For now let's contend with what we have -- a sensure on expressing sexist & racist opinion publically.
By so doing, the team management showed us that they are sensitive to eradicate sexist attitudes and are decisive about it. In turn, the players accepted their plight, proving they are aware of their transgression.
So, in all, what has been achieved is a public chastisement of a opprobious remark about women said in public -- or dangerously close to public.
We did not eradicate the sexist thought, we punished people for saying it...
Of course any negative, largely unwarranted remark, based on offensive stereotypes, is hurtful to the victim of the remark. So, not saying something is better than its actionable counterpart; at least it spares the victims the public humility.
It also spares the unsuspecting (children, for example) from being gratuitously introduced to such human intolerance.
But what are we doing about eradicating such thoughts? What can we do? Not much, I don't think:
1) it's a matter of social education and this is impossible to ontrol -- and, do we want to?
2) It's a matter of changing peoples' perception of reality and their acceptance of the differences between themselves andtheir surroundings (for that is, basically, the foundation of many politically incorrect remarks).
3) It's a matter of making the phrase "politically incorrect", presently no more than marketing blurb pushed to extremes in its application game, mean something and be perceived as meaning something: i.e. to attain a position of respect.
4) Does not look like it's going to happen tomorrow. Too much control has never succeede; it also requires a melt-down of democracy (which is happening, but very slowly).
For now let's contend with what we have -- a sensure on expressing sexist & racist opinion publically.
Tuesday, 4 October 2016
Three Little Pigs
A blog can be any number of things to any one of us. For many it is many things: a diary, a public search for company, an antidote to loneliness, literary exhibitionism, opening up to the world, widening the reach - throwing the written voice as far as it will go, garnering interest and building a private virtual harem of followers...
In all cases I can think, however, the commonality is in the sharing. Maybe there is a latent wish to be accepted, to have someone respon, "yes, I can identify with that," or, "I understand you."
I wonder, if acceptance it is, is this acceptance real or virtual? Does the acceptance go all the way, i.e. have I found a kindred soul in each and every -- or some of the -- written pats on the back?
And where do the three little pigs come in -- I don;t really know, it just sounded good to me today and I wrote it quickly before it slipped my mind!
Of course, seen from the story cantage point, the little pigs sought to protect themselves from the outsidewhile the blogger is inviting the outside in.
I would upload a pig, but I the image uploads do not work these days!
In all cases I can think, however, the commonality is in the sharing. Maybe there is a latent wish to be accepted, to have someone respon, "yes, I can identify with that," or, "I understand you."
I wonder, if acceptance it is, is this acceptance real or virtual? Does the acceptance go all the way, i.e. have I found a kindred soul in each and every -- or some of the -- written pats on the back?
And where do the three little pigs come in -- I don;t really know, it just sounded good to me today and I wrote it quickly before it slipped my mind!
Of course, seen from the story cantage point, the little pigs sought to protect themselves from the outsidewhile the blogger is inviting the outside in.
I would upload a pig, but I the image uploads do not work these days!
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
The Right Partner... and the Balance
I had an excremental day at work yesterday. Late afternoon I watched a few episodes of a popular TV series and one of them had to do with a couple -- a partnership of sorts. It got me thinking.
We all suspect and some of us (very fortunate) know first hand, that being with the right partner is one of the highest blessings.
Together we are more than the sum of the parts; an explosive togetherness has exponential power to do things and achieve greatness for the partnership.
So, the right partner is the one that makes us feel better, stronger, worthier and, importantly, more ourselves -- the partnership that reveals and enhances our strengths. There is balance between the two.
One could go on...
But, what happens when you are in a lesser partnership? One that does not add; one that does not inspire either partners to go beyond themselves; or a one-sided partnership where one does not provide support in any palpable way? There is imbalance...
If it is in business, the result is catastrophe: one side's contribution constitutes only cost, financial and psychological.
If it is in a personal relationship, the result is emotional sterility.
In both cases the presence of the inactive part becomes an obstacle to the other partner to move on.
An impasse.
The solution may be a dissolution or it may be a rekindling the partnership energy. Whichever it is, it is the other partner's imperative to act.
Because the one draining the partnership has found an obvious comfort zone and will not budge.
It is up to the other partner to bring about a new, positive, balance to the situation: create a new partnership or eliminate the drain of the existing one; recreate harmony.
Bring about a new balance.
We all suspect and some of us (very fortunate) know first hand, that being with the right partner is one of the highest blessings.
Together we are more than the sum of the parts; an explosive togetherness has exponential power to do things and achieve greatness for the partnership.
So, the right partner is the one that makes us feel better, stronger, worthier and, importantly, more ourselves -- the partnership that reveals and enhances our strengths. There is balance between the two.
One could go on...
But, what happens when you are in a lesser partnership? One that does not add; one that does not inspire either partners to go beyond themselves; or a one-sided partnership where one does not provide support in any palpable way? There is imbalance...
If it is in business, the result is catastrophe: one side's contribution constitutes only cost, financial and psychological.
If it is in a personal relationship, the result is emotional sterility.
In both cases the presence of the inactive part becomes an obstacle to the other partner to move on.
An impasse.
The solution may be a dissolution or it may be a rekindling the partnership energy. Whichever it is, it is the other partner's imperative to act.
Because the one draining the partnership has found an obvious comfort zone and will not budge.
It is up to the other partner to bring about a new, positive, balance to the situation: create a new partnership or eliminate the drain of the existing one; recreate harmony.
Bring about a new balance.
Friday, 23 September 2016
The Little Things In Life
When I was young I believed that the beautiful things that happened to me or the important things that happened to me, were eternal. So, an important moment in life, my life, would be there for eternity. A friend
Until I discovered that moments in time are what we make of them and they last as long as we give them life.
Fortunately.
The good moments live on within us for as long as we want them.
Hopefully, the bad moments just fade away.
Until I discovered that moments in time are what we make of them and they last as long as we give them life.
Fortunately.
The good moments live on within us for as long as we want them.
Hopefully, the bad moments just fade away.
Wednesday, 14 September 2016
The Unalterable Inevitability of Fact
I can argue that the sun is blue until I am blue in the face. Using words anything is possible and anything can be claimed, as politicians have proven (especially "left wing" politicians) throughout history.
But the fact still remains, the sun is what it is whatever the colour claimed.
Reality does change; only perception of reality is tainted...
But the fact still remains, the sun is what it is whatever the colour claimed.
Reality does change; only perception of reality is tainted...
 |
| All the rest is trash ! |
Tuesday, 13 September 2016
There Is Someone Out There...
A friend said to me on the phone yesterday, "... I know there is the right person for me out there, probably close to me right now. But how can I meet her? I cannot meet her, there is no way."
When will someone come up with an app that does just that: brings you close to your "other half"?
For those who have not found him or her, of course...
(She or sheik, take your pick)
When will someone come up with an app that does just that: brings you close to your "other half"?
For those who have not found him or her, of course...
Monday, 12 September 2016
Living Together
I overheard a couple talking about problems, children, money. They probably discussed one another as well, but I didn't hear it.
An idea came to me: what do people bring to their couple:
- problems
- personal hang-ups
- pride
- jealousy
- talents
- love
- communication
- miscommunication
- sex
- hope
- dreams
- disappointment
- confidence
- insecurity
- a past
- ....
I wonder who does best:
-the couples who start out with nothing but each other
-the couple who start out with everything
-the couples that are in-between
I know who is in the running for worse: the in-between.
An idea came to me: what do people bring to their couple:
- problems
- personal hang-ups
- pride
- jealousy
- talents
- love
- communication
- miscommunication
- sex
- hope
- dreams
- disappointment
- confidence
- insecurity
- a past
- ....
I wonder who does best:
-the couples who start out with nothing but each other
-the couple who start out with everything
-the couples that are in-between
I know who is in the running for worse: the in-between.
Tuesday, 19 July 2016
Are Politicians Really As Lame As They Seem? Yet They Have One of The Best Jobs Out There!
I am not actually referring to the lilly-livered, balls-less, blithering idiots in England (who since the brexit scarpered fast), I am generalising.
We probably suspect that many politicians (in democratic countries) seem to be puppets, they act idiotically, they are full of themselves and not much else, and they seem easily enticed by the finance industry (take the recent example of a prominent EU politician, for example). In other words, politicians seem to not only lack values, they also don't seem to have much in the way of brain power where it matters: negotiating, for example, or thinking what's best for their country or the situation at hand.
For example, Greece's politicians in the past 10 years have literally sunk the country beyond local repair;
For example, Chamberlain was idiotic enough to believe in Hitler's promises despite evidence to the contrary;
For example, lethal misfits create havoc in France and the French President indulges in soft talk ather than action (fortunately the French police & military did take action).
For example, we have a situation with inferiority complexed criminals (who imagine they are a state - rather than in a state) and the two people who could probably get rid of them still can't fully get tjheir collaboration act together: Presidents Obama and Putin.
And, for example, we are witnessing the biggest emigration epidemic in our recent history - but most of what EU politicians are doing is throwing words (and money) at each other and try to export the problem of emigrants' upkeep to Turkey. This includes the Greek PM -- Greece being the first geographical target of the moving people.
There are many smaller examples in smaller, everyday matters -- but consider this: can you imagine your average (mediocre) politician negotiating with the CEO of a major corporation and come out on top?
It has been said that these poiticians are just a reflection of who we all are.
Are we all somewhat mediocre, or are we uninterested, or disinterested? Do we just say things and get away with it, or are the people willing to become politicians simply not very competent - the corollary being that competent children go on to do soemthing more useful?
That would be sad because opoliticians have it good: they don;t worry about mundane things such as bureacracy, taxes, they get way with petty crimes (usually, not always), they move in exalted circles, they get paid handsomely for being self-centred & not much else.
Are governments, politicians, the facilitators of a small number of people whom they represent?
Case in point: in Greece, the current fascist - socialist government has pointedly asserted its indifference to the needs of all but its voters, and very openly, as it were. In fact, that government openly declares to be partisan and represents a small minority of the population.
Are all politicians just smugly content in their comfort zone of living a life of leisure far away from everyday chores the citizens face; equally, they do not have to manage the vagaries of business either -- exaggerating a bit of course.
It would seem that such is the case.
In which case, politicians' is one of the best jobs out there, far outranking successful novelists (who have to write), successful businessman/ women (who actually have to work hard), star actors & singers (they work hard and need talent), even senior level UNESCO employees ?
Actually here, the jury is still out.
We probably suspect that many politicians (in democratic countries) seem to be puppets, they act idiotically, they are full of themselves and not much else, and they seem easily enticed by the finance industry (take the recent example of a prominent EU politician, for example). In other words, politicians seem to not only lack values, they also don't seem to have much in the way of brain power where it matters: negotiating, for example, or thinking what's best for their country or the situation at hand.
For example, Greece's politicians in the past 10 years have literally sunk the country beyond local repair;
For example, Chamberlain was idiotic enough to believe in Hitler's promises despite evidence to the contrary;
For example, lethal misfits create havoc in France and the French President indulges in soft talk ather than action (fortunately the French police & military did take action).
For example, we have a situation with inferiority complexed criminals (who imagine they are a state - rather than in a state) and the two people who could probably get rid of them still can't fully get tjheir collaboration act together: Presidents Obama and Putin.
And, for example, we are witnessing the biggest emigration epidemic in our recent history - but most of what EU politicians are doing is throwing words (and money) at each other and try to export the problem of emigrants' upkeep to Turkey. This includes the Greek PM -- Greece being the first geographical target of the moving people.
There are many smaller examples in smaller, everyday matters -- but consider this: can you imagine your average (mediocre) politician negotiating with the CEO of a major corporation and come out on top?
It has been said that these poiticians are just a reflection of who we all are.
Are we all somewhat mediocre, or are we uninterested, or disinterested? Do we just say things and get away with it, or are the people willing to become politicians simply not very competent - the corollary being that competent children go on to do soemthing more useful?
That would be sad because opoliticians have it good: they don;t worry about mundane things such as bureacracy, taxes, they get way with petty crimes (usually, not always), they move in exalted circles, they get paid handsomely for being self-centred & not much else.
Are governments, politicians, the facilitators of a small number of people whom they represent?
Case in point: in Greece, the current fascist - socialist government has pointedly asserted its indifference to the needs of all but its voters, and very openly, as it were. In fact, that government openly declares to be partisan and represents a small minority of the population.
Are all politicians just smugly content in their comfort zone of living a life of leisure far away from everyday chores the citizens face; equally, they do not have to manage the vagaries of business either -- exaggerating a bit of course.
It would seem that such is the case.
In which case, politicians' is one of the best jobs out there, far outranking successful novelists (who have to write), successful businessman/ women (who actually have to work hard), star actors & singers (they work hard and need talent), even senior level UNESCO employees ?
Actually here, the jury is still out.
Friday, 24 June 2016
Brexit
Or, political misinformation takes all. So many people have been fed so much bullshit over so much time, that, in the end those most removed from the centres of visible information are, naturally misinformed.
England voted against remaining in the EU and the UK (seems to have) has to follow suit. Scotland and N. Ireland, however, voted massively in favour of remaining.
I think:
I think English politicians who were hot on for Britain's exiting the EU are kicking themselves at the actual outcome.
I think this a golden opportunity for Germany to impose itself further -- by which I mean, throw its weight around and unchain all its fears, ghosts and phobias on the remainder of the EU. Hopefully, France will stand up to them -- but I won't bank on it.
I think this is a golden opportunity for Scotland (who voted to remain) to assert its own, European, personality. After all, it is England & Wales that voted Brexit, not Scotland, so why should Scotland be left out?
And likewise, for Northern Ireland... By the way, shouldn't Eire, another pro-european country, examine the applicability of a reunion between North and South now?
There is more to come.
Stay tuned.
England voted against remaining in the EU and the UK (seems to have) has to follow suit. Scotland and N. Ireland, however, voted massively in favour of remaining.
I think:
I think English politicians who were hot on for Britain's exiting the EU are kicking themselves at the actual outcome.
I think this a golden opportunity for Germany to impose itself further -- by which I mean, throw its weight around and unchain all its fears, ghosts and phobias on the remainder of the EU. Hopefully, France will stand up to them -- but I won't bank on it.
I think this is a golden opportunity for Scotland (who voted to remain) to assert its own, European, personality. After all, it is England & Wales that voted Brexit, not Scotland, so why should Scotland be left out?
And likewise, for Northern Ireland... By the way, shouldn't Eire, another pro-european country, examine the applicability of a reunion between North and South now?
There is more to come.
Stay tuned.
Monday, 6 June 2016
A man I met is grieving the loss of his daughter, recently killed in a car accident when a mindless man driving a truck rammed into her car, stopped at a red light.
Disasters happen all the time, no doubt, and also befall poeople I never met. Fortunately, good things also happen; these happy events also befall people I know and many others I do not.
In the grand scheme of things, maybe that's the way the world balances itself out: some people experience good and others are hit by disaster.
In a manner of speaking, in the hierarchy or tragigedy, the worse off are the ones that are no longer with us: the daughter for example.
Then there are the people who are left behind, they feel the loss. It is incomprehensibe, especially if it is totall out of order - loss of a child, for example.
Trying to understand, to find a kind of reason behind the unjustifiable, is veritably grasping at straws trying to inject reason into the tragically absurd: what is there to say or think of the loss of a 29 year old who had stopped at a traffic light and is now dead?
Some people look to religion to find solace. It is God's Will but, does God's Will offer a justification for an act of unspeakable horror? Does the child go to heaven? Even if so, that doesn not justify its unnaturally short sojourn on earth.
Does the bereaved one place the grief in God's hands? Even so, that will not change reality.
At least, in these cases there is a lot of goodwill from all around and people are ready to advise "you have to be strong, you have to carry on..." -- but often, these friendly pep-talks are just another version of teh ubiquitous "there, but for the grace of God, am I".
After, all, to what purpose should, say, the father of the dead girl pull himself together and carry on? What is there, from a purely emotional point of view that justifies being strong - other than life itself - the act of beating death? Does one say "I will live on to remember her"?
I am fortunate at this stage to say, don't know.
I think there is only one remedy - if remedy it is: closure.
And closure, if it is to introduce some kind of balance between the the event and its cause, must be congruent with thevalues ofthe ones left behind.
Disasters happen all the time, no doubt, and also befall poeople I never met. Fortunately, good things also happen; these happy events also befall people I know and many others I do not.
In the grand scheme of things, maybe that's the way the world balances itself out: some people experience good and others are hit by disaster.
In a manner of speaking, in the hierarchy or tragigedy, the worse off are the ones that are no longer with us: the daughter for example.
Then there are the people who are left behind, they feel the loss. It is incomprehensibe, especially if it is totall out of order - loss of a child, for example.
Trying to understand, to find a kind of reason behind the unjustifiable, is veritably grasping at straws trying to inject reason into the tragically absurd: what is there to say or think of the loss of a 29 year old who had stopped at a traffic light and is now dead?
Some people look to religion to find solace. It is God's Will but, does God's Will offer a justification for an act of unspeakable horror? Does the child go to heaven? Even if so, that doesn not justify its unnaturally short sojourn on earth.
Does the bereaved one place the grief in God's hands? Even so, that will not change reality.
At least, in these cases there is a lot of goodwill from all around and people are ready to advise "you have to be strong, you have to carry on..." -- but often, these friendly pep-talks are just another version of teh ubiquitous "there, but for the grace of God, am I".
After, all, to what purpose should, say, the father of the dead girl pull himself together and carry on? What is there, from a purely emotional point of view that justifies being strong - other than life itself - the act of beating death? Does one say "I will live on to remember her"?
I am fortunate at this stage to say, don't know.
I think there is only one remedy - if remedy it is: closure.
And closure, if it is to introduce some kind of balance between the the event and its cause, must be congruent with thevalues ofthe ones left behind.
Friday, 3 June 2016
The Elusive Randomness of Fortune
Nothing new here, not a new story at all. Some are born with it and some are born without. Of the latter, some grow into it, marry into it or actually build it, and others remain the same. And most fall soemwhere in-between.
"It" being Fortune of course. Whatever way we look at it, the apparent randomness is there; for (like me) it is right before me but elusive because I cannot seem to be able to grasp it firmly in my hands. And yet it's there, I it.
I rarely think of those for whom, in my eyes, i.e. visibly, it's far away. Take the Syrians, for example, or low income Afghans, both living in fear. There are many others. Take my neighbours, the ones I do not know who may be strugglingto make it financially, through this month.
I (and most of us, I'm sure) think of my other neighbour, the one who fell in love and married that fantastic resourceful girl: together they have amassed enough to not worry about the future and they look happy together. Very happy. Or yet another neighbour, the one who married that tall thin, beautiful woman with perfect manner, daughter of a very. very auto industrialist...
Most of us think in terms of what we do not have, and much of what we think we do not have comes to our mind through comparison, rather than intrinsic need. We compare ourselves to, the seemingly fortunate, others and feel they're just one of us -- in all respects but one: the ultimate turn of fortune.
And this makes me think:
If all the people living under a jurisdiction of sorts - say a country - were brainwashed into thinking that everyone lived equally badly, would they just sit back and bear it? Especially if they were told that people outside that commuinity or jurisdiction, or country, lived even worse and are heading head-on for a major melt-down?
After all, a comforting lie is alsways a comfort first and a lie second.
Comfort trumps sincerety.
I think these people would.Maybe that is the example of Cuba, the case of Nazi Germany and of the first Soviet era and even, in more subtle ways, take the case of Greece and France, for example; for example, Greece is run by (allegedly) corrupt and visibly weak governments, their present one being a fascist-left wing coalition that has gone back on all its declarations and promises, one that has openly declared that journalists have too much freedom and that the people should be protected from the internet. France has a Socialist President whose popularity has reached historical lows, a government that has never openly lied but is not doing much better in popularity and, when said government proposed to reform retirement and dramatically change tax laws -- all hell broke loose. They took most of it back.
In Greece, taxes & contributions are a record setting 67%, doing business is "punished" (as one minister - G Kyritsis said), an additional 26% tax was insituted aimed at contractors, lower-scale pensions were further lowered and... nothing happened. The people jsut bear it. Is it the fear of even worse or is it the comfort of basking in soothing lies. Who knows?
One thing is for sure: another neighbour, one who fell in love and married a very wealthy young lady is very happy with his, equally radiant, wife. They didn't buy it. They live in London UK. Another friend, a beautiful young lady who married a very rich (self-made) man also didn't buy it: they are living in Luxambourg where their son is very happy at the international school.
So, when the French don;t buy it, they revolt. When the Greeks don't buy... they prefer to believe the lie that is fed -- or leave.
One up for being born into, or marrying money: if you don't buy the spiel you can alsways go elsewhere. Much easier than a revolution or bearing it while you're screwed over.
"It" being Fortune of course. Whatever way we look at it, the apparent randomness is there; for (like me) it is right before me but elusive because I cannot seem to be able to grasp it firmly in my hands. And yet it's there, I it.
I rarely think of those for whom, in my eyes, i.e. visibly, it's far away. Take the Syrians, for example, or low income Afghans, both living in fear. There are many others. Take my neighbours, the ones I do not know who may be strugglingto make it financially, through this month.
I (and most of us, I'm sure) think of my other neighbour, the one who fell in love and married that fantastic resourceful girl: together they have amassed enough to not worry about the future and they look happy together. Very happy. Or yet another neighbour, the one who married that tall thin, beautiful woman with perfect manner, daughter of a very. very auto industrialist...
Most of us think in terms of what we do not have, and much of what we think we do not have comes to our mind through comparison, rather than intrinsic need. We compare ourselves to, the seemingly fortunate, others and feel they're just one of us -- in all respects but one: the ultimate turn of fortune.
And this makes me think:
If all the people living under a jurisdiction of sorts - say a country - were brainwashed into thinking that everyone lived equally badly, would they just sit back and bear it? Especially if they were told that people outside that commuinity or jurisdiction, or country, lived even worse and are heading head-on for a major melt-down?
After all, a comforting lie is alsways a comfort first and a lie second.
Comfort trumps sincerety.
I think these people would.Maybe that is the example of Cuba, the case of Nazi Germany and of the first Soviet era and even, in more subtle ways, take the case of Greece and France, for example; for example, Greece is run by (allegedly) corrupt and visibly weak governments, their present one being a fascist-left wing coalition that has gone back on all its declarations and promises, one that has openly declared that journalists have too much freedom and that the people should be protected from the internet. France has a Socialist President whose popularity has reached historical lows, a government that has never openly lied but is not doing much better in popularity and, when said government proposed to reform retirement and dramatically change tax laws -- all hell broke loose. They took most of it back.
In Greece, taxes & contributions are a record setting 67%, doing business is "punished" (as one minister - G Kyritsis said), an additional 26% tax was insituted aimed at contractors, lower-scale pensions were further lowered and... nothing happened. The people jsut bear it. Is it the fear of even worse or is it the comfort of basking in soothing lies. Who knows?
One thing is for sure: another neighbour, one who fell in love and married a very wealthy young lady is very happy with his, equally radiant, wife. They didn't buy it. They live in London UK. Another friend, a beautiful young lady who married a very rich (self-made) man also didn't buy it: they are living in Luxambourg where their son is very happy at the international school.
So, when the French don;t buy it, they revolt. When the Greeks don't buy... they prefer to believe the lie that is fed -- or leave.
One up for being born into, or marrying money: if you don't buy the spiel you can alsways go elsewhere. Much easier than a revolution or bearing it while you're screwed over.
Friday, 13 May 2016
Business In Greece: How'bout Doing The Islands Instead?
A friend who -- in his words -- is cursed to have his home in Athens Greece, wishes to set up a small company in Greece. It is a sort of simple garage operation designing & assembling audio devices, very small scale.
First you have to register your comapny and to do it "fast track" has taken 6 weeks exactly - not counting the time to gather the "papers" (yes, that's right, hard copies) which took the better part of two weeks prior to this. Fortunately, this friend has another friend who is very well versed in Greece's bureacratic labyrinths and had warned in advance of what is really needed -- as opposed to what the indifferent civil servant at the tax office says is needed.
Then, 6 weeks into the saga, the register of commerce (another obligatory and paying step to creating a company in Greece) rejected the file because the shareholders' resumes were missing. That is after they had requested, tax returns, address, etc all sorts of private data that are the domain of the NSA and terrorists in other parts of the world.
The resumes were necessary, it was claimed, to see if shareholders have a degree attesting to knowledge in electronics!!??
By the same brilliant piece of reasoning, every telecom company's shareholders team must have one person with a degree in telecom and any football club operation must have at least one shareholder with a degree in football... And what about the entertainment industry: a degree in applied copulation?
Then, the moment came to open a bank account: why not open it before? Because you cannot open an account until you have a company.
This takes about one month and requires the same package of private data, this time given out to a bank teller who probably has little better to do than gossip about your tax return with her / his boy/girl friend.
And onece youre up and going, there is more: if you plan on exporting, you will never receive a return VATreturns owed to you without a consideration of exactly 10% (under the table) for small sums dropping to 5% for large sums.
Worse, if you are in arrears and request that the VAT owed is balanced agaist your arrears - forget it. It doesn't work that way.
Business in Greece?
What a joke!
Try holidaying instead. Prices have gone down in certain respects and you might even consider bying some property - pay the seller abroad, in cash if possible, and there's a win-win situation right there.
First you have to register your comapny and to do it "fast track" has taken 6 weeks exactly - not counting the time to gather the "papers" (yes, that's right, hard copies) which took the better part of two weeks prior to this. Fortunately, this friend has another friend who is very well versed in Greece's bureacratic labyrinths and had warned in advance of what is really needed -- as opposed to what the indifferent civil servant at the tax office says is needed.
Then, 6 weeks into the saga, the register of commerce (another obligatory and paying step to creating a company in Greece) rejected the file because the shareholders' resumes were missing. That is after they had requested, tax returns, address, etc all sorts of private data that are the domain of the NSA and terrorists in other parts of the world.
The resumes were necessary, it was claimed, to see if shareholders have a degree attesting to knowledge in electronics!!??
By the same brilliant piece of reasoning, every telecom company's shareholders team must have one person with a degree in telecom and any football club operation must have at least one shareholder with a degree in football... And what about the entertainment industry: a degree in applied copulation?
Then, the moment came to open a bank account: why not open it before? Because you cannot open an account until you have a company.
This takes about one month and requires the same package of private data, this time given out to a bank teller who probably has little better to do than gossip about your tax return with her / his boy/girl friend.
And onece youre up and going, there is more: if you plan on exporting, you will never receive a return VATreturns owed to you without a consideration of exactly 10% (under the table) for small sums dropping to 5% for large sums.
Worse, if you are in arrears and request that the VAT owed is balanced agaist your arrears - forget it. It doesn't work that way.
Business in Greece?
What a joke!
Try holidaying instead. Prices have gone down in certain respects and you might even consider bying some property - pay the seller abroad, in cash if possible, and there's a win-win situation right there.
About A Friend, I'll Call Her Eva T.
Eva is a vibrant person full of life and positive energy. No-one has the same reassuring aura as Eva(ggelia). She is the archetypal can-do person.
Eva T was a manager at one of the major globl insurance agents. I say was, because Eva is no longer of this world. I say is because nothing can wipe out the energy, the sheer strenght and willingness to live -- not even death.
Eva T has two children, both very capable and hardy; it rubbed off on them as well!
Eva T was a manager at one of the major globl insurance agents. I say was, because Eva is no longer of this world. I say is because nothing can wipe out the energy, the sheer strenght and willingness to live -- not even death.
Eva T has two children, both very capable and hardy; it rubbed off on them as well!
Tuesday, 5 April 2016
Greece, the IMF, and Their Respective Accountants (or, Thomsen vs Tsakalotos for Minister)
Greek media has made known that the Greek government is leaking rumours that Mr Thomsen, IMF envoy responsible for Greece, is
(unofficially) "non grata" in Greece because "we cannot have him (Mr
Thomsen) acting as the Minister of Finance..."
While it is not for me to appoint one for Greece, the country's present government opened the door allowqing a comparison between the actual Minister, named Euclid Tsakalotos and P Thomsen. Given each person;s public performance thus far and using the country benefit as a yardstick, I am hard pressed not to propose Mr Thomsen to become officially the finance minister for Greece.
A few pointers:
+Euclid Tsakalotos comers from a wealthy family; Poul Thomsen comes from a modest family; Tsakalotos has the nicer name of the two (Euclid kills Poul anytime): this is a no-brainer in favour of Tsakalotos.
+Mr Thomsen has work experience, Mr Tsakalotos doesn't yet (unless you count his stint at being a minister of economics)
+Mr Tsakalotos speaks English and some Greek; Mr Thomsen speaks english and no Greek.
+Mr Thomsen is very well placed to negotiate with the IMF and can handle talks with other insitutions as proven by his experience. Mr Tsakalotos has no experience in this matter and is still a nonentity in matters of negotiation.
+Mr Thomsen has been actively involved with Greece and the country's interests (as he and his organisation sees these interests) and its survival since 2010, i.e. 6 years. Mr Tsakalotos has been unaware of his country's interests and supremely (as a well-intentioned romantic) indifferent to them until less than a year ago.
It is clear that Thomsen is the better candidate of the two to take on the role of Minister of Economics etc.
Tsakalotos should go back teaching fairy-tale economics to 1st semster students.
The Greek government should opt for Thomsen in a heartbeat - especially as someone else is paying his salary!
While it is not for me to appoint one for Greece, the country's present government opened the door allowqing a comparison between the actual Minister, named Euclid Tsakalotos and P Thomsen. Given each person;s public performance thus far and using the country benefit as a yardstick, I am hard pressed not to propose Mr Thomsen to become officially the finance minister for Greece.
A few pointers:
+Euclid Tsakalotos comers from a wealthy family; Poul Thomsen comes from a modest family; Tsakalotos has the nicer name of the two (Euclid kills Poul anytime): this is a no-brainer in favour of Tsakalotos.
+Mr Thomsen has work experience, Mr Tsakalotos doesn't yet (unless you count his stint at being a minister of economics)
+Mr Tsakalotos speaks English and some Greek; Mr Thomsen speaks english and no Greek.
+Mr Thomsen is very well placed to negotiate with the IMF and can handle talks with other insitutions as proven by his experience. Mr Tsakalotos has no experience in this matter and is still a nonentity in matters of negotiation.
+Mr Thomsen has been actively involved with Greece and the country's interests (as he and his organisation sees these interests) and its survival since 2010, i.e. 6 years. Mr Tsakalotos has been unaware of his country's interests and supremely (as a well-intentioned romantic) indifferent to them until less than a year ago.
It is clear that Thomsen is the better candidate of the two to take on the role of Minister of Economics etc.
Tsakalotos should go back teaching fairy-tale economics to 1st semster students.
The Greek government should opt for Thomsen in a heartbeat - especially as someone else is paying his salary!
Thursday, 3 March 2016
Visa Europe Collab - New Hub
Visa Europe collab brings together a communicty of people with ideas and the stamina to implement the ideas -- about payment: how to make it, how to make it simple, safe, soft, hard, you name it -- and it may happen! So, there is a community and a new hub is being created in SE EUrope -- in Sofia Bulgaria.
Why Sofia, Bulgaria?
Apart fromaesthetic reasons, subjective reasons and the fact that basically Sofia is a nice place and is populated by nice, hospitable people, and the living is very reasonable in Sofia, I can offer other reasons as well. More objective ones and more specific to Bulgaria as opposed to, say, Greece.
FOr that matter, why choose Sofia and not Athens?
On the latter, I can give many reasons - but, basically, two:
1) It is illegal to operate such lose "collab" communities in Greece and labour inspection can barge in at any time and fine everything & everyone in site at 10k a pop, for any number of reasons. For example: have these people been declared, where is their contract, how many hours are they working, what is the job title, have their hourly schedule been filed with appropriate authorities, are there foreigners here???...
In Greece, there is no legislation favouring or simplifying studetns employment - they have to be declared offically, the social security declared in addition to their insurance as students - there is confusion which of teh two regimes applies -- and at the end of the day, there is a danger that a minimum expected income will apply in the next fiscla year when the studetn is not working but is expected to pre-pay taxes!
2) What is the fiscal situation? Does it apply?
Well, we don't know. For income accrued in the year 2015 it is not known yet. Let alone for future years? And what is the status of such a "collab community"?
Better leave it.
Sofia is great, tax is officially low, labour law is flexible - all you have to do is pay your dues when and if they are due.
Exactly.
That's why most Greek start-ups move outside the country OR are actually born outside the country.
In Bulgaria, for example, to where a record 160,000 businesses have moved from Greece. Which means that some of their people have also moved there.
That's a third reason why a Visa Collab would *not* choose Athens.
It is unfortunate that Athens needs such initiatives, desperately.
Why Sofia, Bulgaria?
Apart fromaesthetic reasons, subjective reasons and the fact that basically Sofia is a nice place and is populated by nice, hospitable people, and the living is very reasonable in Sofia, I can offer other reasons as well. More objective ones and more specific to Bulgaria as opposed to, say, Greece.
FOr that matter, why choose Sofia and not Athens?
On the latter, I can give many reasons - but, basically, two:
1) It is illegal to operate such lose "collab" communities in Greece and labour inspection can barge in at any time and fine everything & everyone in site at 10k a pop, for any number of reasons. For example: have these people been declared, where is their contract, how many hours are they working, what is the job title, have their hourly schedule been filed with appropriate authorities, are there foreigners here???...
In Greece, there is no legislation favouring or simplifying studetns employment - they have to be declared offically, the social security declared in addition to their insurance as students - there is confusion which of teh two regimes applies -- and at the end of the day, there is a danger that a minimum expected income will apply in the next fiscla year when the studetn is not working but is expected to pre-pay taxes!
2) What is the fiscal situation? Does it apply?
Well, we don't know. For income accrued in the year 2015 it is not known yet. Let alone for future years? And what is the status of such a "collab community"?
Better leave it.
Sofia is great, tax is officially low, labour law is flexible - all you have to do is pay your dues when and if they are due.
Exactly.
That's why most Greek start-ups move outside the country OR are actually born outside the country.
In Bulgaria, for example, to where a record 160,000 businesses have moved from Greece. Which means that some of their people have also moved there.
That's a third reason why a Visa Collab would *not* choose Athens.
It is unfortunate that Athens needs such initiatives, desperately.
Friday, 12 February 2016
Communication Crises: Vying for Attention, Who cares About the Victims
Yesterday morning I was communication and digital communication with a Public Relations executive.
She specialises in managing crises - from a communications point of view.
She detailed the tactics one follows, before, during and following the crisis inducing event; how one identifies and then focuses on stakeholders and stakeholders' communication channels. And she gave me examples of what happens in such cases. How the stakeholders often pich up cudgels and staves in favour of the victims (real or purported).
The victims are usually the employees of the corporation.
Let's take the example of a corporate "reorganisation" -- i.e. firing of employees en masse.
As I listened to her describe the stakeholders involvement, during & post event , realised a number of things.
Two stand out: they illustrated the utter folly of self-centred selfishness of all actions involved
1) Consumer organisaitons rallying in favour of Boycotting the corporation (to teach them a lesson): obvious boomerang effect, especially for the smaller subsidiaries of multinationals. Hitting the company where "it hurts the most" safely results in the loss of more jobs as the corporate numbers no longer add up.
So, more lay -offs.
But, does anyone care - other than the employees and their friends and families? Which brings me to the second realisation.
2) No stakeholder actually cares about the stakeholders; unions, consumer organisations, local municipalities, etc, outdo one another in their efforts to captivate attention and push forward their own agenda - basically their own awareness and PR campaign.
Stakeholders couldn't care less about the victims. If ever anything good comes out of any of the usually vociferous mobilisations pursuant to a crisis inducing action, it is fortuitous.
Had the stakeholders been really interested, the would have campaigned long and hard to attract global attention - even for a legendary 15min! Hit corporate equity where it hurts most: the corporate image. Research and come up with real dta; present said data. Go global, try to go viral with it. And put the vistims first.
Ain;t gonna happen.
Victims are alone... except for happy coincidences. Maybe.
She specialises in managing crises - from a communications point of view.
She detailed the tactics one follows, before, during and following the crisis inducing event; how one identifies and then focuses on stakeholders and stakeholders' communication channels. And she gave me examples of what happens in such cases. How the stakeholders often pich up cudgels and staves in favour of the victims (real or purported).
The victims are usually the employees of the corporation.
Let's take the example of a corporate "reorganisation" -- i.e. firing of employees en masse.
As I listened to her describe the stakeholders involvement, during & post event , realised a number of things.
Two stand out: they illustrated the utter folly of self-centred selfishness of all actions involved
1) Consumer organisaitons rallying in favour of Boycotting the corporation (to teach them a lesson): obvious boomerang effect, especially for the smaller subsidiaries of multinationals. Hitting the company where "it hurts the most" safely results in the loss of more jobs as the corporate numbers no longer add up.
So, more lay -offs.
But, does anyone care - other than the employees and their friends and families? Which brings me to the second realisation.
2) No stakeholder actually cares about the stakeholders; unions, consumer organisations, local municipalities, etc, outdo one another in their efforts to captivate attention and push forward their own agenda - basically their own awareness and PR campaign.
Stakeholders couldn't care less about the victims. If ever anything good comes out of any of the usually vociferous mobilisations pursuant to a crisis inducing action, it is fortuitous.
Had the stakeholders been really interested, the would have campaigned long and hard to attract global attention - even for a legendary 15min! Hit corporate equity where it hurts most: the corporate image. Research and come up with real dta; present said data. Go global, try to go viral with it. And put the vistims first.
Ain;t gonna happen.
Victims are alone... except for happy coincidences. Maybe.
 |
| Let us, at least, drink to the health of these victims. More than their job, in many countries they also lose their medical care. |
Thursday, 14 January 2016
David Robert Jones and Thoughts on Genius
David Bowie (David Robert Jones) dies 5 days ago on Jan 10th.
Ziggy Stardust lives on.
The Rocket Man embarked upon his last journey from earth.
Thinking of Bowie while watching Clapton play in a video, I wondered what makes such people what they are.
The word I ended with is genius: these people have genius.
What is this genius?
I reflected on this for a while, trying to understand genius (not easy as I am not one) and trying to make a long issue brief.
Ultimately, I think that genius is a combination of many things; these things come together in a person and that person stands out: globally, universally.
More to the point, that person brings together all these elements and that is what makes that person stand out, globally, universally.
Others may have elements and do not bring them together - or not to a similar degree.
Here are some of the elements I thought of:
Not easy to fit a genius inside a brief post!
Ziggy Stardust lives on.
The Rocket Man embarked upon his last journey from earth.
Thinking of Bowie while watching Clapton play in a video, I wondered what makes such people what they are.
The word I ended with is genius: these people have genius.
What is this genius?
I reflected on this for a while, trying to understand genius (not easy as I am not one) and trying to make a long issue brief.
Ultimately, I think that genius is a combination of many things; these things come together in a person and that person stands out: globally, universally.
More to the point, that person brings together all these elements and that is what makes that person stand out, globally, universally.
Others may have elements and do not bring them together - or not to a similar degree.
Here are some of the elements I thought of:
- They have the music inside them
- They have or acquire sufficient technical expertise to express this music to the world
- They have perception of how we want to hear music
- They are not afraid to immerse themselves into world and do their thing
- They are not afraid of reflecting, identifying, and creating or implementing their thing
- The times are receptive
- These people are perceptive and intuitive: perceptive to respond to their times and intuitive, allowing heart & mind to work together
- They have the competence to attract the right people around them and the foresight to distance themselves from the wrong people
- Create the right events
- Be fearless in doing things
- Be THEMSELVES at all times
- Recognise themselves and their calling
- Follow their intuition and their calling
- Overcome their fears - sublimate their shortcomings, let their qualities flow
Not easy to fit a genius inside a brief post!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)