Brindle Media

Posts Tagged ‘globalization’

Let’s be honest. Al Gore can come across as a pretentious, pedantic bore. His political enemies have done a great job of convincing most Americans that Gore takes personal credit for inventing the internet. (By the way, he doesn’t. During a 1999 CNN interview, he spoke about taking the initiative as vice-president to foster, economically and legislatively, the technology that we now know as the internet.) But Gore’s formality and stiffness in otherwise relaxed situations along with a tendency to sound self-righteous play right into the hands of those that perpetuate this notion.

That said, as the New York Times reviewer noted, Gore’s latest book, “The Future:Six Drivers of Global Change” is worth checking out for two ideas that it introduces. Reviewer Chrystia Freeland writes: “The first is the premise. Gore believes we are living in a ‘new period of hyperchange.’ The speed at which our world is changing…is unprecedented, and that transformation is the central reality of our lives. The technology revolution, Gore writes, ‘is now carrying us with it at a speed beyond our imagining toward ever newer technologically shaped realities that often appear, in the words of Arthur C. Clarke, ‘indistinguishable from magic.’’”

“Gore’s second big argument is based on this first one,” Freeland writes. Since we’re experiencing these major economic and sociological changes, we need to think about the local, regional, and geo-political implications. Gore seems to believe that the nation-state is fast becoming irrelevant and talks about how globalization has really transformed business into Earth, Inc. And, he believes that if America doesn’t lead the rest of the world in developing a viable international reaction to these rapid changes, that the world will stay stuck in the paradigm that we’ve inherited from previous, less complicated centuries.

Of course, Al Gore isn’t the only person who believes that the business world has some issues such as “quarterly democracy” which need to be addressed. There are some, and I include themselves among them, who believe that this period of Capitalism is reminiscent of the days of the robber barons from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In a recent TIME essay, “The Curious Capitalist” Rana Forooha talks about the short-termism of our system of shareholder capitalism and about those “calling for not only corporate pay and tax reforms but also a more Germanic-style stakeholder capitalism that can spread the benefits of a company’s growth more evenly among labor, management and shareholders.”

For capitalism to remain viable, it’s important that the population be economically productive. However, new technologies are enabling companies to employ “robosourcing” which eliminates a high percentage of workers from the equation. If memory serves, Gore mentions software which can be used by legal firms to do the work of 10,000 legal interns. Not great news for law students who’ve invested all that time, money and effort in their educations.
With people living longer and healthier lives, society is going to need to figure out a way to keep the population productively employed so that they can participate not only as conscientious citizens but also as active consumers who stoke the engines of capitalism with their purchases and contribute to the government coffers via taxes.

Along with unemployment, the overall growth of the world population, the aging of populations in first world nations, “The Future” also addresses water quality and shortages, top soil depletion and, of course, the effects of global warming. I have to admit that the Malthusian in me started wondering about the impact these dilemmas would have on fear and the growth of intolerance which generates hate groups like neo-Nazis, radical Islamists, and the like.

In his New York Times review of “The Future”, Michiko Kakutani says Gore is most convincing “when he refrains from editorializing and sticks to analyzing how changes in technology, our political climate and the environment are going to affect the world, often creating domino and cascadelike effects.” For instance, how the growth of the Internet and proliferation of mobile phones in developing countries has helped closed the information gap and increased the opportunity for “robust democratic discourse” but also increases threats to privacy and cybersecurity. Or how 3-D printing raises questions about intellectual property as well as copyright and patent law and how advances in science technology might soon create ethical dilemmas when parents have the opportunity to create “designer babies” with the ability to choose not only hair and eye color but also height, strength, and intelligence characteristics.

“The Future” is an ambitious project. Probably,too much so. Gore tries to educate us with a comprehensive, holistic overview about how various factors (business, population, environment, technology, information) interrelate but the effect can be overwhelming. Add Al Gore’s wooden and ponderous communication style to the mix and you might find your mind wandering as you wade through it. Nevertheless, it’s worth the effort. As Gore observes: “We as human beings now face a choice: either to be swept along by the powerful currents of technological change and economic determinism into a future that may threaten our deepest values, or to build a capacity for collective decision making on a global scale.”

Something to think about.

In the spirit of transparency, let me tell you that I believe that capitalism’s impact on America has been mostly positive however I’m not a proponent of the selfish capitalism endorsed by Ayn Rand and her acolytes. It seems to me that we need to grow into an era of “Conscientious Capitalism” which encourages and rewards individual achievement, risk-taking, and entrepreneurial spirit and also embraces the “noblese-oblige” spirit of FDR and Nelson Rockefeller.

Personally, I endorse raising the age for Social Security eligibility to 75 (which would negatively effect me), increasing taxes, re-evaluating bureaucracies to eliminate waste, zero-based budgeting to reduce spending, and programs which encourage Baby Boomers to remain economically productive and contributing to the country’s tax coffers rather than retiring and taking Social Security. We’ve got to face the music sometime and there’s no sense in procrastinating.

In his Bloomberg BusinessWeek review of Tom Friedman’s latest book, David Camp takes Friedman and his co-author, Michael Mandelbaum to task for not recommending big, bold solutions to the problems and issues they discuss in the book but I’m not sure that that’s the authors’ job. However, Camp does commend them for doing a solid job of evaluating America’s current situation in the 2nd decade of the 21st century and bringing our challenges to light.

My daughter is a high school senior so we’ve been in college tour mode since July. Something I’ve noticed that’s emphasized at all the colleges we’ve visited is their focus on attracting students from outside of the US. Of course, each college’s freshman class has a finite number of openings and if a higher percentage of those positions are filled by international students the fewer that will be available to American kids. On the one hand, I don’t doubt that part of the schools’ strategies is to address globalization and broaden the scope of their institutions. But I also don’t doubt that part of the plan is to attract international students from wealthy families to make up for American students whose families may no longer to be able to foot the annual bill for these institutions.

Friedman and Mandelbaum make some disturbing points in comparing American students with their Chinese counterparts. They talk about how we in America tend to reward our kids’ efforts whereas in China a student is rewarded only for accomplishment. Chinese students are expected to acquire strong math and science skills. In America, our education system is designed more to push the students through the pipeline than to encourage/demand excellence in specific skill sets when they reach high school graduation time. The Chinese see education as an economic issue. In America, we see it as a social issue. Friedman & Mandelbaum tell a sobering story about a small, obscure liberal arts college in the Midwest whose freshman class has a few hundred openings but which received applications from 900 Chinese students all of whom had perfect SAT math and science scores. Our kids need to be able to compete with these challenges.
The book talks about the types of employees that American businesses are seeking in order to be competitive as we move forward. We need creators and we need servers who add value which is unique and irreplaceable such as abstract analysis skills. The authors note that there are four catagories of workers :
1. Creative Creators
2. Routine Creators
3. Creative (inspired) Servers
4. Routine Servers
The Routine Creators and Routine Servers will be at the most risk of having their positions eliminated.

Just to get interviewed for a job these days, a candidate will need the following abilities: critical thinking skills, the ability to accomplish non-routine tasks, and the ability to work collaboratively. To get hired, a candidate will also need the ability to enhance, refine, and invent along with a proven ability to innovate. (“What was your best innovation during the past year?”, “ What projects are on your drawing board?”). Think Google.

Our schools need to teach and encourage students to visualize, identify, decide and direct within a competitive learning environment. They need to understand how to adapt and to innovate.

The books cites Carlson’s Law: “In a world where so many people now have access to education and cheap tools of innovation, innovation that happens from the bottom up tends to be chaotic but smart. Innovation that happens from the top down tends to be orderly but dumb.” It’s all about collaboration. This sounds like the theory that Gen. David Petraeus employed in Afghanistan.

I love the observation cited in this book by former Michigan governor, Jennifer Granholm that “the electric car will be an iPad on wheels”.

Someone else makes this suggestion. Why not offer companies located anywhere else in the world five years of local, state, and federal tax relief if they open and maintain factories in the US which create jobs for that 5 year period.

It’s no surprise to anyone who reads Friedman’s columns that he’s a strong proponent for America to get past its oil fix. To Tom Friedman, “talent is the new oil”.
The 24 hour news cycle has made it even more attractive for journalists to turn national politics into theater. It’s all become a “who’s up/who’s down” game. Friedman & Mandelbaum talk about the impact of gerrymandering which is a process of dividing up political districts in order to provide political advantage to the party in control of the process. As the authors describe it, gerrymandering essentially assures the party in power that its candidate will win the primary election. Since most states allow only registered Republicans and Democrats to vote in primary elections, those of use who prefer to remain politically independent are excluded. That allows the rabid partisans to control the elections. Given the cost of multi-platform message distribution in the media these days, that leaves the winning candidate no choice but to placate the zealots. (Witness what’s been happening with President Obama and the left-wingers in the Democrats and Mitt Romney with the Republican Tea Partiers). The majority of Americans who want to see our politicians collaborate and compromise are left out of the conversation. Friedman & Mandelbaum favor a Teddy Roosevelt/Ross Perot-type third party candidate who has no hope to win but can influence the Presidential election. It wouldn’t surprise me in the 2012 Presidential election to see Barack Obama, the Republican candidate, and independent party candidates representing zealots on the left and right.

“That Used To Be Us” says that America’s fate in the 21st century depends on how we deal with the following challenges: globalization, the IT revolution, the deficit and energy consumption.

I found Tom Friedman’s last book to be somewhat tedious. This book is disturbing, enlightening, and inspiring.