Comments

US elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

It seems therefore our need for oil is the only reason for murdering up to a quarter of a million innocent civilians in Iraq since the war began and of course thousands of wonderfully brave military personnel.

We now know Iraq has nothing to do with regime change – people like Tony Benn were telling us that long ago before the war of course. Some of our supposed ‘leaders’ refused to listen.

There is no ‘sense of humour’ whatsoever in this story.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 3, 2008 3:29 AM

Many years ago I listened to Nolan Bushnell talk about starting Atari and being wildly successful. Then he started up Chuck-E-Cheese a pizza place where a giant rat serves pizza to children. It bombed. Reflecting on his two experiences, Nolan said, "Don't mistake good luck for good management."

Posted by Wally Bock at May 3, 2008 2:19 PM

The mere thought of being able to do nothing (or the very ingrained thought of immobilization which render the same effect), while others continue to lay golden eggs to our peril, is quite disturbing.

President Bush's claim that Americans are addicted to oil was perhaps for him a start to the conversation (or perhaps to scare others.) The issues involved in conservation and drilling, I'm not particuarly well versed, but it seems important to me that we do something...to say the least!

To Trevor's quote...I'm not terribly big on those in leadership who do not lead particuarly well on certain issues and who later write books about the failures of institutions that they in essence led or at least had some influence over. Nonetheless, Mr. Greenspan's book is a good read for a number of reasons.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 3, 2008 6:04 PM

In 1973 the U.S. had its first oil crisis.
Since then, nothing has really been done. I believe one big reason for the failure is our
almost religous belief in market forces.
Market forces work for relatively simple things.
Market forces alone would not have won WWII.
Market forces alone will not solve the energy problem. We have to start looking at the greater good. Individuality is great, but there are times when we need to behave like we are a country with a common mission. Innocent people are dying because we will not face up to the fact that market forces alone cannot solve extremely large problems. Market forces alone can produce a great cup of coffee, a wonderfull personal music device and even fantastic jetliners. They alone cannot win wars or keep us from going over a cliff in pursuit of fossil fuels.

Posted by frank at May 3, 2008 6:39 PM

‘Innocent people are dying because we will not face up to the fact that market forces alone cannot solve extremely large problems’

Thank you Frank – that is brilliant – I am with you. Whilst we continue to stand by and allow 20000 people - mainly children - to die every day – I refuse to see how we can even begin pretend market forces are the answer.

It is interesting Judith that Mr Greenspan is in his 80’s and my hero Tony Benn in his 80’s and both hold the same view about the real reason for the Iraq war. They are from opposite ends of the political spectrum and both are older than the baby boomer generation in whom Tom (and I) have so much faith in. Maybe we need to start listening to our seniors a bit more.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 3, 2008 7:10 PM

Sorry that should read ....

'20000 people - mainly children - to die every day DUE TO EXTREME POVERTY'

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 3, 2008 7:14 PM

Trevor...no disrespect at all for those who are way beyond me in years; I have spent many years in rapt attention to my elders since my early youth. But while age should teach wisdom it does not necessarily. Wisdom is also found in in the mouth of babes. Wisdom emanates from many, no matter the age.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 3, 2008 7:50 PM

Absolutely Judith - couldn't agree with you more. I posted this quote on another section earlier from the great Mahatma Gandhi: “Even as wisdom often comes from the mouths of babes, so does it often come from the mouths of old people. The golden rule is to test everything in the light of reason and experience, no matter from where it comes.”

I learn as much today (make that more) from Sebastian, my 3 year old Grandson as I did from some of the older and allegedly wiser managers I worked for in my career.

My comment was not meant to imply we should ONLY listen to older people. It was meant to say let’s listen to older and blatantly wiser people like Mr Benn and Mr Greenspan who have been around the block a few times and they recognise political stupidity when they see it.

It's 2.05 Sunday morning ... time I was retiring!

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 3, 2008 8:08 PM

I may be wrong but did Mr. Greenspan's wisdom come after his many years with the Federal Reserve?

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 3, 2008 8:14 PM

Wally has made a great point.

it's a scary thought that we really don't like to explore too deeply - how much of our success is luck? (and this is from someone who believes strongly in personal growth, development and the power of what you can achieve if you set your heart, soul and mind to it)

Do your very best to be that very best you can be......

.....but retain the humility to know how much of it was really down to you!!!

That's a toughy!

Posted by PaulH at May 4, 2008 4:14 AM

Gary Player said ‘The more I practice the luckier I get.’ I agree with Gary but having said that, luck also plays a massive part. I have met some absolutely fantastic people who never got as far 'up the ladder in management' as they should have done with the ability they were blessed with - the missing ingredient for them is often a lucky break. The key of course is to be content with life wherever you happen to be in the pecking order. Bemoaning bad luck is a worthless and non-productive activity once the opportunity has come and gone!

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 4, 2008 6:27 AM

Notes from the frontline about market forces.

Before the communication industry was privatized in India, you had to pay INR 10,000 to get a telephone inside an year. (Average manager's salary at that time - INR 3000 MO) Of course, you can get one for INR 1000 as well, if you don't die first.

Calls cost a bomb. I remember talking to a relative in Europe for about 10 minutes and paying over INR 1000.

Then privitization happened.

Now you can get a telephone FREE inside 24 hours.
Calls are as inexpensive as they can get. And the average manager's salary is now well over INR 25,000 MO.

Jay, from Bangalore
http://ideaburger.blogspot.com

Posted by Jayakumar Hariharan at May 4, 2008 7:47 AM

You old cynic Tom. I'm sure Mr Hayward has been doing some serious MBWA while all these gazillions have been falling into his lap. Or maybe oil is how swans get black?

Posted by Rob at May 4, 2008 11:24 AM

Jay...you make a most excellent point. This is what privatization does best, lower prices. Competition tends to do this. Best in Bangalore!

Regarding Mr. Greenspan...one of his mentors was Ayn Rand, a great hero of mine in many ways. He is also a musician and being one this I respect greatly.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 4, 2008 12:56 PM

Does luck really exists? I am of the belief that we create our luck and when it appears we have hopefully prepared in a way to take advantage of it. Those pennys which fall from heaven are created by years of curosity and preparation. The turning of the umbrella upside down is the positioning of ourselves to take advantage of the windfall when it hits. I think we are in such a time right now.

But looking a little more in to the notion of luck...there is that unexplainable simply inexplicable element that occurs over and over again that is beyond what we could have imagined our preparation could produce. But the amazing thing is that luck occur again and again at unexpected times. Think about it. So, there must be a mixture of purpose, preparation, and the phenomenon in luck.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 4, 2008 1:30 PM

PaulH...your idea about humility is beautiful. But it appears to be more aligned with allowing others to influence us and not pretending that we have the answers to all of our problems. Humility is also closely aligned with listening to others and admitting our mistakes readily, cutting our loses in the process. Arrogance, not confidence, is destructive.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 4, 2008 1:39 PM

There is no such thing as luck Judith.
I bet you choose where you were to be born, when to be born, who your parents were and so forth.
You think there is no such thing as luck because you have luck.

Posted by frank at May 4, 2008 1:56 PM

Petrobras is in the same case of BP, but the humor is biggest: Petrobras has alcohol and biodiesel.
Eduardo Buys www.varejototal.zip.net Blog do Varejo (Retail Blog)

Posted by Eduardo Buys at May 4, 2008 3:17 PM

Frank...for me, luck is a state of being evolved out of the three P's I proposed. But the choosing of being born, where we're born and to whom, I have my doubts as whether we control these.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 4, 2008 3:22 PM

And while on the subject of control, many of us are without "luck" because we seek to control every situation in our private and public lives, even to the controlling of other people, dismissing people and ideas that may indeed bring us an abundance of "luck" in the present and future.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 4, 2008 3:27 PM

Let's bring to bear some wisdom on this 'luck' debate from a great management consultant obviously way ahead of his time.

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” Seneca (Roman philosopher, mid-1st century AD)

We all know original thought on any subject is as rare as Margaret Thatcher cracking a joke.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 4, 2008 4:17 PM

Professor Richard Wisman has conducted some very interesting research on Luck...

Anyone who is really interested in learning more about the psychological dimensions of Luck and thus why some people are lucky (and others are NOT) in life, love, career, and the pursuit of happiness - I suggest you simply Google Richard Wiseman...

Reading Professor Wiseman is a pleasure if for no other reason than to be exposed to his innovative approach to his Luck Project research and the fun he has had developing his ideas about who is lucky and why what they think and what they do brings them good luck...

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at May 4, 2008 4:46 PM

Great link thanks Richard - and it seems to me luck is more to do with heart than head according to the good Professor - seeing the glass as half full, creating lots of opportunities, forgetting bad luck and moving on quickly and putting it down to experience and learning – don’t beat yourself up! ... All good stuff!

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 4, 2008 5:18 PM

Richard, have ordered Wiseman and Amazon will deliver Tuesday--thanks! (TP: leads on books = gold!)

Posted by tom peters at May 4, 2008 6:49 PM

I love books! Such leads on books are indeed GOLD!

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 4, 2008 7:15 PM

Tom

You will enjoy the Wiseman stuff... He refuses to 'follow the mob' - you two are natural soul mates...

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at May 4, 2008 8:49 PM

Going back to the original blog by Tom.....

You guys are a fair lot if you swallow any of this. To simplify a business such as BP's and even suggest that it all falls down to luck is... well... simplistic.

Yes they are lucky that the price per barrel of oil is high but it gets a little more complicated from there. There is the minor process of refining and distributing that relies on a little bit more than luck.

I know Tom makes money by stirring up the pot but I would have some personal issues if anyone suggested that my success at work purely came down to luck. I'm sure that the CEO of BP would have the same issue.

I guess my message is that it easy to sit on the sidelines and point fingers at other people. Have a bit of a think of how it applies to yourself before jumping on the bandwagon.

Following from the sentiment raised in Tom's initial post, I would suggest that Tom Peter's success is purely because of luck. He has appeared in relatively bouyant times and by pure luck he has remained despite of the thousands of management gurus that have gone by the wayside. Just because he is here by luck doesn't mean you have to swallow everything he says.

Posted by Peter at May 5, 2008 11:36 PM

Peter - as ever, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Neither Tom nor BP are where they are because of pure luck. But the point here is surely that with revenues rocketing, a multitude of sins could be disguised and the underlying management could be anywhere on the scale from great to poor before the results looked bad. Putting it all down to management in the current environment is a bit rich - no pun intended...

Here's my point though: if and when the oil price goes south, the legislative environment toughens up and BP's performance dips, will the company have the b*lls to admit it hasn't handled things as well as it could? Or will we get the usual bleatings about, "industry pressure, tough world economic conditions,factors outside of our control" etc etc?

Posted by Mark JF at May 6, 2008 3:05 AM

Peter...thank you for your comment. But it is very clear that you have not read all of the responses here. If you would have done so, you would have clearly seen that we have not jumped on any bandwagon but rather redefined luck to mean something other than what is has typically meant. I, for one, would never determine from the sideline or the front line that success (or failure for that matter) is a matter of what is generally believed to be luck.

Luck, for me, as you must have overlooked, entails purpose, preparation and the phenomenon. (I might also add persistence to this collection of P's.) Now, it can be argued that luck than is not luck at all but the attributes of success. But there remains that phenomenon part of success that has nothing to do with what I have or have not personally done, but what perhaps someone else has. There is an individualism that I respect in your tone but that may not actually exist in broader terms.

I sincererly thank TP for the success he has had, for it has spawned a great amount of "luck." Best of luck to you, Peter

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 6, 2008 9:15 AM

Frank did say:
> In 1973 the U.S. had its first oil
> crisis. Since then, nothing has
> really been done. I believe one big
> reason for the failure is our
> almost religous belief in market forces.

Market forces have prevented any new refineries from being built.

Market forces are preventing us from additional drilling on the North Slope (ANWR), off the California Coast and off the Florida Coast.

Market Forces prevented the building of a so-called "Wind Farm" near Martha's Vineyard.

It's market forces that prevented the building of the nuclear fuel reprocessing facility at Yucca Mountain and prevented the building of any new Nuclear Plants.

Is it a market failure that all fuel at commercial pumps had to be 90% petroleum? That corn ethanol is massively subsidized and is STILL not cost effective?

My bleeding behind "market forces" failed.

This is EXACTLY NOT a market failure. This is a regulatory failure. A government failure.

> Market forces alone will not solve
> the energy problem.

It can and is. Right now thousands of entrepreneurs and researchers are tearing into the problems of converting various biomass to fuel. Of trying to make Solar cost effective outside of the Southwestern United States, of building better batteries (lighter, holding more power). Some are doing it with government grants, some are sillycon valley style startups.

> We have to start looking at the
> greater good. Individuality is great,
> but there are times when we need to behave
> like we are a country with a common mission."

And of course YOU know what that common mission should be.

Just like "bi-partisanship" means doing what the socialists want.

Yes, sometimes you have to put aside your individuality and work as a team to attain a desired goal, but that only works when your goals are well defined, narrow in scope, or for a short time. This is, as long as idiot politicians (but I repeat myself), a permanent crisis.

Government CANNOT solve this problem--it is beholding to too many pressure groups, and is much, much more interested in political power than electro-mechanical power.

This is, like Global Warming, Gun Control, the War On Drugs, and the original--the War On Poverty, about getting more power and more control. If government could solve problems like this our greatest strides towards ending (real) poverty in the US wouldn't have happened when the Republicans forced Clinton into wholesale reform of Welfare.

Posted by Billy Oblivion at May 6, 2008 12:16 PM

I work in the reliability and engineering game. The chemical safety board has recently released a damning report of the BP refinery explosion in Houston. (Released in March)

http://www.chemsafety.gov/index.cfm?folder=current_investigations&page=info&INV_ID=52#

While BP are making profits hand over fist, the video points out that basic procedures, processes, and fundamental issues relating to work practices are being neglected.

In a time of plenty, which is sure to last as long as China and India continue to dtrive towards a healthy middle class, it is (truly) tragic to see disgraceful (and preventable) incidents such as this.

Posted by Daryl Mather at May 13, 2008 1:15 PM

Some information about Limited-disease SCLC
http://www.reallifelog.com/sclc/archive/65457/
[URL=http://www.reallifelog.com/sclc/archive/65457/]Limited-disease SCLC[/URL]

Posted by Sally Newman at December 15, 2008 3:57 PM