• Home
• Tom Peters Company
  • - Consulting Services
• Tom's World
  • - Book Tom
  • - Calendar
  • - Tom's Bio and PR
  • - Photo Gallery
  • - Tom's Videos, etc.
  • - News Column Archives
  • - Media Sightings
• Tom's Books
  • - The Little BIG Things
• Cool Friends
  • - Current Interview
  • - Archives
• Resources
  • - Free Stuff (PDFs, etc.)
  • - Event Slides
  • - Master & Special Slides
  • - Blog Archives
  • - Banner Archives
• Contact Us

On a trip away from Lake Wobegon, Garrison Keillor took time to talk to us at tompeters.com. He and Erik had a great conversation about his latest book, A Christmas Blizzard, and many other topics, including a note from Julie Christie. We know you'll enjoy reading his Cool Friends interview. View our Archives for past interviews.

Comments

It depends how much of the technology is proprietary and non-replicable. With oil and coal we're talking about natural resources which are obviously about geography. Wind turbines and solar panels can - by and large - be maintained and repaired by 3rd parties.

Nuclear reactors, however... The big fear I have is that countries like the UK have been a) far too slow to adopt this technology and b) don't have a suffiently trained engineering base to run it. So, now that we face pressure because our existing generation facilities are falling apart, we'll have to use foreign technology to get nuclear facilities up and running in time to replace the aged plant. Unless we start training an engineering cadre pdq, I fear the NYT right: we risk swopping one reliance for another.

Posted by Mark JF at February 1, 2010 8:40 AM

Just goes to show how important is it to the Chinese and their rise to global dominance that politicians in the United States cling to beliefs that government can't do anything right.
The success of the Chinese in the field of energy is the success of a big government program.
But then again, we have great service in hotels, the best coffee shop chain on the face of the earth, and we design a personal music device known the world over. And don't forget Coca-Cola!

Thank you Ronald Reagan.

Posted by zorro at February 1, 2010 8:47 AM

Tom - You will please excuse me, my most respected mentor from afar, but you slay me! Why is that a surprise? And why on God's green earth is this now scary? Give me a break! The glories of globalization have been peddled for over two decades now why China increased their manufacturing through unfair trade policies that shipped boatloads of cheap products here, reducing our manufacturing base significantly and reducing our middle class.

As a Detroiter, I acutely understand what the lack of manufacturing has done. I also fully understand that leadership, executives and unions, have had their role to play in Detroit's decline. But not to consider that factories enabled our great society is completely ludicrous. It was like we thought that we could have a service and technology based economy with parts shipped from China and beans from El Salvador and still be a great society.

Our touting the glories of globalization seems somehow akin to Rumsfeld thinking that a war could be won with so few men on the ground so as long as the borrowed money from China supports some asinine high tech war strategy. I think the similarity has something to do with the absurdity of arrogance. Rumsfeld's arrogance caused us many lives and great economic peril. Globalization has also cost us dearly and our inability to self-correct as Rumsfeld did for years was devastating.

Democrat and Republican administrations alike, along with executives and management gurus, have all been in praise of a largely service economy while China soon becomes the world largest manufacturer of many products. Communist China is building a great society while we argue about becoming socialists. This is pure foolishness! We swap importing coffee beans instead of producing engineering and think it's cool! I mean, really, how much coffee can we drink? What kind of society does a largely service economy build in the long haul?

While China holds our debt they dictate trade policy to a certain extent, leapfrogging us in not two years but they’re been preparing for this over two decades while marching to the beat of their own one step manufactured drum. The Chinese know that we can't resist being the cowboys of the world and are assured, not in our innovation per se, but that we will continue to fight wars and need money to do so as they build a great society. But this will end.

We are such children! We should heed this advice: "When I was a child I spoke as a child. But when I became a man I put away childish things." But as children we remain arrogant and greedy, not to mention naive and misinformed.

Globalization has brought a flood of cheap products into our market while China builds a solid economy with a literal and figurative iron hand. Recently, I went on a search for stainless steel appliances. They were all absolutely the same from all of the "American" manufactures: cheap, largely plastic and ugly. As with our steadily decreased middle class, there was NO middle. There were only super high end stainless steel appliances or ugly largely plastic ones with cheap stamped steel doors that costs over a thousand dollars when in reality it wasn't worth the conveyor belt it was shipped here on.

This is absolutely NO surprise and it should NOT have now just begun to be scary! Actually, the fact that this is now scary is what's REALLY scary!!!!

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2010 9:14 AM

Judith - I think the biggest mistake was when everyone cited Apple's "Designed in California / Made in China" example as though it was a guaranteed recipe for success. Like the Chinese (and other emerging economies) would be happy to forever play the role of "low-cost, tug my forelock at the clever men from over the sea" servants? Like they'd never reverse engineer or copy any of the stuff they were manufacturing? Like they had no ambition themselves? Duh!

I can see a scenario emerging where, say, 20 years down the road, the Chinese outsource their manufacturing to centres of cheap labour like Europe and America.

Posted by Mark JF at February 1, 2010 9:40 AM

Say that, Mark!!!!! And you wonder why respect for leaders is in such decline! Just the thought of Davos was a major turn-off and those tweeting about the experience there largely made me want to puke. Fat cats patting themselves on the backs, getting fatter still, for having lead many people astray and we are expected because they meet on a palatial Swiss environment that many of these people are going to lead us anywhere good. Give me a break!!! May God bless the family of the head of security in Davos who committed suicide before the conference. But I couldn't help but to wonder what his stresses included. TED is a much better place of innovation and even there I haven't heard the push for where we actually need to go with regards to education and invigorating the middle class. Maybe I haven't been listening intently enough. If someone has a difference of opinion, I'd like to sincerely hear it. Globalization reduces us to a two-tier society: the haves and have nots. There is absolutely NO middle anything! This is BS!!!!

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2010 10:10 AM

You will please excuse me while I scream: WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2010 10:17 AM

So let me get this straight...
When China's carbon emissions explode, we blame them because they destroy the planet?
And when they mass-produce wind and solar energy we blame them for imperialism?

Posted by Guido Thys at February 1, 2010 10:42 AM

The sun rises every day at my house, for free, and we're using it. Working on resiliency and sustainability is no longer leaning into the wind, it is receiving the wind. Looks like a lot of angry "blame game" is afoot, while many Americans are working hard on overcoming the inertia of "the angry" to move ahead. Look in the mirror: are you benefitting from the problem, shouting at the wind, or are you going to be part of the solution?

Posted by Randy Bosch at February 1, 2010 11:06 AM

Guido - What are you talking about? Your simplistic analogy misses the point. Or, perhaps I simply have not understood it. This is not only about carbon emissions or imperialism; it's about how such came to be. From a US standpoint we allowed China to rise through our naive and greedy policies that largely benefited executives, consider the stock of GE and Berkshire over the last 10 years, while they build a great society while ours decline. Yes, globally we should all consider emissions and various economies. But we can be assured that China is planning to export those windmills around the world. Perhaps that's why Berkshire invested recently in Burlington Northern. I suspect that when Buffett bought Burlington that he was not only thinking of moving products built in the US but those built in China as well. Savvy hedge fund friends tell me that Berkshire paid by far too much for Burlington. I dunno. But Buffett is engaging in debt that he long viewed as deadly. Debt and globalization go hand in hand.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2010 11:11 AM

"Looks like a lot of angry "blame game" is afoot, while many Americans are working hard on overcoming the inertia of "the angry" to move ahead."

Tell me, oh, wise philosopher, what are YOU doing!!! Bashing in sunrays? Great! Got solar panels? Great! From where did they come? It's going to take more than nice words to change this situation around and it is indeed possible to be mad as hell and be rational! "Anger rests in the bosom of a fool" but it sure is often needed occasionally to turn things around. Christ Himself walked into the Temple and overturned tables exclaiming "My Temple shall not be a den of thieves." Anger is not bad, but irrationality is not beneficial. But we have not awaken to anything!!! Or, perhaps have awaken too late. It is completely ludicrous to NOW talk about the scariest thing ever! Again, give me a break! And again, I ask WTF??????????????

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2010 11:19 AM

And....there will be no competitive "moving ahead" without a change in policy that deal with not only our notion of free markets (there is capital too in Communism even though the system is not deemed free) but fair trade. This issue has to be attacked from many standpoints with various voices and in through various means. Discussion is one of these means.

I'm out for a needed run....

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2010 11:29 AM

Enjoy your run! What am I going to do about it? The first action this morning will not be reported. Next, loading up for a run to the food bank, with stop at the grocery for fresh foods, to help those more helpless than me. Taking nothing Made in China to them.

Posted by Randy Bosch at February 1, 2010 12:04 PM

Checking in on my Blackberry which was probably manufactured in China. The navigation plastic ball has been broken twice in eight months.Ugh! Bought an iPod recently that had a manufacturing malfunction so I had to take that back too. It was undoubtedly made in China too. Had a super six mile run! The things that you are doing are just wonderful! How inspiring! Thanks for that! After that go save the beleaguered embattled middle class! :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2010 1:23 PM

Tough to follow thread, but I did not in any way accuse the Chinese of imperialism!! I simply believe that we (Americans) ought to be major players in this most important set of markets; that sentiment is not imperialistic.

Posted by tom peters at February 1, 2010 1:36 PM

Judith: I think your "...we allowed China to rise..." phrase is a bit off the mark. It isn't in America, Europe or anyone else's bailiwick to "allow" China to rise. Nor should we condemn them to perpetual servitude simply because we're happy to be top or near top of the pecking order. The question to answer is how we work with them, compete with them and live with them. Nobody wins unless everybody wins.

Posted by Mark JF at February 1, 2010 2:01 PM

I simply believe that we (Americans) ought to be major players in this most important set of markets.

No Shit Sherlock. By the way, the earth circles the sun and
apples fall to the earth due to the force of gravity.
Oh yeah, since you are from Vermont and it is winter, don't eat yellow snow!

Posted by zorro at February 1, 2010 2:36 PM

Tom, were you not one among the firsts to say, you can't beat the Chinese on price?
Now, it must again be you, to convince us that - 'you should, for your life on earth, beat the Chinese on price and quality both!'
You can always add- fail fast, succeed fast - and all that you dazzle us with, to make the convincing a little more convincing.

Posted by v.vijayamohan at February 1, 2010 2:40 PM

"You will please excuse me while I scream: WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Judith, I've been saying this in my own way for quite some time on this blog.

It's not April 1st somewhere in the universe, is it?

Posted by zorro at February 1, 2010 2:42 PM

Mark - I'm still on my BlackBerry so I'm away from my office. I can't verify the exact number but America pays Canada in the trillions monthly if I'm not mistaking. So, from that standpoint America has allowed China to rise by our deficit spending, not to mention the non-sustainable non-competitive trade policies. With regards to it being a win/win for all, I'm totally with you.

Tom - If my comments make it tough for you to follow the thread I would sure like to know exactly what makes it so. I would sure like to break it down a little further for you. It would be my pleasure. I must say that your broad statement about the thread doesn't inspire the direction you might like the thread to take. I would most certainly follow that direction also. I would like to ask you directly if you don't think our trade policies along with our deficit spending, not to mention our reliance on debt where financial engineering has supplanted actual engineering where billionaire and multiple millionaire executives and CE0s have not enabled your "scariest" comment. I respectfully await an answer. I remain yours...

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2010 3:07 PM

Needless to say, my comment above should not read Canada but China instead.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2010 3:17 PM

The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. ...
--Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

I suspect this is on the wall of more than a few of the leaders in china.

Posted by zorro at February 1, 2010 3:28 PM

Would you pay $20,000 for a Rolex watch made in China?

Posted by Henry Imbriaco at February 1, 2010 7:19 PM

is it possible to buy such a watch?
is it still a rolex if it is made in china?

What I'd like to know is what if we had kept our
low tech industries in the US - and paid more for for things like clothes - but China did not grow as quickly (because we kept making our own stuff) and therefore the price of oil did not increase as much, because china did not grow as much.
Would we, at the end of the day, be spending exactly the same - clothes might cost more but oil would cost less.
Is it really - after taking everything into account, that much better for the consumer when we send so much manufacturing to china?

In 2000, gas was about $1.00. Today it is about $3.00.
Have cost of clothes/TV's/Computer dropped enough to offset the rise in oil prices?

Posted by zorro at February 1, 2010 9:51 PM

The Capitalists will pay us to make the rope with which we will hang them. ...
-- (almost Chairman Mao)

Thank you, zorro.

Posted by Mike L. at February 1, 2010 11:38 PM

well, the thing is, the Chinese have a - strategy.

Posted by RobCH at February 2, 2010 1:24 AM

Dominate,
Dependance
Exploit
=
Profit & a Strategy?

Whats the difference Wl-mart/BP/Starbucks etc etc etc....

You are the only one who plays in the game, I don't think so !

Posted by patrick at February 2, 2010 3:18 AM

Mark - Hear, hear! Thank you for rehrasing my point so elegantly!

Judith (11.11 a.m.) - I agree with your analysis of the causes. But what is happening is not scary, it is free market economy. Picking up the challenge imho beats wetting our pants and playing the blamegame. And as for my phrasing, to quote Jack Welch: I couldn't make it more complicated than this...

Tom - Your phrase "These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies" suggests that their underlying strategy is market domination (or "economic imperialism"). I think it is more probable that they have more important domestic motives. And that they will export at some point, sure... wouldn't you if you had the chance?

Posted by Guido Thys at February 2, 2010 5:09 AM

patrick - Again, it's not about who plays in the game, but about the USA's allowance of others to dominate our markets and eclipse our productivity because we can't resist war which increases the deficit and enables the Chinese, outsourced our economy, and engaged in financial engineering that didn't produce robust markets but instead outrageous speculating. This seems to have replaced investing in the past decade. With financial engineering, the playas on Wall Street got paid big while workers and even shareholders got the shaft. I now see more clearly why many of the hip-hop community talk a lot about being gangstas.

Guido mentioned Jack Welch. Well, the Jack that I admire most is JACK BOGLE. A lot of talk has been going on about shareholder value, but there wasn’t a whole lot of shareholder value going on in the last decade. This was partially my point earlier about companies like GE and Berkshire. Mystique sucks when that's all you can see. It also sucks when it becomes increasingly all you have, even though such gets us stuff that others couldn’t get.

JACK BOGLE is the man! His piece in the Wall Street Journal, "Restoring Faith in Financial Markets: It is time institutional investors exerted control over publicly held companies" is great. "Investing is an act of faith." Jack begins, "So I wrote in 1999, the very first sentence of my book, 'Common Sense on Mutual Funds.' But as 2009 ended, writing in the updated 10th anniversary edition after the passage of this turbulent decade, I concluded that 'the faith of investors has been betrayed.'" THIS JACK IS MY HERO!

"But what is happening is not scary, it is free market economy. Picking up the challenge imho beats wetting our pants and playing the blamegame."

Guido – The "free" market economy seems largely controlled by policy which in such global markets makes it doubly more damaging, quicker and faster especially with the advent of technology which puts things at our finger tips in record time. Why do so many like to throw such phrases around as if causes and effects are born out of thin air or merely by purchases? And, with regards to the "challenge" it's pretty stupid to enable a competitor to subsist and then say this is scary as if we didn't see it coming. The problem is that we don’t see a lot coming because Americans have a perpetual happy youthful fever while others are soberly knuckling down for the long haul. Regarding the blame-game, we have to first understand where we are if we are actually going to be competitive. The fact that someone like Tom, past administrations, and lawmakers on the left and right didn't seem to see this coming is, as I said earlier, what's really scary.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 2, 2010 6:03 AM

Remember about a year ago Tom admitted that maybe he was over zealous about deregulation?

In 2003, his powerpoint slides were peppered with examples of how well Donald Rumsfeld was running things.
At one point Tom believed Rumsfeld was going to be one of the best Secretary of Defense we ever had.

Tom is not a visionary. His viewpoints might well be dangerous.

I think he is completely out of touch.

Posted by zorro at February 2, 2010 8:01 AM

patrick, I'm not sure what your response meant, to be honest but... China is working to a very clear game plan. Their foreign policy, especially in Africa, is geared to giving them privileged access to rare raw materials. Their economic policy is geared to keeping the value of the yuan low. Their education policy is geared to step change in hi-tech engineering capability. Their business/export strategy is directed towards continuous (and rapid) movement up the value chain, into immature technologies, and so on. It's joined-up and it's working. Unfair, possibly, but it's not going to go away. The question is, what does any other country do about it? By and large, beyond a familiar pendulum between laissez-faire and regulation in respect of symptoms, few other nations actually have a competitive strategy, let alone one that is integrated and successful.

Posted by RobCH at February 2, 2010 8:10 AM

"When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer."

Strategy is key but the other difference for me is that China is hungry, struggling and fighting.

It wants to succeed.
It wants to win.
The West? Well the West is simply trying not to loose.

Posted by PaulH at February 2, 2010 9:24 AM

"The West? Well the West is simply trying not to loose."

Paul - I do not think that this is so at all. It is quite obvious that many have not even thought that we were losing. The fact that "China is hungry, struggling and fighting" and might I add winning is because we have been naive and greedy. We praised shareholder value and then repented and in the meantime workers and the country was sold a raw deal.

I remember listening to President Clinton deliver a speech about the free market that Ronald Reagan or Ayn Rand could have written. (I must say that I appreciate many of Rand's ideas but perhaps for different reasons. Alan Greenspan, by the way, was a devotee of Rand and he has been apologizing of late too.) In the speech President Clinton spoke of the glories of globalization. Yeah, it worked for a while in that shareholders received value, but the workers and the economy in the end got screwed.

Jack Welch apologized too. He did so for preaching shareholder value for so many years, which was tantamount to by any means necessary, including importing many of the cheapest products ever and dismantling the highest productivity and quality in factories, not mention the middle class. GE appliances used to be worth something. Today, they are crap. GE also used to have a core business. Now, they've become bigger but less profitable. They own everything under the sun, including a boat load of bad mortgages.

Yes, Welch did apologize, but I wonder if the many years of damage has been too deep. China didn't have technology and neither did Japan initially. Japan reversed engineered a lot of products and sold them back to us initially. China bought hummer recently probably for the technology. I assume the Chinese will soon be selling us our fleet of military vehicles next.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 2, 2010 11:07 AM

Judith - I agree with your description of the "perpetual happy youthful fever". In Europe we have something similar: the blissfully ignorant belief that we are the Old World, guardian of the Old Values and Systems which will never perish. And, of course, they will/are/have.
Patrick - of course China is working on a game plan to control access to energy and secure a broad range of influence (read market). Whose example would they be following, you think?
But this does not mean that whatever the Chinese do is intended to control the world. In fact, I am practically convinced that their sustainable energy projects aren't. Remarkable that some seem to find even those policies scary which do not have an offensive intent. Is that a textbook example of weakness?

Posted by Guido Thys at February 2, 2010 11:27 AM

"In fact, I am practically convinced that their sustainable energy projects aren't. Remarkable that some seem to find even those policies scary which do not have an offensive intent. Is that a textbook example of weakness?"

China's policies are not scary. It is our policies (or lack of) that are scary.

Posted by zorro at February 2, 2010 11:37 AM

"But this does not mean that whatever the Chinese do is intended to control the world."

Guido - I agree that the Chinese wish to advance their society and nuclear energy is a means to do so. But to suggest that competition is not to win is a tad bit naive. Yes, we all like the idea of a win/win and I sincerely think it's admirable indeed. But, really, the whole idea is market share and the concept of everyone winning without there being a leader is not reality. So, the country who dominates the market wins. And speaking of dominance, the Chinese army has not been historically silent, no?

"China's policies are not scary. It is our policies (or lack of) that are scary."

Zorro - As I said above, it's literally hysterical that we talk of free trade and free markets when markets are largely controlled by policy, or what you have rightfully added, the lack thereof. Thanks for that. Loved the Lenin quote too.

One other general point: Once the media starts talking about anything generally means its after the fact. (Whatever happened to investigative reporting. Or, was I not listening, even though I thought we were heading down the wrong road when I was in college.) Because we have made bad decisions does not mean that we can't reverse things.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 2, 2010 12:34 PM

One of the headlines this very day has to do with airline safety. It seems that regional airlines - there are in effect
Temp airlines that the majors contract for regional airports.
Also, these "temp" airlines contract out most of the mechanical work.
And guess what? Information dug up due to the freedom of information act is uncovering the fact that these 'temp' airlines are unsafe.
Temporary work is something else being advocated by the
guru types. We are all supposed to be looking forward to the 'freedom' provided by a future where many more workers are temps.
Maybe experience matters - Maybe building companies (and countries) with long term goals isn't such a bad idea after all.

Posted by zorro at February 2, 2010 12:57 PM

As the sun always rises, so do the chickens always come home to roost.

The U.S. has traded its industrial might for cheap goods bought with borrowed money in order to satisfy our craving for instant gratification---the mantra of today’s society. Now, there are penalties to pay.

I just read that China has “warned” President Obama that he must not meet with the Dalai Lama when he comes to the U.S. to visit. This is on the heels of the threat from China that they would impose economic “sanctions” on any company that provided arms to Taiwan. China also warned of “…broader consequences for bilateral relations,” if the sale of arms to Taiwan by the U.S. proceeded.

Is China now so all-powerful that they can effectively…warn…threaten…and sanction the actions of the U.S.? And if so, who provided the means for obtaining that power? Is this globalization at its finest?

Yup, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Posted by Bob Foster at February 2, 2010 1:08 PM

Most ambiguous post ever.

Posted by Tim Coote at February 2, 2010 1:18 PM

Shareholder value. China totally believes in increasing its shareholder value.

Which entity(ies) hold(s) the vast majority of shares in China, and in its foreign investments including IOU's? It isn't an NGO, 501©3, or in IRA's, et.al.

Whether their CEO and Board of Directors lusts after world domination or not is not factually known to me. However, history shows that believing of "we're the best/biggest/smartest, etc." leads inevitably to the hubris of deciding to "rule the world" in many ways.

It's not as hard to run up success with the strategic points enumerated in an earlier post when central planning replaces individual initiative and true competition.
It is a fact of life.

Yes, the looking back is necessary - not to "name names", not to put on the "we erred" sack cloth and ashes (of course "we" is always the other guys), but to recapitulate how we got "here" from "there", what changed, what are the facts in play today and for the foreseeable future (ha!, who "we" are now.

Somewhere "we" lost the ability to accept that people can learn of and learn from their mistakes, "repent" of them, correct and move on in a new direction. The only reason to pillory those one deems errant is to promote oneself, unless there is no change in behavior, the old "the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over hoping for a different outcome." Even Edison didn't do that, but methodically tested and tested until he found the right filament. Stop espousing "fail fast" (how negative and incorrect)and call progress what it is, a process of careful planning, testing and verifying until the best answer is found - with willful perseverence.

With that humble introspection, reformation can occur: correct errors and resume a rightful course under new circumstances. Skeptical Empiricism may be a really good analytical tool to incorporate rather than mystical mathematical and engineering formulas or social psychology. As Nassem Taleb encourages, learn how not to be "the turkey" in the face of allegedly unforseeable events. This has to happen in "real time" - progress is not a product, but a process.

Then the Renaissance can come - subject to a bit of push back from those who see "their century" before them.

There are many working on such recapitulation, reformation and renaissance in our society: economic, cultural, educational, governmental; they are innovating with an eye on "shipping", not just philosphizing, although a little of that might help avoid future jingoistic hubris as well.
Unfortunately, many leaders in each category are living to acheive the repetitive insanity of failed systems, rather than moving ahead. In many cases, they didn't fail and the system didn't fail in and of itself, but outlived its time, environment and usefulness.

It is time to learn and act. "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." Winston Churchill.

Anyone who wants to keep wrestling over deck chairs on the Titanic, go right ahead - only one lesson will be learned from that and the test is not repeatable. A lot of people have the will, the "gumption" and the "tough love" to change course. If you're not one of them, find one and hang on!

Action is the new competence!

Posted by Randy Bosch at February 2, 2010 4:20 PM

Now with regards to shareholder value, is China a corporation or a communist country? Both? What is for certain is its "value" is in their people whom are seemingly controlled at will. Bob mentioned the Chinese "request" that President Obama not meet with the Dali Lama, a spiritual leader. We banter "free" this and "democracy" that around only when it pleases us or works to our best advantage. But I wonder if their essence has been perverted and sold to the highest bidder.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 2, 2010 5:05 PM

If so, what are the ethics of those who, knowing that, happily "outsource" for personal gain, consciences muffled by "arms length" transactions, a co-dependency that mortages their shareholders and fellow free citizens?

Posted by Randy Bosch at February 2, 2010 5:10 PM

With regards to ethics and business, I most admire Jack Bogle. (Max De Pree and Bob Stone are also leaders I admire.) Earlier today Jack sent me an article he wrote for JPM: The Journal of Portfolio Management. He did not send a link and I did not look it up. But for those who are interested, here is the title: "The Fiduciary Principle: No Man Can Serve Two Masters." It's a great piece.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 2, 2010 7:35 PM

Judith - "But to suggest that competition is not to win is a tad bit naive." I fully agree (we seem to agree on more and more things).
My point has been all along that worldwide competition might not be the primary objective of the Chinese. Although it is a very attractive "side effect" indeed. To the Chinese for sure, but shouldn't it be anyone who is a true advocate of a free market economy? Instead of seeking the safe haven of protectionist measures? Of blame-rethorics for that matter?

Posted by Guido Thys at February 3, 2010 3:12 AM

Bob - "Yup, the chickens are coming home to roost".
Do you mean to say that it will take a lot of people quite some time to get used to the fact that there is (again?) more than one economic and in that slipstream political and military superpower on the world scene?

Posted by Guido Thys at February 3, 2010 3:16 AM

I guess my point was something along the lines of its my ball and I don't like it when someone else plays with it and actually does a better job of it. Just the Game is being played by a bigger Inc. that being China Inc versus USA Inc.

Judith, good morning and thanks for your thoughts but there is something not as lucid as normal in the statement

"the USA's allowance of others to dominate our markets and eclipse our productivity because we can't resist war which increases the deficit and enables the Chinese, outsourced our economy, and engaged in financial engineering that didn't produce robust markets but instead outrageous speculating"

I think its the use of "allowance" and "our" that bothered me.

I accept the warmongering and the consequence, my children's, children will also understand that on the assumption we write history books that say so?

Associating the term engineering with a financial model etc is in itself interesting I guess my PhD eldest nephew would have something to say about that being what he would call a "real" engineer, I call him a part time mathematician! Or should that be the term we should use for the finance guys?

Ultimately, its choice I guess, our choices are changing?

Posted by patrick at February 3, 2010 3:23 AM

Hi Guido - Here we go 'round the mulberry bush. I shan't. :-) Suffice it to say that I appreciate your points even if I don't agree. You seem bent on beating the drum of imperialism. Competitiveness does not equate to imperialism. But, of course, if another country's policies, greed, ignorance, and outright foolishness allow for another to outstrip it, well, the others can't be blamed for this. You are usually thoughtful. For this, I thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 3, 2010 7:39 AM

Hi patrick - From your comment, it seems that you understand my point quite clearly. It simply appears that you don't agree with my choice of words. Sorry, about that. But if they were other than mine, they would be yours. My choice of words was done purposefully to drive a point home.

I think that I have written enough above to explain my points rather clearly. But, if you have a specific point instead of pointing to various words that you might liked changed or find disagreeable, I would be more than happy to give it another go. Context matters too and I have tried to put my words in such that would best express my ideas. But as I've said I'd be happy to further clarify myself if necessary.

"Financial engineering" is used here rather sarcastically, as it was financing engineering that nearly brought the global economy to a screeching halt. It wasn't the engineering of various products. Chrysler, for example, under Bob Nardelli did not produce one single new product while he was CEO. All Chrysler did was shift numbers here and there.

With regards to warmongering, while in a war our great president Eisenhower warned about the "industrial war complex." It wasn't about imperialism. The Eisenhower point is what I was addressing here. With regards to history, it is written by the conquerors as Great Britain so prominently demonstrated around the world.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 3, 2010 8:09 AM

Fascinating, if totally confusing discussion – I’m not clever enough to understand a lot of the thread.

I can’t see the point of point scoring nation versus nation on this matter (isn’t that how wars start?) and I certainly don’t understand the imperialism argument. As far as I can see its just terrific news for the planet that China is investing in alternative (and natural) energy sources. They are clearly showing far more initiative, creativity and imagination than the allegedly more advanced UK and US. Most important – they are at least doing SOMETHING – long live pragmatism says I.

Maybe we are just a wee bit jealous that the Chinese can get their act together politically much better than we can. We should actually congratulate them and celebrate the fact that at least one government/nation is putting its money where its mouth is …. and not burying its head in the sand. All we continue to do in the UK (and the US) is pontificate and procrastinate and the only positive leadership thing we do environmentally is to get together every ten years or so to have bit of an expensive party/seminar about the environment; we have a leaders photo call; we say the right things; and then proceed to do bugger all about it until the next conference 10 years hence about the same topic.

We talk a good fight and in the meantime the Chinese – God Bless ‘em - just get on and do it.

I am reminded of George Bernard Shaw (At least I think it was GBS – if it wasn’t it should have been)

“Some mean dream of worthy accomplishments while others stay awake and do them”

I’ll raise a toast to implementation – which which Tom of course always promotes :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 3, 2010 6:48 PM

"isn’t that how wars start?"

A lot (all) of the recent wars started because we did not invest in alternate energy sources.
The united states spends more on the military each year than
it spends on the oil it gets from the gulf.

Question? Who is the best designer in the world?
Answer - I vote for the underpants bomber. This guy can think way out of the box.
Tom - maybe you are right - anger might make people more innovative.

Posted by zorro at February 3, 2010 9:17 PM

Zorro, or way out of the boxers perhaps?

Posted by RobCH at February 4, 2010 1:18 AM

Hear Hear Trevor

I obviously can't condone their human rights record and the "acquisition" of large tracts of land in Africa etc but they are pushing ahead with spirit and zeal.

Working in a multinational company I have become only too aware of what a nonsense national borders really are

I am not sure about GB writing history - not now at any rate. I think most Brits are not really sure what to think in terms of the Empire's history and how that relates to them.

Posted by PaulH at February 4, 2010 2:30 AM

Zorro - I think I'm with Rob on this one.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 4, 2010 4:16 AM

Thanks Paul - Empire - what Empire?

We have now sadly reached rock bottom in the UK given the craving for instant fame, ‘celebrity’ and chasing money.

Clair Short, a Cabinet Minister at the time of the Iraq invasion effectively calls our former Prime Minister Tony Blair a liar and therefore a criminal in a Public Inquiry about why the hell we became involved in the Iraq. We all know it was about oil and was purely and simply to hang on to the coat tails of ‘Uncle George’ across the pond. And yet this sensational news is relegated to Page 11 in some newspapers. Why? - Because of the mass coverage of the extra marital bed hopping activates of John Terry the footballer!

By the way we cannot be seen as ‘superior’ and 'whiter than white' when it comes to acquisition of others lands – our history is littered with examples … some might say it is still current activity on our part.

Don’t know about you Paul but I’m pretty pi**ed off with the way things are going here. We desperately need leadership and change .... and I don't mean Mr Cameron and the Tories God forbid!

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 4, 2010 4:17 AM

May I point all commentators on this thread to an article in todays Times which outlines the nature of the China / Western World in admirably clear terms: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article7014090.ece

Posted by Mark JF at February 4, 2010 7:43 AM

Every country has times in their history they can be proud of and times to be ashamed of - This is why I get a little annoyed at country comparisons - it's so meaningless. Business doesn't work this way - they simply find the best talent in the world and put those people together. Countries (different legislation etc) simply get in the way and have to be dealt with. I don't really get country pride or patriotism any more - I admire countries for their ideals and values.

Trevor, I am with you on the UK, both leadership and the press as well (I only read The Economist now - not a daily ).

I would like to see the UK develop a more positive outlook (in a quiet, unassuming kind of way of course!). We have great people who live in a wonderful country with a forgiving climate.

I am a great fan of quiet confidence - the kind that comes from real substance and experience. To me it goes to the heart of excellence. True craftsmen don't need to make a great volume of noise - they let what they do speak for them.

Noisy volume is a sign of insecurity to me.

China is very noisy right now. It's time to listen to them, find the 5-10% that is good and see what we can learn.

Posted by PaulH at February 4, 2010 8:05 AM

Mark - Thanks for the article, but it doesn't say anything different that we have said on this thread or that I've read anywhere else. There is nothing new or even more intelligently written. Zorro, in many respects, could have written the article. When the writer spoke of a new capitalism and included democracy and other elements I thought a book of essays worth reading, "Creative Capitalism" which essentially speaks of the very same thing. The article was a bit of a let down to say the very least. Perhaps because I appreciate your voice usually. But had you told me that it was the Financial Times, instead of the New York times, after the former nominated Blankfein as the Person the the Year, I may not have even read the article at all. Well, I'm only half teasing. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 4, 2010 8:24 AM

My reading glasses are made in china, they keep breaking too....

Just a random thought at the end of a long blog entry...and an even longer day!

Posted by patrick at February 4, 2010 12:14 PM

Have a good evening, patrick. I'm in the middle of my day.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 4, 2010 12:30 PM

From the article mentioned above -
"We in the West have a choice. Either we concede the argument that China, in the 5,000 years of recorded human history, has been a much more successful and durable culture than America or Western Europe and is now reclaiming its natural position of global leadership. Or we stop denying the rivalry between the Chinese and Western models and start thinking seriously about how Western capitalism can be reformed to have a better chance of winning."

We knew how to win. In some ways, we need to go back to the future. In other words, Before Reagan (BR). In those days, the government was not the enemy. During the Republican Primary in 1980, George Bush called Reagan Economic ideas 'Voodoo Economics'. If anyone is prescient he was. He said Reagan's policies would leave us in 'deep voodoo'. His timing might have been off, but these day seem like voodoo days to me.
Capitalism was reformed after WWII and it worked quite well. In 1980, we had a very simple inflation problem that Jimmy Carter's choice for Fed Chairman (Paul Volker) fixed. During the Reagan years, Capitalism started a slow march back to where it was before Teddy Roosevelt.
Can anyone name a major technology developed after WWI not rooted cold war science?

Posted by zorro at February 4, 2010 1:19 PM

Zorro, do you mean after WWII, not "...after WWI..." as noted? Don't think the Cold War started in 1919!

Posted by Randy Bosch at February 4, 2010 5:35 PM

WWII - does that make it easier to answer the question?

Posted by zorro at February 4, 2010 6:04 PM

Zorro, just interested in historical (and, when it applies, statistical) accurancy! The question is a red herring relative to this discussion.

Posted by Randy Bosch at February 4, 2010 6:59 PM

Thoughtful comment, Zorro. Thank you. To answer your question, I can't think of one.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 4, 2010 7:11 PM

Zorro, Rats! Can't get it out of head!
You win! One answer is: Television.

Posted by Randy Bosch at February 4, 2010 7:23 PM

But, that's the answer to your first construct "after WWI".

Posted by Randy Bosch at February 4, 2010 7:25 PM

The first TV broadcasts were in the late 1930's
They were shut down because of WWII.

Posted by zorro at February 4, 2010 7:29 PM

Zorro, Actually 1928.
You are right about "going back to the future". A renaissance does first require recapitulation - what was the foundation, was it correct, did it work, where did "we" swerve incorrectly. Then, a reformation can occur, correcting error and returning to a rightful course - but it must use "lessons learned" and be fully cognizant of changes that have occured to the present and can be foreseen with reasonable risk involved.
Keep pushing!

Posted by Randy Bosch at February 4, 2010 7:43 PM

He's the thing that I find repugnant.
Could it be that US dependency on Solar Panels and Wind Turbines coming from EU is less scary than it coming from yellow bellied gooks like China?

Are we being racist here Mr. Peters?

Posted by Dr. Kervokian at February 5, 2010 12:41 AM

Dr. Kevokian - Can't speak for Tom, but it wouldn't matter to me where the Solar Panels or Wind Turbines came from if it meant that masses of Americans would be out of work and that international policies would be negatively affected because of it. But your "yellow bellied gooks like China" statement did raise an eyebrow because of the poignancy of the racist description itself. I understand well that you were making a point here. Well-taken. For what it's worth, there is nothing in this post, in others that I have read over the past nearly three years, or in his many books that suggests in the slightest way that Tom holds racist views. I wonder why you would think otherwise from this post.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 5, 2010 1:26 AM

Me neither; am a big fan of Tom and have been reading his books for the last 10 years.

Just caught me by surprise with the whole "scary" statement; and yes I AM making a point. For once we have healthy competition on a source of energy that is renewable and sustainable. Like you said, it shouldn't matter at all where these new development come from; especially when it's good for all of us.

Secondly, dependency is a state of mind, not a fact.

Posted by Dr. Kervokian at February 5, 2010 4:24 AM

"Secondly, dependency is a state of mind, not a fact."

Dr. Kervokian - I'm not too sure about this, sir. If we are importing say 80 percent of what our country needs this would definitely not be a mere state of mind but of both fact and dependency. Now, how we look at things would make a difference in our changing them, but it would still mean that others provide for our means of survival and pleasure. We are indeed dependent on others.

By the way, if you are indeed THE Dr. Kervokian I used to see you walking in Royal Oak quite often. I hope you are well, dear sir.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 5, 2010 8:41 AM

By the way, I appreciate very much your point about what's good for all of us, but it wasn't quite the point that I was making. Thanks for your response.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 5, 2010 8:44 AM

We outsource to China, yet they are starting to come out on top. What's going on?

Posted by Jason at February 6, 2010 12:25 AM

Don't forget China is investing in safe nuclear power as well: "Thorium continues to be a tanatalising possibility for use in nuclear power reactors, though for many years India has been the only sponsor of major research efforts to use it, though other endeavours by Thorium Power (now Lightbridge Corporation) were focusing on Russian reactors.

In mid-2009, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL) signed agreements with three Chinese entities to develop and demonstrate the use of thorium fuel in its CANDU reactors at Qinshan in China. This carries forward an earlier programme to utilise recycled PWR fuel in the Qinshan reactors. Another mid-2009 agreement, between Areva and Thorium Power, is to assess the use of thorium fuel in Areva's EPR, drawing upon earlier research."

quoting from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

Posted by Keith Ray at February 6, 2010 2:20 PM

I will try to share some ideas from many luminaries who has enlighten their minds and can be of help for many.

The idea is to acknowledge the problems we are facing today -- regardless of how difficult -- and yet making it a positive experience and a winnable one.

This is like a sequential list.

QUESTION: WHAT DO RALPH WALDO EMERSON, JAMES D. WATSON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, THEODORE ROOSEVELT, WINSTON CHURCHILL, ARTHUR C. CLARKE, BERNARD D'ESPAGNAT, ALBERT EINSTEIN, CARL SAGAN, MALCOLM S. KNOWLES, BERTRAND RUSSELL, FRANCIS BACON, HENRY KISSINGER, OTTO HERMAN KHAN, BURRHUS FREDERIC SKINNER, AND THE PANCHATANTRA HAVE IN COMMON? SO THEY CAN OFFER US A POSITIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE REFLECTION TO NAVIGATE WITH AN EVEN-KEELED VESSEL THROUGH UNCHARTERED WATERS IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM? – A CRITICO-CREATIVE THINKING PRESCRIPTION TO ILLUSTRATE SUCCESS IN 16 STEPS! By © Copyright 2010 Andres Agostini – All Rights Reserved –

OBJECTIVE
Emerson indicates that educators do not educate but offer the means of education. I am not trying to educate anyone but myself through these lines. However, most of my wisest colleagues and thoughtful friends are seeking relevant contents. Relevant contents that prove interesting in entertaining their legitimately hungriest minds as they mean well in every purpose. All citations here are accurate to the best of my knowledge. Not even for educational purposes have them been simplified or modified in any way since it is neither my duty nor nature as of now. Subsequently, quotations have been kept intact as they have become available to me.

1.- First off, we must establish universal acceptance of the greatest axiom of all times pertaining to the subject matter to be dealt with now. Said axiom establishes: “An ounce of prevention is worth millions of dollars of cure.” In the West we are over-working at the “cure” while under-working at the “prevention.”

2.- Having spoken of prevention, let’s now chat about preventive medicine by using the greatest wisdom of Sir Francis Bacon: “He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.”

3.- Okay, Bacon has spoken loud and clear. People who listen to him benefits greatly. Those who don’t are in shock, bewilderment, and even in times of struggle. We have the choice to ignore his extreme wisdom or we can accept and practice it thoroughly in every facet of our lives. The undersigned firmly suggests either one or the other, since “gray scales” type of choices will not work for us at all. The term “extreme” sometimes can be optimal. See, for instance, NASA’s effort in sending an unmanned Rover to Mars. Wasn’t that over-perfection after travelling – by means of highly sophisticated telemetry – some 120 million miles into outer space?

4.- If we take Bacon’s wisdom literally, we are exploiting the UPSIDE of our life’s risks. If we don’t take Bacon’s wisdom literally, we are exploiting the DOWNSIDE of our life’s risks.

5.- Supporting the Bacon motion there is that of Dr. Bertrand Russell. This finest Britton, supporting further Bacon’s motion (under 2, 3, and 4), indicated: “I know more people who prefer to die than to think.” Intellectual laziness is a topic heavily studied and addressed by advanced scientists. The idea is simply getting people in deep, systematic thinking forever.

6.- As I really wish to offer you every possibility of hope and optimism, rigor calls upon me to exhaust the downsides so that said downsides eventually become UPSIDES. Albert Einstein and Buckminster Fuller will be making their great ensuing contributions. Einstein: “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity … We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.”

7.- Supporting Einstein motion, Buckminster Fuller reminds us of the following: “Either war is obsolete, or men are.” Very respectful opinions that of Russell, Einstein, and Buckminster Fuller. But the German philosopher, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, reiterates that if we change the present we can change the future, and if we change the future – as well as the way we proactively and qualitatively envision and practice it through futuristic scenario methods – we will be changing the present in fact and taking increasing control over the negative circumstances that impact us. Nietzsche stated exactly: "It’s our future that lays down the law of our today." Can a prominent USA president make a difference and yet further support the Nietzsche motion? I think so. Ensuing:

8.- Theodore Roosevelt, a lifelong and topflight statesman concerned about making the best out of his mind and that of his constituents, established: "All the resources we need are in the mind." Dr. Carl Sagan, notwithstanding acknowledging the wisdom by Nietzsche and Roosevelt, really wishes making a point of his own next.

9.- So Sagan made his motion public, which basically indicates that if we embrace serious knowledge progressively, we will build great hope for the world. Without euphemisms, in this case “world” is an analogous term to “the people” and “by/for the people” worldwide. He said: “The greatest danger for the survival of the present civilization is neither atomic war, nor environmental pollution, nor the exploitation of natural resources, and nor present crises. The underlying cause to all of the above is the acceleration of man’s obsolescence … The only hope seems to be an electroshock program to re-instill to the current adults the competencies required to function adequately under a mode of perpetual change. This is a profound need – the immensurable challenge – that is presented by the modern society to adult educator.” Emerson understands Sagan but he really wishes to make a more hopeful and viable point.

10.- Ralph Waldo Emerson writes: “Man hopes; Genius creates.” As you make your knowledge more driven by you and as per the goal, objectives, and results expected from you and by yourself, the smarter you will become without a fail. The more intelligent you become, the much better at solving problems – regardless of how simple or complex they are – you’ll become more successful in ever dimension of life. Becoming truly intelligent is a bit of a struggle but it also fully winnable, educational, and enjoyable. And in my opinion no one can contradict Emerson on such an important theme. In some strange form, though with a positive outcome, Dr. Knowles wishes to confirm the exactness of the Emerson motion by using his words in a different way now. In matters of education, I habitually suggest researching the life of Dr. Burrhus Frederic Skinner, ?Education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten.” If we ignore education and self-education, we end up ignoring our own survival. Dr. Henry Kissinger addresses it here: "An ignored issue is an invitation to a problem."

11.- Dr. Malcolm S. Knowles, Ph.D. stated: “The greatest danger for the survival of the present civilization is neither atomic war, nor environmental pollution, nor the exploitation of natural resources, and nor present crises. The underlying cause to all of the above is the acceleration of man’s obsolescence … The only hope seems to be an electroshock program to re-instill to the current adults the competencies required to function adequately under a mode of perpetual change. This is a profound need – the immensurable challenge – that is presented by the modern society to adult educator.” A compatriot of Dr. Knowles, and former president of the United States, wishes to offer his insight thus underpinning the motions by Emerson and Knowles. Practical, actionable, mobilizing, and theoretical education are important because of the means to overcome and supersede any increasing obstacle as Einstein proved by claiming: "A problem can never be solved at the same level of knowledge that was created." But if you use the highest order level of knowledge systemically, you can win.

12.- Thomas Jefferson let us know: ?I prefer the stories of the future than history.? You see, an indeed conscientious futurist always thinks through doing all his risks FIRST to then accede to doing all his futures and the benefits stemming from said futures SECOND. I believe Jefferson was America’s first, foremost, and most responsible futurologist. In high spirits and under great responsibility, he added: “Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.”

13.- Then a great Britton and American came along to support Thomas Jefferson motion to the fullest. His name is Winston Spencer Churchill. Yes, he was Prime Minister of the U.K. and became American through an enacted law by the U.S. Congress. And, in his time, Sir Winston Churchill lucidly asserted the following: "The empires of the future are the empires of the mind." Then, Machado (from Spain) made his motion in supporting further and yet in a subtle way the Churchill motion.

14.- Antonio Machado established: “An eye is not an eye because you see it; an eye is an eye because it sees you.” Going even further than Machado regarding what grants a person the maximum possible own visibility of the world (cosmosvision. i.e., weltanschauung), the Panchatantra (body of Eastern philosophical knowledge) offers us a maxim: “Knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eyes.” Then Bernard d'Espagnat finds a middle-ground for the motions by Machado and the Panchatantra by saying: "Even if the Universe is a little myopic is true that, more than others, MEN OF SCIENCE ARE ITS EYES."

15.- The father of American management – and that of management spread out over the world – wishes to make an optimistic point and a word of caution that is “fine tuned-up” with all of the current work. I am referring to Peter Drucker, “Things that have already happened but whose consequences have not been realized [because they were not imagined, considered, or envisioned by disciplined foresight and far-sight, early on as their driving forces were coming together and gaining critical mass] … Don’t confuse movement with progress.” Furthering the Drucker position, a great American Nobel laureate is bound to amalgamating this motion. I mean James D. Watson, Ph.D.

16.- Watson tells in Charlie Rose show, originally aired in 2009, a very relevant and constructive thought for our greater enlightenment with hope: "Science gives society a great sense of decisive freedom." Watson motion gets amplified by the luminescent assertion by Arthur C. Clarke: “We have to abandon the idea that schooling is something restricted to youth. How can it be, in a world where half the things a man knows at 20 are no longer true at 40 – and half of the things he knows at 40 hadn’t been discovered when he was 20?” In supporting all motions – without being contradictory – Otto Herman Khan, German-American whose contributions are beyond the sine qua non quality these days, takes a final pondering by indicating: “Clearly, the first task is to gain acceptance of a more reasonable view of the future, one that opens possibilities rather than forecloses them.”

WRAPPING UP

British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli staged in the world of knowledge a wonderful reflection. To this end his contributions are world-class and numerous. Once known that he was elected for public office, a journalist asked him: “What will you first government action be?” Disraeli readily responded: “I will send my best friend to Australia.” “To the antipodes? What for?,” the journalist asked. “So my friends tell me how my administration here is seen from there,” Disraeli most accurately responded.

Disraeli’s intellect was immense. And he also was a “future-ready” type of a prominent large-scale CEO. In his mentioning of Australia, one could – playing through serious critico-creative thinking – envision that Disraeli was actually thinking about sending his best friend into the future. So that said friend could gain – in ample foresight – the most reliable feedback (kind-of public opinion ratings) way in advance from the locus where the broadest perspective can be gained at the maximum and the easiest and the earliest.

General Francisco de Miranda – an outsider with a Londoner’s heart, mind, and a British wife in the nineteenth century fighting against the Spanish army in the Americas – stated a phrase that greatly bolsters the brief and yet lucid dialogue held by Disraeli above. Miranda said: “Time is the context by means of which action is delivered.”

By © Copyright 2010 Andres Agostini – All Rights Reserved –

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at February 14, 2010 7:37 PM

"“An ounce of prevention is worth millions of dollars of cure.” In the West we are over-working at the “cure” while under-working at the “prevention.”

Explain what you mean with a concrete example.

Posted by zorro at February 14, 2010 9:28 PM

You have reminded me of one of my favorite quotes: "Life is a series of collisions with the future

Posted by Zada Tarran at February 15, 2010 2:16 PM