Connect with us

Economy

Rich and Poor: Opportunities and Challenges in an Age of Disruption

Jim Yong Kim

Published

on

Before 1800, just about everybody was poor. You had royalty, you had these huge landowners, but they were a tiny, tiny minority and just about everyone lived in poverty. And everyone lived very much wedded to their land.  This was the entire history of humanity. There were some huge changes, of course: agriculture.  What happened was that mostly people were hunters and gatherers before agriculture. And then, when agriculture started, food production was then brought to people rather than vice versa.  People didn’t go out looking for food. There were places where they knew that a steady supply of food would be created.

But wealth was tied to land, and those who controlled land, controlled much of the world’s wealth. And the difficulty was in shipping or moving anything: things, ideas, people. It was very difficult to move anything, so there wasn’t very much trade. And so, the cost of moving things really mattered and shaped the way societies were formed.

In the 17th century, only 3,000 European ships sailed to Asia. In the 18th century, for the next hundred years, about 6,000 ships sailed. It was very difficult to move anything.

Now, around 1800-1820, some very important things happened. And the two most important ones that most historians will look at are the Industrial Revolution and steam power. So, around 1820, steam power allowed the movement of goods, and the movement of goods fueled industrialization, trade, and economic growth.

But at that time, also was the start of–one of the great economists, Deirdre McCloskey, talked about right around that time, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and steam, you had the beginning of what she called the great divergence, meaning that certain areas, especially Europe and the United States, grew rich very, very quickly.

She talks about the founding–the formation of the so-called bourgeoisie. And the bourgeoisie were former peasants who were close enough to royalty that they wanted to live like that. And so, she sees the development of the bourgeoisie as a very important development because they were the precursors of the middle class.

Now, in the two centuries from 1820 until now, what happened was that the availability of goods, of services just exploded.  It wasn’t a little bit of change, it was just huge amounts of change, because before 1820, people were born and they died in pretty much the same world. The world, from the time they were born to the time they died did not change very much.  But starting in 1820, the world started changing very, very quickly.

Two centuries ago, four out of five U.S. adults worked to grow food for their families.  Now, one farmer feeds 300 people.

So, the reason I talk about this is because we have to put these things in perspective. We have to put the evolution of sort of human advancement–which is what we work on at the World Bank, development–we have to put it in the perspective of what happened.

You know, Chinese President Xi Jinping talks about having thousands of years of a great success.  And truly, it was Asia and the Middle East that were the sources of much innovation before 1800. And then, he often says that the 200 years after 1800 were not so great for China, but of course China is growing very rapidly, now.

And again, before 1800, remember, just about everybody was poor.

Now, this is what I see everywhere I go: Everywhere I go I see young people who may not own a smart phone, but who have access to smart phones. By 2025, many analysts are saying that the entire world will have access to broadband.

Now, when you get access to broadband, when you can see things on the Internet, a couple of things happen. First of all, people are much more satisfied with their lives when they have Internet access.  When they have Internet access, they can see how the world works. They can watch movies, television shows. The satisfaction with life goes up.

But the other thing that happens is their reference income goes up, and this is something that we actually study at the World Bank Group. The income to which they compare their own goes up. And when that happens, your income also has to go up or you’re not very satisfied.

Now, technology is going to do us a great service by getting everyone connected, but the other thing that technology is doing at the same time is it is going to eliminate some jobs.

Now, there are a lot of different predictions about how many jobs will be lost. Some will say that just about the jobs will be lost.

Let me just tell you what one person says, this person who I got to know quite well, Jack Ma, who founded the great company, Alibaba, right? He’s the richest man in China. It’s a huge company.

Jack Ma puts it this way: “You know, when my grandfather was alive, he worked 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, and he felt very busy. Me, I work eight hours a day, five days a week, and I feel very busy. My children will work three hours a day, three days a week, and they will feel very busy.”

He says that every single muscle power job will be eliminated by technology.  And he goes further and he says that every single knowledge-based job will be eliminated, as well–maybe not as quickly, but it will be eliminated.  And he predicts that whenever you have these kinds of ruptures–and he thinks that this is a major rupture, the way that artificial intelligence and technology is moving, there is a major rupture.  And when that happens, his interpretation is that when those things happen there are at least 30 years of tremendous difficulty and upheaval.

And so, what do we do? How do we respond to these kinds of upheavals? How do we respond to this phenomenon in which everyone knows how everyone else lives and their aspirations are going up. They want more for themselves while, at the same time, technology potentially could eliminate many, many jobs.

Well, if you look back into the history of how you tackle the problem of inequality, how you tackle the problem of poverty, this man, Andrew Carnegie, is a very important figure. He wrote, in a book called “The Gospel of Wealth”–he said that, “The man who dies leaving behind many millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life will pass away unwept, unhonored, and unsung. The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.”

So, Carnegie helped other, John D. Rockefeller, think differently about their money. And so, philanthropy was started.

The word “philanthropy” entered the English language around the 17th century, translated from the Greek “philanthropia,” which means “love of mankind.”

Excuse me, let me go back a second.

And British Parliament in 1601 passed the Statute of Charitable Uses, the first time when governments were supposed to take care of the poor in any given region.

Around the same time, Islamic leaders endow property to create major educational centers. Shah Abbas–we were just talking with Padideh about this–of Persia, endowed school at the royal mosque, which set a pattern for similar colleges.

And so, there was this tradition of philanthropy. But the point here is that philanthropy, which was our traditional way of thinking about how you tackle the problem of inequality and poverty is not going work anymore.

Let’s look at another example, a very famous one of course is Albert Schweitzer. Now, I always get in trouble when I talk about Albert Schweitzer like this because people, for good reasons, admire him very much.  But Albert Schweitzer was part of a different tradition. He was part of the colonialist movement.  He was also a missionary.  And there was this sense that it was the responsibility of people like Albert Schweitzer to bring civilization to the uncivilized masses. But Albert Schweitzer also portrayed himself as a great physician who was providing care to the poor.

And I’d first heard about this because there was a cardiologist from the hospital that I trained in in Boston who actually, in the 1950s, visited Albert Schweitzer. And when he came back, he wrote a little report saying that he was absolutely appalled at the conditions that he found in Albert Schweitzer’s hospital.  He was a cardiologist that specifically looked at rhythm disorders. And he said that so many of the patients there had these things and there were things to be done for the patients but they were not done. A little tiny report, but then it turns out that there was a British journalist named James Cameron who visited Schweitzer in 1953, and here’s what he wrote about the hospital that he found:

“The hospital was a shock. I had been prepared for some unorthodoxies, but not this glaring squalor. The doctor had fenced off all mechanical advance to a degree that seemed both pedantic and appalling. The wards were rude huts, airless and dark, plank beds and wooden pillows, everyone infested with hens and dogs.  There was no running water but the rain, no gas, no sewage, no electricity, except, again, in character, for the operating theater and the gramophone.”

Cameron goes on to say, “I said then that the hospital existed for him rather than he for it. It was deliberately archaic and primitive, deliberately part of the jungle around it, a background of his own creation which clearly meant a great deal more philosophically than it did medically.”

Now, part of the criticism here is that what Schweitzer was up to–and he talked about it with great clarity.  He talked about it–he was an inspiration to many. He talked about his mission to correct the wrongs that others had instigated in the name of Christianity.

But for 30 years I worked in an organization called Partners in Health, and we tried to do exactly the opposite of what we saw Schweitzer having done. We thought, “Look, this is not about us. It’s about providing the best possible medical care we can out of respect for the fundamental humanity of these others.”

And so, there is so much aspiration, there is so much desire to have access to education, to make sure that your children are not underfed. There is so much aspiration out there, and once people get access to the Internet, the aspiration will continue to go up. How do we possibly respond to this situation?

Well, it gets right to the core of what we are as an institution. The World Bank Group–at the time, it was just one part of the World Bank Group–was founded in 1944 out of the ashes of World War II. In a, I think, just brilliant–what’s the right word? In a brilliant move, leaders in the world, especially of the U.K. and the United States said that, before the war ended, we have to build institutions that, on the one hand can bring stability–because before World War II and during World War II, currency wars were happening.  Countries would devalue their currency, would try to do everything they could to gain an advantage, and the status of global currencies was in a mess. So, they needed to bring some stability to the global system.

But also, they thought that there should be an organization that rebuilt Europe, and that is what the World Bank is. The original name was the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the purpose was to rebuild Europe.

But then, something happened right around that time, which was in 1946, which was announced in a commencement speech at Harvard in 1946 by General George Marshall called the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan then took over in terms of building back Europe, and the World Bank had to find some other things to do.

The first loan of the World Bank, though, was to France. But since that time, the World Bank has shifted and then focused more on poverty.

The founding principles–the Secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, opened the conference and he said that the goal of the World Bank Group, the goal of the meetings, was to create a dynamic world economy–and I quote, “A dynamic world economy in which the people of every nation will be able to realize their potentialities in peace, to raise their own standards of living and enjoy increasingly the fruits of material progress. For freedom of opportunity is the foundation for all other freedoms.”

Now, he also argued that, “…prosperity has no fixed limits. It is not a finite substance to be diminished by division.  On the contrary, the more that the other nations enjoy, the more each nation will have for itself.”

So, this was a wonderful vision and I do not think we’ve moved too far away from that, even today.

By the way, the other person that put the conference together in addition to Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau, was the great John Maynard Keynes, probably the second most famous economist of all time behind Adam Smith, but he was a very, very important person. And that conference, which was not easy, led to the foundation of this organization.

So, what do we do?  Well, over the past 70 years, countries have paid in capital, have given us money.  But we don’t take that money and just give it away. Some of it we do, since 1962, but a total of $19 billion has been paid into the World Bank Group, including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and also IFC, our private sector group.

Now, with that $19 billion, we’ve made close to a trillion–over $900 billion in loans and grants.  So, what happens is that if you actually create a bank and give them capital, they use that capital and then they can go to–we, anyway, can go to capital markets and raise financing. And we have been able to do that to the tune of $900 billion.

In addition, we have been able to put $28 billion directly into an account that we reserve for the poorest countries.  And this program is called IDA, the International Development Association. And IDA gives grants to the poorest countries.  They can pay it back over 40 years.  Right, very hard to get a loan that you pay back over 40 years at zero percent interest, and we do that to help countries grow. Now, that is what we have done over time.

When I first walked into the World Bank, I saw this sign: “Our dream is a world free of poverty.” And I asked, why is this a dream? Who don’t we turn this into a real target and a goal, and we did.

After three to four months of arguing–and that’s what we do at the World Bank, we argue. We argue with data, we argue with politics and ideologies–we argue with many different kinds of tools. We came to a conclusion:  We wanted to end extreme poverty, that is, people living under $1.90 a day, by 2030.  And we also were committed to boosting shared prosperity, reducing inequality. And we decided that there would be three ways for us to get there.

The first, traditionally, we’ve always focused on economic growth but, in this case, we’re focusing on inclusive, meaning everyone benefits; sustainable, meaning that it doesn’t destroy the planet–inclusive, sustainable economic growth.

The second, because there are so many crises that are affecting the world every day, pandemics, climate change, refugees, fragility, conflict, violence, we wanted to focus on fostering resilience to those kinds of problems in the world that affect more and more people.

And finally, the third pillar was to invest more and more effectively in people. So, inclusive, sustainable economic growth; resilience to the various shocks that are happening in the world today; and investing more and more effectively in people.

Now, we have had to change because the world has changed, and the world has changed pretty dramatically.

In the 1960s, probably 70 percent of all capital flows, of all money going into developing countries, came from official development assistance, of which we’re a part. So, in other words, the money that was going into the developing countries all came from the donor agencies, USAID, those agencies like that, and groups like ours. But look at over here how far it has dropped.

Oh, cool, see that?

So, even in 1990–in 1990–50 percent of all the capital flowing into developing countries was official development assistance.  But starting in 1990, it dropped, and now it’s been less than 10 percent. So, we used to be able to tell countries what to do and they would listen to us because we were such a big player.  But now, all of official development assistance is only 9 percent.

And so, in that context, what do we do?  How do we play a role? How can we help the billions and billions of people in the world who are being born today, or who are young, who are going to be looking for jobs, how do we help them achieve their goals?

The first thing that I told you about: resilience. So, this is a woman living in a refugee community. There are so many people now living in situations of fragility. Two billion people in the world live in fragile and conflict-affected areas. And by 2030, 46–nearly half of all the people living in extreme poverty will live in fragile and conflict-affected states. We are doubling the work we are doing in fragile and conflict-affected states, but we are also realizing that we do about $60- to $65 billion worth of business every year.  We realize that 60- to 65 billion is nothing; it is a drop in the bucket. There is no way that we can solve any of these problems, the refugee crisis, pandemics, famine, all these–we can’t solve them with our capital.  We have to find ways of leveraging others.

So, we have created, for example, after the horror of Ebola, we were so worried about why did we wait so long to respond to Ebola that we created an insurance instrument. And so now, for the first time in history, we have an insurance instrument that will release automatically when diseases like Ebola get to a certain stage. It would have released much, much sooner than money actually moved to Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea during the Ebola crisis.

And what we did was pretty straightforward:  Instead of putting a bunch of money aside or going to donors and asking for money, we went to the capital markets and said, “Is anyone interested in purchasing a bond, a three-year bond, capital at risk”–meaning if there’s an epidemic you’re going to lose all your money–“but we’ll pay you 8 percent a year.”

There were so many people that were so desperate to get 8 percent a year that we were oversubscribed and now we have $450 million that sits in our accounts, ready to be disbursed if there’s a pandemic. And we had to pay something for it, but a tiny fraction of the overall amount.

We’re now using that same principle and we’re working on developing famine insurance. You know, famines happen all the time, we’re always late in responding. And we thought, “Why not create an insurance instrument that will respond right away so that we catch the famines earlier and literally snuff them out rather than letting them get worse and worse and worse?”

So, we’re doing this and we’re trying to leverage everything we possibly can. We’re now the largest financers of climate change activities in the world.  We’re committed to this but, again, we can’t do it with our own financing. We have to leverage others.

This is really the biggest game.  So, the size of the global economy is about $78 trillion. There’s about $7 trillion sitting in negative interest rate bonds. That means that you put your money in the bank, but rather than the bank giving you interest, you pay them every year to hold your money.

So, if you gave them $100, at the end of the year, you’d have $98 or $99 instead of $100. And the reason people do that is they’re so scared of risk that they’re willing to pay someone to hold their money, because at least that’s safe.

There’s another $10 trillion sitting in very low yielding government bonds. There’s another 9 trillion in cash. Literally, people take “thousand euro” bills and put them in their safes.

Now, we feel that that is the kind of money we need to be able to give everyone in the world an opportunity, and why not? They’re getting such little return we think we can help them get a higher return while at the same time providing opportunities for everybody, and especially in the area of infrastructure.

So, the idea–this is the Guinean Stock Exchange. And I don’t know why I show you this, but it’s just a cool picture, Guinean Stock Exchange. The notion now is that, instead of seeing ourselves as a lender, seeing ourselves as direct interveners, we see ourselves as facilitators. And the idea that we’re now talking about to everybody is the idea of maximizing finance for development.

How do we mobilize those trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines for the benefit of the poorest people in the world? We know that the private sector has to be much more involved in development than before, because there are many, many examples of win-win situations. Let me show you one:

The Queen Alia International Airport, if you’ve ever been there, it’s a wonderful airport. The Jordanian Government came to us and said, “We need to build the rebuild the airport and we’d like a loan. And then, if you give us a loan–if you give a loan to the Jordanian Government, then our people will run it.”

We said, “You know, there may be a better way to do that.”  And so, without taking a single penny of loan, without paying a single penny in terms of interest payments on loans, we were able to get the private sector to finance this completely.

The Jordanian Government, though, still owns 54 percent and therefore receives 54 percent of the profit.  And without putting a penny into this airport, they have received over a billion dollars over the last nine years in revenue from the airport. They were about to go a very different direction, but really, wonderful staff at the World Bank Group said, “Why don’t you try this another way.”

This is a great example of how we can change the way we do business and not only reduce the indebtedness of countries but give them a return. This is the kind of investment that now a lot of people want to make.  There’s $5 trillion that’s about to be inherited by Millennials from their Baby Boomer parents.  And what I’m hearing every day is that “We don’t want to just sit on this money.  We want the money to have an impact on the world.”

So, there is this phenomenon that’s called “impact investing,” very important.  What people are saying is, it’s not just risk and return–what’s the risk of the investment; what’s the return. It’s risk, return, and impact.  And if the impact is high, we’re willing to take more risk and get less return.

Great idea, but it’s tiny, relatively speaking.  It’s about $200 billion a year now, which is very small compared to the needs. The need to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, a UN–the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the global goals, as they’re called, is about $4 trillion a year. So, all of official development assistance is about $140 billion; you throw impact investing on top, another 200 billion.  Still, we are nowhere close to the 4 trillion that’s needed to meet the demands of impact investing.

Here, what we’ve done is, instead of saying, “Take a lower return,” instead of saying, “This is an issue of charity,” we have put together a system where we go to African countries and we help them with all aspects of doing a solar auction.

And so, again, without our putting any money in, just helping them technically do it–we have a program called Scaling Solar.  And Scaling Solar now has gotten–the latest was 4.7 cents a kilowatt/hour in Senegal. So, Senegal pays 15 to 20 cents per kilowatt/hour of electricity, but the solar auction, because we helped them with it, now they’re only going to pay 4.7 cents. This is a huge victory and we’re now going to take that elsewhere.

Again, we didn’t put any money in; we just helped structure the deal. And, in structuring the deal, we got solar at a low price.

But this is the crisis that I am most concerned about, the human capital crisis. 400 million people lack access to essential services. 100 million people fall into poverty every year from catastrophic health expenses. Only one-third of the world’s poor are covered by safety nets.

All of you are covered by safety nets; the one-third of the world’s poor are not. The worst part of this problem, in my view, is childhood stunting.

Childhood stunting is very straightforward: If you’re two standard deviations below the height for age–and we know now that all children in the world can grow 25 centimeters in the first year, 12 centimeters in the second year. There is some variation, but every child in the world, if they’re adequately nourished, can grow that much.

So, the numbers are just stunning. There are–38 percent of children in Ethiopia are stunted, and we know that stunted children do not learn as well and definitely don’t earn as well when they get older. In other words, what happens to these stunted children is their brains are actually not formed.

This is a study by a professor at Harvard from Bangladesh. On the left is a stunted child and the right is a healthy child, and the gold is just the neural tracks.  In other words, stunted children have fewer neural connections, and so they are just simply not going to do as well, and the percentages are extraordinary.

All of Sub-Saharan Africa averages about 30-35 percent; India, 38 percent; Indonesia, 37 percent; Pakistan, 45 percent.

So, that proportion of the children are likely not going to be able to compete in what will be a surely more digitally demanding economy of the future.

Education, we also have huge problems. And 250 million children cannot read or right.  In India, three-quarters of third graders can’t solve a two-digit subtraction. By fifth grade, half of the students in India still could not.

In Brazil, skills of 15-year-olds have improved but at the current rate, they will not reach average wealthy country scores in math for 75 years, and in reading it would take 263 years, at current rates. 260 million children still not in school.

And what is even worse is that even in countries where children are in school, what we found through a project that we’re running–you know, we have some American University grads from the World Bank here.

Where are you guys?

You see, there’s a future.

And we have now done one of the most important learning outcome studies. It is called the Harmonized Learning Outcome Database. And we now know, for any given country, how much learning happened in the years that you were in school. So, even if you were in school for 12 years in Yemen or Malawi, you are only going to get about half the benefit as if you were in school in Singapore. So, Singapore has a great school system.  And if Singapore is the standard, then what we found, unfortunately, is that many countries in the world you lose almost five years of education.

So, the education system is not working. So, what happens if you’re stunted to begin with and your educational system is not providing you what you need to compete in the economy of the future?

Well, I have been involved in global health and global education for most of my adult life. And one of the things I recognized is that we had been extremely successful in arguing for more funding for HIV, more funding for TB, more funding for malaria, and even more funding for education.  But it created a situation where many heads of state and ministers of finance have become a bit complacent and are waiting for the grants to come, and they’re kind of saying, “Well, if you give us the money to do that, we will. But if not, we have more important things to spend our money on. We have to spend our money on hard infrastructure. We have to spend our money on roads and electricity.” And all that is true, but what we have also found is that human capital may be the most important investment they can make.

This is from a study on the wealth of nations, we call it the changing wealth of nations. And for the first time–and Quentin.  Where’s Quentin?

Quentin Wodon earned his Ph.D. in economics here at American University, was the lead economist who brought human capital for the first time into the wealth of nations. And the human capital is the dark part, right?  So, that is human capital.  So, high-income countries, middle-income countries, low-income countries–even in low-income countries, human capital is a significant proportion of the overall wealth of a nation.  And it is the first time we have ever included human capital.

If you, though, look at human capital and wealth per capita, first of all, you see that the high-income countries have so much more wealth per capita than the middle-income or low-income countries.

But then, look at the proportion of human capital, the dark, and see how far the low- and middle-income countries have to go to catch up in terms of their investments in human capital.

So, we made a decision. It worried me that so many countries were just waiting for the grants to come in.  There was no urgency in investing in people and their health and education. So, we’re going to come up with a ranking.

Now, rankings are very controversial, but what we know about rankings is, boy, do they get people’s attention.  So, we’re actually going to rank the countries, the member countries of the World Bank Group, and we’re going to look at survival, we’re going to look at quality-adjusted years of schooling–so, it is not just the number of years you went to school.  We’re going to use the database that we’re developing at the Bank and we’re only going to give you credit for those years of school that you actually learned, the years of school to which you actually learned.

And if you look at two health indicators, adult survival and childhood stunting, you really can bring into the equation the impact of health on where you sit in terms of your overall human capital.

So, we are going to do a ranking. We are going to come up with a productivity number. I can talk more about it later if you’re interested in the details of it.  And we’re going to announce this–we’re going to publish this ranking in October at our Annual Meeting, and it is going to be incredibly controversial.

There are many, many leaders who will be very angry with me, especially the countries that come out ranked below countries to which they’ve always felt superior.

And yet, what we know from the Doing Business ranking is that, unless you do a ranking, it doesn’t get people’s attention.  We have done study after study after study showing that investing in health and education is important, but those studies haven’t led to the kind of response that we need.

Now, is it possible to do something? Absolutely.

This is Peru. We found that–I worked in Peru for years, and in Peru for years and years and years we tried to reduce childhood stunting but it never happened.  And then, finally, in about 2007 or so, the World Bank took some money that it wasn’t using elsewhere, put it into a national project on trying to reduce stunting and, in seven years, they reduced the stunting level in half.

We learned a lot of lessons from that and the point we are going to make to all our clients is we’re not condemning you with this ranking. We are trying to get you to pay attention and then we’re going to do everything we can to help you move up the ranking because, in fact, if you don’t, your people may not be able to compete in the economy of the future.

Now, as I wind down here–oh, my goodness. Okay, we have more time afterwards. I want to talk about, in the context of the history–the history of development that I talked to you about. I really do feel, especially with so much of the controversy that you see today, I think that there has to be a new way of interacting with each other as human beings.

You know, when I say that 200 years ago just about everyone was poor, 50 years ago, when I was a young person–54 years ago when I was still living in Korea, there was a sense that countries like Korea, the poorest countries in the world, would always be poor, you know, the term “Poverty will always be with you.”

And so, there was a huge amount of literature of how rich countries and organizations like the World Bank, how they should think about their mission with respect to poor people. And there was a huge amount of literature created.

And when I as an anthropology grad student read those historical accounts of my country of Korea, I just didn’t recognize what they were writing about.

And so, I read a book in graduate school that was one of the most influential for me.  It was a book called “Orientalism,” by Edward Said.

Does anyone know that book? Yeah.

And you know, I have to tell you, everywhere I go in the Middle East, and even in Asia, people have read this book.

Because here’s what Edward Said said–Edward Said made the argument that when you read accounts of the Orient–and for him, it meant the Middle East, Persia, and–you know, the countries of the Middle East, but it extends all the way out to Japan and East Asia. He said that, when you read accounts of those countries, you’re not really reading about those countries.  You’re reading about the authors, because the authors are using their accounts of those countries for other purposes than humble description.

And he wrote this: “There is a difference between knowledge of other peoples and other times that is a result of understanding, compassion, careful study, and analysis for their own sakes. And on the other hand, knowledge–if that is what it is–that is part of an overall campaign of self-affirmation, belligerency, and even outright war.”

Now, I–let me suggest to you–I feel like I’m back to being a professor–let me suggest to you that the anthropological mission of doing ethnography, of really trying to understand what the world looks like from the perspective of others, is just as important as all the technical things that I’ve talked to you about. This is a change that fundamentally we need to see.

It all goes back to this: These kids want to have a chance to become whatever they want. And I think about–you know, this is me back in 1963 living in Korea. And this is what Korea looked like in 1963, one of the poorest countries in the world, lower GDP per capita than Ghana, than Somalia, than Kenya.

And this is what the World Bank said: “Korea is so poor, they’re so backward, we’re not going to give them a loan because they would never be able to pay it back.” They were wrong about that, of course, but that’s what they said.

Last year, I was in Tanzania and I was in this classroom. And I like to ask the children, “So, what do you want to be when you grow up?” Two kids raised their hand and said, “I want to be President of the World Bank.”

Just like you, my own staff and the teachers laughed.  But I said, in–I stopped them, and I said, “In 1963, when then-President of the World Bank, George David Woods, if he had visited Korea”–and it is plausible that he would visited Korea to see if they were eligible for loans, then–“if he had visited Korea and if he’d visited my preschool, I doubt that he would see–I doubt that he would have thought that one of his successors was sitting in that room.”

So, can we do this?  Can we actually create equality of opportunity for everyone? I would argue that if we don’t, we’re in big trouble. About how many years ago–55 years ago, President John F. Kennedy came to American University in June to give the commencement speech, and in that commencement speech, he said this:

“No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again.”

He was talking about the nuclear test ban treaty, but I think the task we have today is even bigger. Can we give everyone, every child on earth, an equal opportunity to become what they want?  Hey, I had that.

I truly believe that every child deserves it. And unless we use the tools of finance to do it, we will not succeed.  But it is going to be your problem, because the thwarted ambitions of a young person in Africa and the Middle East is not going to be distant from you. That we know. The world is so interconnected that you’re going to have to think about their prospects, as well as your own.

*World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim 2018 Spring Meeting Positioning Speech, American University Washington, D.C.

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

The reforms and the current situation of the State budget and accounts

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

As we have all realized, since the COVID-19 epidemics broke out the number of regulations enacted – especially by the Italian Presidency of the Council of Ministers – has literally sky-rocketed.

 The starting date of the sequence of regulations is certain. It is, in fact, January 31, 2020 with the declaration of the state of emergency connected to the onset of diseases resulting from transmissible viral agents, pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph c) of Legislative Decree No. 1 of 2018 (Civil Protection Code).

 The Prime Minister’s Decrees, the many Guidelines, Directives and Ministerial Orders, as well as the many Orders of the Head of the Civil Protection Department and, finally, the many Regional and even Municipal Orders have added to the Emergency Ordinances and the many – probably too many – decree-laws to be quickly converted into laws after the Parliament’s vote, pursuant to the Constitution.

 There has never been an exception to the eternal rule – mathematical, at first, and then legal – according to which the greater the number and complexity of rules, the greater the indecision and misunderstanding inherent in their implementation.

 Even in such a severe and complex situation, the messy regulatory system created with the Emergency Ordinances and Decrees for the COVID-19 infection is, therefore, a source of ambiguity, indecisiveness and potential conflict between State apparata and Local Administrations.

 This is the reason why, even in the State administration, the old maxim of medieval logic, simplex sigillum veri, should apply.

 Hence which is the final criterion for solving the inevitable regulatory ambiguity? The criterion is Politics, seen as Alexander’s Sword cutting the Gordian Knot immediately.

  This is, in fact, the real function of democratic representation, in a highly-regulated context, as is the case in every modern Western country.

 Parliament is always the decision-maker, together with the Government and the Presidency of the Republic, responsible for both budget items and the hierarchy of rules, which should be as simple as possible, as already taught us by Beccaria.

 Reverting – after this example – to the issue of Italy’s current Budget Law, what is it, in fact?

 As is well-known, the Budget Law is the legislative instrument, provided for by Article 81 of the Constitution, which lays down how the Government – with a preliminary accounting document – communicates to Parliament the public expenditure and revenue forecast for the following year, pursuant to the laws in force.

 At first, it should be noted that much of the expenditure is bound to be fully hypothetical – as happens also in private budgets – and cannot be completely organized by means of a single old or new rule. Finally, some budget items depend on cash flows and expenses which can never be fully predictable in the budget.

 Again pursuant to Article 81 of the Constitution, unlike what currently happens for the Stability Law, the law for adopting the State Budget cannot introduce new taxes and new expenses.

 The structure of the State Budget, namely the network of fixed items, must be only that one.

 The reason is obvious but, given this asymmetry, it is difficult to put together the Budget Law and the Stability Law in a reasonable way.

 It should be recalled that the Stability Law, also known as Finance Act or Budget Package, is the ordinary law proposed by the Government, which regulates the economic policy of the State (and also of civil society) for three years.

 Well, but in three years, as they say in French, chosir son temps, c’est l’épargner.

 In three years everything is done and everything can be destroyed or change, especially with the kind of international economy we are dealing with now.

 The Stability Law has been so called, almost officially, since 2009 mainly as a result of the introduction of “fiscal federalism”, implemented with the constitutional reform of 2001, which requires that the activity of the “central” State is coordinated with the local one, which has autonomous and different assets – albeit not always – from the “central” State finance.

 I believe that the famous “federalism” has been a long-standing illusion from which the sooner we wake up the better.

 The distribution of revenue among the Regions – increasingly eager for money, especially after the reckless “Reform of Title V” of the Constitution, invented by the leftist governments in the belief they could take votes away from the Northern League Party – has been detrimental. It has made the Local Authorities increasingly powerful, and therefore large and very expensive, with an efficiency that, except for the Northern regions, which would have been efficient anyway, has plummeted throughout the rest of Italy.

Again as a result of the Treaty of Maastricht – a city previously unknown except for the French siege of 1673, in which D’Artagnan stood out – the Stability Law must comply with the requirements of economic and financial convergence between the EU countries, but also with the criteria regarding the rules of coordination between the local, regional and State levels of public finance of the various EU-27 Member States. Sicily will coordinate with the economy of Finland, all based on cellulose and mobile phones, while Piedmont, with its precious white truffles, will coordinate with the Tayloristic and low-cost factories of the Czech Republic.

 Beyond a certain level, the economies are incomparable with one another and there is no single currency that can put them in communication.

 If anything, we would need public accounting like the one that is implemented – even at European level – with the Power Purchasing Parity criteria.

 For the first time, in the 2009 Stability Law, an additional instrument was added on welfare – which currently, in the European bureaucratic jargon, also means “Health” – in which there are regularly also rules on labour, social security and competitiveness, which have little to do with Welfare and is drafted according to a deadline of missions, multi-year programs and functions, which is very hard, if not impossible, to monetize.

Furthermore, pursuant to Law No. 234/2012, the Stability Law has also provided that, as from 2016, the Stability Law shall be a Consolidated Act together with the Budget Law.

 This is anomalous, considering that the latter can regulate and create new taxes and duties, while the former cannot.

 However, the Reform of the State Budget, implemented with Law No. 163/2016 adopted on July 28, 2016, was definitively approved with over 80% of votes in Parliament.

 The Stability/Budget Law must be submitted by the Government to Parliament every year by October 15 and Parliament must adopt or amend it otherwise by December 31 of the same year. It is too short a lapse of time. Beyond the initial deadline, Article 81, paragraph 2, of the Constitution provides for the subsequent deadline of April 30 – a term which, however, shall be authorized by law.

 The Stability Law shall mandatorily include: a) the net balance to be financed; b) the balance of the recourse to market instruments, i.e. the final amount of money in the annual or three-year cycle for which to resort to loans (and this is certainly a vulnus, because the speculative markets know in advance the amount that can be financed); c) the amount of the special budget funds – and this is another vulnus, since all the other countries know how much the Services, the Special Operations, the Off The Record actions, etc. will cost; d) the maximum amount for renewing the public employment contracts – another vulnus, because this allows to calculate the industrial policy and, therefore, the possible effects of the labour cost on public and private markets, with obvious advantages for the E.U. competitors; e) the appropriations for refinancing the capital expenditure already provided for by the laws in force, and hence also the three-year stop of subsequent capital expenditure; f) the long-term expenditure forecasts.

 This is another vulnus since this allows to infer the sum available to a State for any E.U. military or foreign policy program, or for any other strategically important program.

 Not to mention the reserves for mergers and acquisitions of strategically important companies within the European Union, or even outside it, but permitted by the other European partners.

 A “mutualization” of the public budget which creates many dangers, but corresponds to the mental level of many E.U. accountants.

 This structure of the Stability Law leads to a situation in which only two choices are possible. Either the so-called austerity policy, when it comes to restoring possible balance to public funds (but this is always decided by others). We may think that a cyclical austerity policy must also be able to spend more on certain budget items, but much less on the others, while here the amount that counts is only the final one, which automatically determines the market behaviour. The only thing that markets have in mind, like conscripts, is the purchase of our public debt instruments at the best price and with the best interest rate, often carrying out trading operations, as also happens to certain States that profit from the difference – often completely rhetorical – between their debt instruments and ours.

 Or there is also the possibility of expansionary spending, which resorts always and only to deficit public spending – i.e. by issuing more public debt instruments – which can be “Keynesian” if it regards investment, but simply expansionary if rents, annuities and current expenses are privileged, in addition to investment.

 Sometimes even this may be necessary.

 The British economist, however, maintained that public spending applies above all to new investment, while for the “old markets” – as he called them – the self-equilibrium of private enterprises is also good.

 The childish idea underlying this conceptual duality is that you can be either “big spenders” (especially if “you come from the South”) or “strict” (especially if you are self-controlled and you come from the North), but this is just a vaudeville skit, not a serious economic policy idea.

 Thinking – as many people within the EU institutions believe – that “family” rigour has an impact on the State budget is a “paralogism” – just to use an ancient philosophy concept.

The equivalence between households and States – a concept often reiterated by unexperienced economists – would be fine only if households could issue face value money, which could be spent immediately according to their needs. These needs, however, would be linked to the credibility of their private “money”.

 People believe in these fairy tales, especially within the European Commission.

 However, the European constraints of any Stability Law are the following: 1) a 3% ratio between the actual and the forecast public deficit and the national GDP – a fully specious and abstruse ratio, even in a phase of restrictive policies; 2) 60% of the ratio between public debt and GDP, another bizarre figure, which may also regard non-Keynesian policies when – for example – a “mature” sector has to be restructured or investment must be made in new and promising areas; 3) the average inflation rate, which cannot exceed by over 1.5 percentage points the one of the three best performing Member States in the sector during the previous three years. Are EU experts aware that there is also ‘imported inflation’?

 This happens when the prices of goods and services purchased abroad rise – although this formula is already quite wrong.

 Inflation is imported when the costs of imported products increase and obviously countries like Italy, which are processing economies, are also great importers. God knows – in these economic phases – how import-related inflation (just think of oil products) is important for the European economies.

 Furthermore, the EU has no strategic, military, geoeconomic and financial ability to change the oil and gas producers’ treatment towards it. The same holds true for the other particularly important raw materials.

 Let us now focus on constraint 4): compliance with the long-term Nominal Interest Rate, which must not exceed by over 2 percentage points the one of the best performing Member States in terms of price stability.

 This is the Taylor Rule. As the U.S. Treasury Secretary Taylor said in 1993, it is an equation in which the interest rate is a dependent variable, while inflation and national income are regressors.

The rule is the following:  ii = i*+α(πi- π*) +βγ+εi

The long-term inflationary target is π. It is the inflation rate that will prevail in the long term. Taylor here assumed that the long-term inflation rate should be 2%, as often happens in the United States, but the current interest rate is π that, only for the USA is a GDP deflator. If we were all just stockbrokers, it might also be true.

 But there are costs that are included in the GDP and are neither predictable nor changeable from outside.

 The actual nominal interest rate in the equation is γ. The rest is easily calculable.

 Hence what does the Taylor Rule mean? When inflation starts reawakening the rates are expected to rise.

 This is not at all implicit in the Maastricht rules, which also stem from these formulas.

 As the Taylor Rule also shows, the increase in interest rates reflects a decrease in the supply of real monetary rates.

  Not necessarily so because there may be many balances available, but with a less “attractive” monetary composition.

Again according to Taylor, investment is inversely correlated with interest rates, but this holds true for the economies that live on loans, not for many of our entrepreneurs who use – almost exclusively – “own resources” or bank loans to secure own resources.

 Because of this pseudo-mathematical sequence of events, if investment decreases, the national income and also unemployment increase – which is here the only cure for inflation. But where did these guys study?

 Another theory resulting from the Taylor Rule is that when the economic activity slows down, the medium-term interest rate must fall.

 This has never happened, not even in the recent U.S. history. Just think of the 2006-2008 crisis.

 It is also strange – and I say so from a purely analytical viewpoint – that the purpose of economic theory is only to reduce inflation, considering that – as already pointed out above – it does not depend solely on the excess of public spending, of the availability of low-cost capital (which, instead, is considered in the Taylor Rule) and the use of “moderate” budgets, according to the theories of the ignorant economists à la page.

 Let us revert, however, to the procedure of the Italian Stability Law.

 According to the procedure known as European Semester, the EU Member States must submit their budgets to the European Commission and the European Council by the end of April, which ipso facto limits our legislation, which also provides for a budgetary role until December 31 of the same current year.

 For the time being, the penalties envisaged for some delays can be reduced, at most, to the single penalty equal to 0.2% of GDP for the year under consideration.

 The principles of the State budget and the related Stability Law are again the traditional ones established by Law 468/1978, including specification, whereby all budget items must be defined analytically so as to avoid ambiguities in their intended use; truthfulness, whereby no revenue overestimations or expenditure underestimations are allowed and, finally, publicity, whereby the budget must be made known with the most suitable means.

 There is also the issue arising from the adoption of Law No. 1/2012, which amended Article 81 of the Constitution, thus enshrining the principle of “balanced budget” in the Constitution.

 It is a laughing matter: since the invention of the double-entry accounting by Frà Luca Pacioli – Leonardo da Vinci’s friend and sometimes drinking companion – all budgets “break even” by definition.

 Otherwise they are not budgets.

 In fact, the term “break even” is never used in the rule. The more cryptic term “balanced budget” is used. We all know that, in physics, the balance can also be unstable.

 As already noted above, it is an unintended funny rule.

 What could we do if the Vesuvius erupted – an event which may be sure in the future, but unpredictable? Would we issue debt instruments, but for ten years at least, so as not to disturb or offend the E.U. accountants and their search for a liquid monetary base for an improbable and incorrectly calculated immediate fiscal liquidity to support debt instruments?

Hence are millions of homeless people to be left in the city of Naples, possibly in the Vomero and Pietanella neighbourhoods, or in the Sanseverino Chapel, waiting for these accountants to decide to study economics and political economy on the right handbooks?

 This is a rule that should not only be deleted, but should also be mocked by some famous comedian, better if with some knowledge of political economy.

 In addition to the “balanced budget” requirement, as from January 1, 2014, Law 243/2012 provided for the establishment of the “Parliamentary Budget Office”, with the task of carrying out “analyses, verifications, checks and evaluations” – thus replacing the role of politicians who should be the sole ones responsible for distributing the resources available and the forecast ones among the most suitable budget items.

 Moreover, in the summer of 2016, Legislative Decrees No. 90 and 93, as well as Law 164, were enacted, which amended Law 243 in relation to the Local Authorities’ balanced budgets.

 Another mistake, albeit a partial one: Local Authorities live on a complex mechanism – on which we need not to elaborate here – of remittances and transfers from the Central State and of sums partially withheld by these Authorities, which are then recalculated by the Central State, again in a too complex way that need not be explained here in great detail.

 In this case, how can we repay the local administrations’ colossal debt? Just think that the European Court has already condemned us for these matters. If the current legislation remains in force, there is no way out.

 In short, the “European cure” on the State Budget has worsened its ambiguities. It has depoliticized the selection of budget items, thus often moving it away from voters’ and citizens’ real needs. It has not allowed a modern solution to the Local Authorities’ financial crisis. It has also devised the funny mechanism of the “balanced budget”, which literally means that there is no longer a provisional budget (hence how can the real items be calculated?). Finally, it forces us into a debt cycle that is both excessive and, at times, burdensome, but always uncontrollable.

Continue Reading

Economy

Coronavirus: Now a two headed monster

Naseem Javed

Published

on

Coronavirus, like a two headed monster killing people on one side the other side global economy; 
The warrior leaderships of rich nations now creating a rain of trillions of dollars to drown one of the heads. Rich nation and their printing machines have just approved trillions of dollars, as this aggressive move will help each other and also less fortunate economies to safeguards global economic order as one global goal.

Most significant is the largest amount allocated to support Small Medium Businesses…
USA alone has allocated 350 billion dollars and many other countries doing similar initiatives, this largest ever, once in a lifetime boost to abandoned and struggling SME of the world may just open a bright new future to transform into pillar of superior performance and a pleasant surprise to all.

Coronavirus is still a global force to reckon while massive shortages may create havocs…uncertainty lingers, the stimulus packages will keep the morale and nations safer.  As rightly mentioned by President Trump, the depression and suicides rates are major concerns.

Today, nation by nation, no other local economic power base as strong as the small medium business economy of the land, and increasingly with technology the same sectors in the unfolding future stand like very powerful pillars; a random collection of many, many millions small medium businesses around the globe, like smart entities, globally savvy, technologically driven, block-chained, AI+AR+VR, entrepreneurial centered creating local grassroots prosperity.

Difficult questions: As most of these funding offered as easy loans;if SME wish no more additional loans or create additional debts to further risk their own future; but what if they rather get smart-help, global-age upskilling and re-skilling for their enterprises or global exportability guidance and customer connectivity expertise, how far will the loans concepts work? Like receiving full y subsidized payrolls or full funded digitization to improve market size. Fully funded programs, on special upskilling and skilling grants to make the fields of SME new upgrading and learning battlefields is another option. With loans only format where will they go out and shop what levels of solutions and how will they uplift on performance and exportability? They were already stuck before, now for fears of new debt, they may remain stuck again. Leadership must explore National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism Protocols

Simultaneous synchronization of national SME base is the novel art and science of the National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism Protocols. Not to be confused with some MBA curriculum or export promotion agency guidelines.  Nations without digital platforms on SME upskilling and reskilling beyond post Coronavirus world would look like nations without Internet in the nineties.

Two steps for Midsize Business Economy to advance on grassroots prosperity:

ONE: Identify 1000 or 1000,000 high potential small and midsize enterprises within a region or a nation, and create a national agenda to quadruple their performance on innovative excellence and exportability.
Deploy digitization of top national trade associations and chambers of commences to upgrade to world-class digital platforms so that their entire membership can skate nationally and globally showcasing their goods and services. This is a global age revolution based on entrepreneurial mobilization… study Pentiana Project

TWO: Upskilling, reskilling million small medium businesses and women entrepreneurs across nation:How do you place 10,000 or 1,000,000 SME owners on digital platforms to boost exports and innovative excellence? Why such ideas are not major funding dependent but mobilization hungry and execution starved? What special skills are required to uplift midsize business economy in 2020, how to transform? How did Alibaba generated USD$39 Billion within 24 hours on 11–11–2019, how to optimize? How Round-tables and Cabinet Level discussions are a good starting point?

Rest is easy…

Continue Reading

Economy

Anaconda of Incompetency at the Masquerade Ball of Coronavirus

Naseem Javed

Published

on

Nations of the world, enthralled in their own custom-tailored masks at the masquerade-ball of Coronavirus struggling to calm restless citizenry already wrapped in colorful flags chanting hymns of survival and populism.  What’s not musical is the outdated lips-service, watery promises, putty economical ideas all rejected for composting.   

The Masquerade Ball of Coronavirus: advancements on human endeavor neglected, now liberated harshly by Coronavirus; in simultaneous synchronization across the 200 nations a new world-order of new business hierarchy appears, where critically thinking isolated for higher productivity, performance and profitability measured on new digital platforms, remote working, replacing old corporate bureaucracies and global dominance of downtown cores.

 No, please, do not blame the national leaderships; expectancy on this special expertise was never there, caught in their own convictions, political agenda and Teleprompter guidance they are doing their best. The political rhetoric is numbing, the ignorance of science and lack of skills to understand managing restless citizenry is unforgiving. The time to face the music has arrived. The time to change the economic values measurement systems has arrived.

Unfortunately, neither required are the photo-ops; nor the regular G50 or G100 lalalands but surely a G200 –a 200 nations gathering, 24-Hour Marathons of collaborations on humanity, global mobilization of Coronavirus medical facts based deployments, interconnected conference via latest circuitry streamed to the world now being critically missed since last 100 days. Political posturing precluded such demonstration of special global level leadership; the collaborative synthesizim to bring all diversity and tolerance under a global umbrella… the bonfires of crumbled egos are now on slow-burn displays. Chaos increases…fears surmounts, failures becoming visible. Credit goes to selected leadership around the world and their medical teams for leading the charge under most difficult and unprepared circumstances.

Nations witnessed extensive overseas mobilizations of armies over decades are now in panic figuring out national mobilization to combat internal crisis. Sadly, if you end up, outside your hospital lying of pavement outside somewhere in the parking lots without help and equipment, no one will help you, the echo of the promises and lingering trials and errors on the down streaming of absolute shut-down and civil order during last 100 days are living proof of incompetency.

Needed is a voice, trusted by nation; professionalism on science, respected by global medical community and national shut down except crucial services. Most importantly, needed a national mobilization of brain-power of working citizenry to optimize from their own quarantined habitats and apply maximum innovative ideas on existing resources via remote working to create a parallel working economy, where connectivity and dialogue will bring normalcy to our national and global structure of continuity.

Wars of Silence:
In a world where economic dysfunctionalities already visible from space, muffled and gagged, the total absence of real truth-seeking authoritative national debates on hardcore issues of small and midsize business economy is where the silent anaconda of incompetency resides. All over the world, silence on these internal economic development issues are now becoming proof of incompetency and further creating increased restlessness. Suddenly, liberated, the Coronavirus has brought the world together, slowly, the silent majority of connected-billions developing a new mindshare…

In Simultaneous Synchronizations a Global Metamorphosis Challenges Corporate Thinking…

Workers of the world; majority with low wages, cannot afford to wake up in hours of darkness, depart away from the huddles of loved ones, commuting till ending up in crowded undergrounds, small elevators, climbing floors to find a lonesome desk to stay strapped till the bell rings at the end of day and drag themselves back to far away home to start the process allover next day… still worshipped today, this work model died decade ago.

Office work declared as cruelty to mankind; eliminate from the global enterprise model and replace by a smart phone backed by smart LIVE face-to-face enterprise systems so that the liberated worker force can create and produce far more via inter-linked global age where smart work is ‘invisible work’ for minds alone processed in their own free moving spaces. A very small percentage of workers may still be required in special places in special settings or so called offices, but too eliminated like manpower lifting millions boxes now done by robotized warehouses.

Manpower concepts declared an outdated optimization model, defined over millennia, term ‘manpower’ needs new definitions, most work touched by manpower now replaced by robotization, now needs new understanding of replacements and compensations.

Human-Power; declared as self-discovered superior state of mind for critical thinkers and complex problem solvers frontiers, identified as masters of robots and automation, while denier of change declared as slaves of robots, mandatory national upskilling and reskilling and national mobilization of entrepreneurial protocols will fix such issues. Without bold debates the muted progress will further decline.

Small Medium Business Economy; all over the world, the SME of the future is a very smart entity, globally savvy, technologically driven, block-chained, AI+AR+VR, entrepreneurial center creating local grassroots prosperity. Nation by nation, this largest economic block will overtake the national productivity performance and assist global financial crisis. Critically needed, the digital platforms on National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism Protocols  offering free upskilling, reskilling and uplifting hidden national talents, especially women-owned businesses, liberated from bureaucracy and traditional anti-SME funding banking systems.

Abandoned art of value creation; declared as mandatory certification requirements to measure economic progress, replacing adding fake value-manipulations totaled as progress. The real grassroots prosperity advancements are principled in real value creation and not value-manipulations.

Global charter of rights; declared as affirmation to global rules of mankind and civility, needs massive revision on civil liberties, human rights and social justice to allow societies to become highly diverse and tolerant and abide national rules. Out we came out of caves not to re-enter.

Education; declared as top quality, free from top to bottom, nationalized and heavily public funded, top pay for teachers and with very real entrepreneurial thinking. Universities recall degrees with apologies, payout refunds with time and opportunities lost.

Alvin Toffler’s concepts of ‘electronic cottage’ spoke volumes on such progress of enterprise by replacing offices with hyper connected devices with staff in highly comfortable leisure zones or common-working-spaces as rainforest themes, as mental-comforting-habitats over four-walled- desk-chair-contraptions. This was eighties. Today, climate change issues demand elimination of billions driving to work, often in most energy dependent and uncomfortable situations while all the latest freely available interconnectivity and face to live actions because the ‘managerial’ concept always seeing an empty desk still considered ‘body missing’ from work, where paper shuffling and rubber stamping mentality have not yet crossed over the idea of hiring of ‘minds’ and not ‘bodies’ and allow 99% mundane work be done via AI. Most neglected all over the world, the upskilling and reskilling of workforce to tackle global age, last three decades leadership assumed YouTube and Universities were doing this, they were unable to decipher the regression. Coronavirus may create such simultaneous remote working global test for millions of enterprises of the world and change office-working forever.

Futurism is workless; as artificially driven technologies cunningly steal all office work, come next 1000 days the global economic chaos may force a march of billion crowding on boulevards of the world. Workless, jobless, and officeless, tired they march…never ever in the history of mankind assembled such number of once mighty, highly skilled, educated and experienced subjected to replacements by their own technological advances.

Mona Lisa Smile: Equally, no nation is safe from the onslaught of Mona Lisa smile gender-fluid robots entering our gender free work spaces and asking us politely, at least the first time, to leave our offices and never return back. Second time their asking labeled as robotic misbehavior.

The world is changing very fast, this is no longer a cliché, and it’s now an explicit warning.

Mirrors on the walls: when fixing obesity demands a life-size mirror, the national citizenry must also find a large enough nation-size mirror. When grassroots prosperity in chaos and small medium business economy crushed without national mobilization of entrepreneurialism on digital platforms on innovative excellence and exportability, nations are simply doomed.

National gatekeepers of midsize business economic agenda must demonstrate global age skills to combat meltdown; Abundances and neglects will not just stir up the big drunk elephant of fake-economy in the china shop but it will directly force anaconda of incompetence to strangle further silence and quietly create demand for big budgets for riot gears. A masquerade ball of populism will start the orchestra.

Is this the worst of times; or the most opportune of times?

That lonesome crave of flying; the caterpillar under pretence of deep sleep unlearns crawling and relearns flying, breaking chrysalis spreads colorful wings and fly out in the new world. The Coronavirus is doing its job, a test of leadership nation by nation, in the short and long run the truth, diversity and tolerance will win, choose wisely and plan precisely the coming 1000 days.

Isolate and stay in safe spaces… unpredictable times ahead

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Newsdesk36 mins ago

Harmonizing and Improving Statistics in West Africa

The Board of the World Bank Group has allocated today a total of $379 million in International Development Association (IDA)*...

Economy3 hours ago

The reforms and the current situation of the State budget and accounts

As we have all realized, since the COVID-19 epidemics broke out the number of regulations enacted – especially by the...

Green Planet5 hours ago

Covid-19 crisis and Earth Hour: An opportunity to reflect on the deteriorating health of the planet

Earth Hour 2020 on Saturday 28 March presents a unique opportunity this year: shining a light on biodiversity loss and climate change during the coronavirus outbreak. All of us will be...

Energy News7 hours ago

Battery Storage Paves Way for a Renewable-powered Future

Battery storage systems are emerging as one of the key solutions to effectively integrate high shares of solar and wind...

Middle East9 hours ago

The rapport between Iran and Turkey over Syria: Liaisons or tussle?

The two powers of Iran and Turkey constitute a crucial feature on the map of the Middle East. The influence...

East Asia11 hours ago

The Thucydides’ Trap: the Avoidable Destiny Between the US and China

The controversial “Thucydides trap” argument has sparked a heated debate since 2013, when President Xi Jinping of China told a...

Newsdesk13 hours ago

Somalia to Receive Debt Relief under the Enhanced HIPC Initiative

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank’s International Development Association have determined that Somalia has taken the necessary...

Trending