Mediobanca was established by Mattioli and Cuccia in 1946, immediately as a joint stock company, and its full name was Mediobanca Banca di Credito Finanziario. It operated from the beginning having, as founding partners, Banca Commerciale, of which Raffaele Mattioli was President at the time, and Credito Italiano.
Enrico Cuccia was an unsurpassed analyser of balance sheets and accounts – in fact, one of his best known witty remarks was the one on Berlusconi’s Fininvest: “Indeed, how much is a TV antenna really worth?” He was General Manager of Mediobanca from its foundation until 1982, when the dual crisis of public and private companies and of the banks that supported them could already be perceived.
What was the logic behind the establishment of this particular financial structure?
Simply to guarantee and meet – in the medium and sometimes long and very long term – the economic needs of the manufacturing companies, which had been devastated by World War II.
After the banking reform of 1936, of which Mattioli and Cuccia’s father- in-law, Alberto Beneduce, had designed the general guidelines – later imitated in many financial laws following the 1929 crisis, also in the USA- there were many banks that had chosen to operate in the traditional market of savings collection and then in the short-term credit market.
There was, therefore, the lack of a specialized financial structure which worked only for companies, funded them in the medium-long term and finally led them – where possible – to be listed on the Stock Exchange.
At the time, legislation clearly separated credit and savings banks from those that operated for companies and led them to the listed on the Stock Exchange.
It was the most rational way to separate companies from banks, so as to avoid companies’ crisis leading to the death of public savings.
Enrico Cuccia, who certainly did not like the Italian ruling class, except for his friend and old banker Ugo La Malfa, kept Mediobanca clearly out of the many pressures coming from the whole political world.
However, particularly from 1982 onwards, Cuccia had to face very strong tension with the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (IRI) – at the time led by Romano Prodi – that forced the three banks of national interest, namely Banca Commerciale, Banca di Roma and Credito Italiano – which were all within the IRI sphere – not to renew Enrico Cuccia’s term of office.
Nevertheless, there was another factor that led to the inevitable transformation of Mediobanca.
The 1993 Banking Law, in fact, abolished the obligation for banks to be specialised – hence the separation between savings banks and financial credit institutions for medium-long term companies – and a real crisis occurred between the banks participating in the shareholding structure of Mediobanca and the old medium-long term credit institution.
The central idea underlying the 1936 Law, however, was not entirely wrong, even though it was no longer comprehensible in the context of financial globalization.
Either the banks are separated from their clients or the likelihood of a parallel collapse increases disproportionately.
Moreover, the Consolidated Law of the then Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, i.e. the 1993 reform law, put an end to the structural division between banks and anticipated by six years the end of the U.S. Glass- Steagall Act which, in essence, resumed the principles of separation between banks and companies enshrined in the Fascist Banking Law of 1936.
Currently, in Italy alone, 200 billion euros are needed within the next 18 months in view of resuming the path of development and even of mere productive stability, apart from the E.U. governments’ initiatives – albeit necessary – to face the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
This is the extent of a complete post-war reconstruction. With a view to solving these specific problems, the States have always resorted to forms of extraordinary debt – as was the case with the traditional War Bonds – which are bearer financial instruments with a lower average income than the standard ones, but have a long duration ranging between 7 and 15 years.
Nowadays, however, the securities market is very complex and structured, but we could also envisage a monthly issue of 15-20 year Italy Bonds – a market that is already very large and currently appreciated by savers – with a 1.5-2% constant coupon, the same as the current BTPs, obviously exempt from all present and future taxes, but with a tax credit – if anything – for corporate or retail customers equal to or even higher than the coupon (for example a 3-4% tax credit).
The SMEs’ crisis, however, has been worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic and the necessary lockdown of many companies and craft businesses.
Just think that the Italian small and medium-sized enterprises account for over 90% of the total number of companies – and I am referring to those with less than 20 employees – but receive only 13% of bank loans.
In 2019 there was the biggest drop in loans to SMEs as from 2015.
If we look at the Bank of Italy data processed in early 2020, it turns out that credit to riskier SMEs – calculated on the basis of CERVED criteria – has fallen by 8% for micro-enterprises, but the rating and the amount of bank loans available also for the “safest” SMEs have decreased.
In the meantime, bank loans have increased throughout the Eurozone by 3.7% in continental Europe – hence also in Italy, although only by 3% – with a rate of five percentage points lower in Italy than the trend currently recorded in the rest of the European Union.
A credit crunch for the Italian smaller companies, which makes them very weak, often unable of achieving good globalization, and also inevitably slow in renewing their cutting-edge technologies, but finally prone to the cycle of their short term and loan capital.
One of the reasons for this structural weakness of the Italian SMEs’ finance is, on the one hand, the fact that they have no access to the debt market, with the issuing of bonds or mini-bonds, but, on the other hand, the real European regulatory jungle, which is aimed at reaching one single goal, i.e. to severely lower the credit risk for banks.
All E.U. regulations in the banking sector tend not to grant credit at all to the weaker and smaller SMEs and to consider the usual non-performing loans of companies only as an immediate prelude to bankruptcy.
If we had behaved like this during the huge economic boom of the 1960s, we would still have the rubble of World War II in our major cities.
If a bank follows the completely risk-averse behaviour of a traditional insurance company, then it might as well change business.
Furthermore, the new E.U. regulations in the offing, regarding the regular provision of bank loans to companies and households, are even stricter and more stringent than the international ones – hence money is lent only to those who basically do not need it.
Not to mention the regulations known as Basel II, i.e. the International Convergence of Capital Measurements and Capital Standards developed by the “Basel Committee” established within the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), located in the big tower overlooking the centre of the Swiss city.
Ironically, the BIS was created in 1930 to manage the implementation of the Young Plan, the ingenious and very modern financial operation that cut the war debt of defeated Germany by 20%, dividing it into instalments to be paid every 58 years, with the last one paid in 1988, one year before German reunification.
Unlike this brilliant idea of debt repayment, which was developed in the 1920s, the Basel II regulations, which came into force in 2007, have only one obsessive goal, i.e. to make the banking system stable and radically reduce the companies’ credit risk vis-à-vis the system itself.
In some years after the Basel II regulations, the reduction in loans to companies, and in this case also to large companies, was even 3.5% on average.
It should also be recalled that the Basel III regulations have been in action since January 2013, becoming fully operational in January 2019.
According to the latest data from the Bank of Italy, the decrease in loans to SMEs ranges between 1.9 and 2%.
The estimate is made on the basis of already largely insufficient data.
Furthermore, the weight of bank loans on Italian corporate balance sheets, both of SMEs and large companies is, on average, over 60% of total debt.
In Germany, the United Kingdom and France the bank debt burden on total corporate debt is around 50%.
Hence, if the companies themselves do not take risks on their own and tend to be not only risk averse but also focused on unproductive income, also the banks tend to protect themselves more than usual and even more than it happens with the Basel III regulations.
Hence companies’ low capitalization, but also naive, excessive and bureaucratic formalism of banks, which often forget that their business is to sell money and, when giving information, put together national, European and international standards that, in addition to Basel III regulations, also include the IRFS 9, created in 2014 to improve and standardize financial information.
Finally, the Italian SMEs pay much more for loans than their competitors because the risk analysis procedure is much more formalized, legalized, bureaucratic and very strict, while the German and French banks serve their business clients in a much more flexible way.
The guarantees are almost always the applicant’s personal ones. This is not even provided for in the various Basel regulations. The rates of access to credit in other European countries are 2-3%, with Italy that, for a low rating company, even goes so far as to charge a 7-8% yearly interest rate.
It should be recalled that currently 92% of Italian companies are micro- enterprises and SMEs, with five and a half million VAT numbers. The average turnover of all these micro-enterprises and SMEs does not exceed two million euros per year.
In France, Germany and Great Britain, the number of entrepreneurs is half of the Italian ones. In France, however, 75% of companies – which are not SMEs, but medium-sized and large enterprises – are concentrated around Paris, while in Germany – despite the E.U. regulations do not accept it – the banking network is still in the hands of the Länder and of KfW – the equivalent of the Italian investment bank “Cassa Depositi e Prestiti” – which supports all banks in crisis, again in defiance of E.U. regulations.
The bank rating is primarily public, i.e. that of the companies specialised in the sector – which, in Italy, are controlled by CONSOB – and the SMEs often cannot afford to pay large sums of money to the rating companies and also wait for a long time before the rating is made official.
The non-official rating that, instead, Italian banks often adopt is – so to speak – “private”. It is above all the software that the Bank of Italy makes available to banks to evaluate the companies’ balance sheets and accounts, always based on the principle explained by a great and well-known Italian entrepreneur: “the first balance sheet is for everyone and is submitted to the banks; the second one is seen only by company managers and is not made public; the third is very confidential and is seen only by the CEO and the main shareholder, who never speak about it”.
The Bank of Italy’ software studies companies according to a geo-sectoral criterion and following the past trends only of the sector to which they belong.
If the rating turns out to be negative – as is often the case in a phase of crisis and in “mature” sectors, where many SMEs still operate – the bank offers them an 8% interest rate, which is completely off-market, or – as often happens – does not grant them any loan, thus making them go bankrupt.
Therefore, also the SMEs must be equipped with a “language” suitable for banking procedures, good accounting tools, such as business plans and management budgets, as well as fintech tools, such as business analysis and professional creditworthiness assessments.
At least initially, this could break the wall of incommunicability that separates the business banking clients from the banks’ way of thinking or not thinking at all.
What could be a possible alternative? The private capital market. In Italy there are 1,375 billion euros of private savings which could be invested productively.
In France and Great Britain, the investment in start-ups is on average, year after year, 2.5 billion euros. In Italy it is worth 160 million euros.
The Prime Minister’s Decree known as “Curaitalia” has established the Guarantee Fund for SMEs, which also provides for long-term operations (over 36 months).
However, will the Guarantee Funds and the Credit Consortia be enough to ensure credit flows to SMEs? I do not think so.
According to the latest data, the Credit Consortia have a very low risk profile. They are currently 34 and are subject to the supervision of the Bank of Italy.
In 2019 they issued guarantees to the tune of 7.3 billion euros. Hence, once again, they are not sufficient.
Therefore, we officially propose the establishment of a Medium-Long
Term Credit Bank dedicated to small and medium-sized enterprises.
You can have access to it with the same criteria as an ordinary industrial credit bank, which can lead the most promising SMEs to be listed on the
Stock Exchange or can possibly organize an effective market for the mini- bonds issued by any small and medium-sized enterprise.
Ordinary credit banks or, even better, industrial credit banks and companies can be shareholders of our Mediobanca for SMEs. It can also have its own research unit developing analysis and risk profiles for its clients. It can issue debt and credit securities on the market and can also take part in merger, acquisition and expansion operations in foreign markets.
Hence a Mediobanca model specifically adapted to suit Italian SMEs.
The phenomenon of land grabbing by multinationals
Since 2012 the United Nations has adopted voluntary guidelines for land and forest management to combat land grabbing. But only a few people know about the guidelines, which aim to protect small farmers particularly in Third World countries.
When multinational investors buy up fields for their huge plantations, the residents lose their livelihood and means of support and will soon only be sleeping in their villages. If they are lucky, they might find work with relatives in another village. Many also try their luck in the city, but poverty and unemployment are high. What remains are depopulated villages and the huge palm oil plantations that have devoured farmland. People can no longer go there to hunt and grow plants or get firewood. The land no longer belongs to them!
Land grabbingis the process whereby mostly foreign investors deprive local farmers or fishermen of their fields, lakes and rivers. Although it has been widely used throughout history, land grabbing – as used in the 21st century – mainly refers to large-scale land acquisitions following the global food price crisis of 2007-2008.
From 2000 until 2019 one hundred million hectares of land have been sold or leased to foreign investors and the list of the most affected countries can be found here below:
Such investment may also make sense for the development of a country, but it must not deprive people of their rights: local people are starving while food is being produced and turned into biofuels for export right before their eyes.
In 2012, after three years of discussion, the UN created an instrument to prevent such land grabbing: the VGGTs (Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security:
Detailed minimum standards for investment are established, e.g. the participation of affected people or how to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples and prevent corruption. Formally, the document provides a significant contribution to all people fighting for their rights.
The document, however, is quite cryptic. The guidelines should be simplified and explained. Only in this way can activists, but also farmers and fishermen, become aware of their rights.
Others doubt that much can be achieved through these guidelines because they are voluntary. After all, the UN has little or no say in the matter and can do no more than that. If governments implemented them, they would apply them as they will.
In Bolivia, for example, there are already laws that are supposed to prevent land grabbing. In the Amazon, however, Brazilian and Argentinian companies are buying up forests to grow soya and sugar cane, often with the approval and agreement of corrupt government officials. Further guidelines would probably be of little use.
At most, activists already use the guidelines to lobby their governments. Together with other environmental and human rights activists, they set up networks: through local radio stations and village meetings, they inform people of the fact that they right to their land.
Nevertheless, in many countries in Africa and elsewhere, there is a lack of documentation proving land ownership. Originally, tribal leaders vocally distributed rights of use. But today’s leaders are manipulated to pressure villagers to sell their land.
The biggest investors are Indians and Europeans: they are buying up the land to grow sugar cane and palm oil plantations. This phenomenon has been going on since 2008: at that time – as noted above – the world food crisis drove up food prices and foreign investors, but also governments, started to invest in food and biofuels.
Investment inland, which has been regarded as safe since the well-known financial crisis, must also be taken into account. Recently Chinese companies have also been buying up thousands of hectares of land.
In some parts of Africa, only about 6% of land is cultivated for food purposes, while on the remaining areas there are palm oil plantations. Once the plantations grow two or three metres high, they have a devastating effect on monocultures that rely on biodiversity, because of the huge areas they occupy. There is also environmental pollution due to fertilisers: in a village, near a plantation run by a Luxembourg company, many people have suffered from diarrhoea and some elderly villagers even died.
Consequently, the implementation of the VGGTs must be made binding as soon as possible. But with an organisation like the United Nations, how could this happen?
It is not only the indigenous peoples or the local groups of small farmers that are being deprived of everything. The common land used is also being lost, as well as many ecosystems that are still intact: wetlands are being drained, forests cleared and savannas turned into agricultural deserts. New landowners fence off their areas and deny access to the original owners. In practice, this is the 21st century equivalent of the containment of monastery land in Europe that began in the Middle Ages.
The vast majority of contracts are concentrated in poorer countries with weak institutions and land rights, where many people are starving. There, investors compete with local farmers. The argument to which the advocates of land grabbing hold -i.e. that it is mainly uncultivated land that needs to be reclaimed – is refuted. On the contrary, investors prefer well-developed and cultivated areas that promise high returns. However, they do not improve the supply of local population.
Foreign agricultural enterprises prefer to develop the so-called flexible crops, i.e. plants such as the aforementioned oil palm, soya and sugar cane, which, depending on the market situation, can be sold as biofuel or food.
But there is more! If company X of State Y buys food/fuel producing areas, it is the company that sells to its State Y and not the host State Z that, instead, assigns its future profits derived from international State-to-State trade to the aforementioned multinational or state-owned company of State Y.
Furthermore, there is almost no evidence of land investment creating jobs, as most projects were export-oriented. The British aid organisation Oxfam confirms that many land acquisitions took place in areas where food was being grown for the local population. Since local smallholders are generally weak and poorly educated, they can hardly defend themselves against the grabbing of the land they use. Government officials sell or lease it, often without even paying compensation.
Land grabbing is also present in ‘passive’ Europe. Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Lithuania and Bulgaria are affected, but also the territories of Eastern Germany. Funds and agricultural enterprises from “active” and democratic Europe, i.e. the West, and the Arab Gulf States are the main investors.
We might think that the governments of the affected countries would have the duty to protect their own people from such expropriations. Quite the reverse. They often support land grabbing. Obviously, corruption is often involved. In many countries, however, the agricultural sector has been criminally neglected in the past and multinationals are taking advantage of this under the pretext of remedying this situation.
No let-up in Indian farmers’ protest due to subconscious fear of “crony capitalism”
The writer has analysed why the farmers `now or never’ protest has persisted despite heavy odds. He is of the view that the farmers have the subconscious fear that the “crony capitalism” would eliminate traditional markets, abolish market support price and grab their landholdings. Already the farmers have been committing suicides owing to debt burden, poor monthly income (Rs. 1666 a month) and so on.”Crony capitalism” implies nexus between government and businesses that thrives on sweetheart deals, licences and permits eked through tweaking rules and regulations.
Stalemate between the government and the farmers’ unions is unchanged despite 11 rounds of talks. The farmers view the new farm laws as a ploy to dispossess them of their land holdings and give a free hand to tycoons to grab farmers’ holdings, though small.
Protesters allege the new laws were framed in secret understanding with tycoons. The farmers have a reason to abhor the rich businesses. According to an a January 2020 Oxfam India’s richest one per cent hold over four times the wealth of 953 million people who make up the poorest 70 per cent of the country’s population. India’s top nine billionaires’ Inc one is equivalent to wealth of the bottom 50 per cent of the population. The opposition has accused the government of “crony capitalism’.
Government has tried every tactic in its tool- kit to becloud the movement (sponsored y separatist Sikhs, desecrated Republic Day by hoisting religious flags at the Red ford, and so on). The government even shrugged off the protest by calling it miniscule and unrepresentative of 16.6 million farmers and 131,000 traders registered until May 2020. The government claims that it has planned to build 22,000 additional mandis (markets) 2021-22 in addition to already-available over 1,000 mandis.
Unruffled by government’s arguments, the opposition continues to accuse the government of being “suit-boot ki sarkar” and an ardent supporter of “crony capitalism” (Ambani and Adani). Modi did many favours to the duo. For instance they were facilitated to join hands with foreign companies to set up defence-equipment projects in India. BJP-ruled state governments facilitated the operation of mines in collaboration with the Ambani group just years after the Supreme Court had cancelled the allotment of 214 coal blocks for captive mining (MS Nileema, `Coalgate 2.0’, The Caravan March 1, 2018). Modi used Adani’s aircraft in March, April and May 2014 for election campaigning across the country.
“Crony capitalism” is well defined in the English oxford Living Dictionaries, Cambridge and Merriam –Webster. Merriam-Webster defines “crony capitalism” as “an economic system in which individuals and businesses with political connections and influence are favored (as through tax breaks, grants, and other forms of government assistance) in ways seen as suppressing open competition in a free market
If there’s one”.
Cambridge dictionary defines the term as “ an economic system in which family members and friends of government officials and business leaders are given unfair advantages in the form of jobs, loans, etc.:government-owned firms engaged in crony capitalism”.
A common point in all the definitions is undue favours (sweetheart contracts, licences, etc) to select businesses. It is worse than nepotism as the nepotism has a limited scope and life cycle. But, “crony capitalism” becomes institutionalized.
Modi earned the title “suit-boot ki sarkar” when a non-resident Indian, Rameshkumar Bhikabhai virani gifted him a Rs. 10 lac suit. To save his face, Modi later auctioned the suit on February 20, 2015. The suit fetched price of Rs, 4, 31, 31311 or nearly four hundred times the original price. Modi donated the proceeds of auction to a fund meant for cleaning the River Ganges. `It was subsequently alleged that the Surat-based trader Laljibhai Patel who bought the suit had been favoured by being allotted government land for building a private sports club (BJP returns ‘favour’, Modi suit buyer to get back land, Tribune June21, 2015).
Miffed by opposition’s vitriolic opposition, Ambani’s $174 billion conglomerate Reliance Industries Ltd. Categorically denied collusion with Modi’s government earlier this month. Reliance clarified that it had never done any contract farming or acquired farm land, and harboured no plans to do so in future. It also vowed to ensure its suppliers will pay government-mandated minimum prices to farmers. The Adani Group also had clarified last month that it did not buy food grains from farmers or influence their prices.
Like Modi, both Adani and Ambani hail from the western Indian state of Gujarat, just, who served as the state’s chief for over a decade. Both the tycoons are reputed to be Modi’s henchmen. Their industry quickly aligns its business strategies to Modi’s nation-building initiatives. For instance, Adani created a rival regional industry lobby and helped kick off a biannual global investment summit in Gujarat in 2003 that boosted Modi’s pro-business credentials. During 2020, Ambani raised record US$27 billion in equity investments for his technology and retail businesses from investors including Google and Face book Inc. He wants to convert these units into a powerful local e-commerce rival to Amazon.com Inc. and Wal-Mart Inc. The Adani group, which humbly started off as a commodities trader in 1988, has grown rapidly to become India’s top private-sector port operator and power generator.
Parallel with the USA
Ambani and Adani are like America’s Rockefellers and Vanderbilt’s in the USA’s Gilded Age in the second half of the 19th century (James Crabtree, The Billionaire Raj: a Journey through India’s New Gilded Age).
Modi government’s tutelage of Ambanis and Adanis is an open secret. Kerala challenged Adani’s bid for an airport lease is. A state minister said last year that Adani winning the bid was “an act of brazen cronyism.”
Threat of elimination of traditional markets
Farmers who could earlier sell grains and other products only at neighbouring government-regulated wholesale markets can now sell them across the country, including the big food processing companies and retailers such as WalMart.
The farmers fear the government will eventually abolish the wholesale markets, where growers were assured of a minimum support price for staples like wheat and rice, leaving small farmers at the mercy of corporate agri-businesses.
Is farmers’ fear genuine?
The farmers have a logical point. Agriculture yield less profit than industry. As such, even the USA heavily subsidies its agriculture. US farmers got more than $22 billion in government payments in 2019, the highest level of farm subsidies in the last 14 years, and the corporate sector paid for it. The Indian government is reluctant to give a permanent legal guarantee for the MSP. In contrast, the US and Western Europe buy directly from the farmers and build their butter and cheese mountains. Even the prices of farm products at the retail and wholesale levels are controlled by the capitalist government. In short, not the principles of capitalization but well-worked-out welfare measures are adopted to sustain the farm sector in the advanced West.
Threat of monopsonic exploitation
The farmers would suffer double exploitation under a monopsony (more sellers less buyers) at the hands of corporate sharks. They would pay less than the minimum support price to the producers. Likewise, consumers will have to pay more because the public distribution system is likely to be undermined as mandi (regulated wholesale market) procurement is would eventually cease to exist.
Plight of the Indian farmer
The heavily indebted Indian farmer has average income of only about Rs. 20000 a year (about Rs. 1666 a month). Thousands of farmers commit suicide by eating pesticides to get rid of their financial difficulties.
A study by India’s National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development found that more than half of farmers in India are in debt. More than 20,000 people involved in the farming sector died by suicide from 2018-2019, with several studies suggesting that being in debt was a key factor.
More than 86 per cent of India’s cultivated farmland is owned by small farmers who own less than two hectares of land each (about two sports fields). These farmers lack acumen to bargain with bigger companies. Farmers fear the Market Support Price will disappear as corporations start buying their produce.
Modi sarkar is unwilling to yield to the farmers’ demand for fear of losing his strongman image and Domino Effect’. If he yields on say, the matter of the farm laws, he may have to give in on the Citizenship Amendment Act also. Fund collection in some foreign countries has started to sustain the movement. As such, the movement may not end anytime soon. Unless Modi yields early, he would suffer voter backlash in coming elections. The farm sector contributes only about 15 per cent of India’s $2.9 trillion economy. But, it employs around half its 1.3 billion people.
Brighter Future Waits Ahead
Our footprints on the sands of time are about to be washed up by the next wave. We need to set out new paths, urgently, after all, the real power of wisdom not hidden in knowing it all; but in not knowing enough. Because whatever we may think of our mastery of our own crafts is in reality achieving ‘mastery’ as an acknowledgment of arriving at a point of not knowing enough therefore continuous hunger and craving to search for bigger answers. Otherwise, just a few experts would have been enough for the world. Observe how after two millennia passed, we still have not figured out achieving grassroots prosperity, diversity, tolerance and equalities.
Only if our new wisdom understood will we advance or else stay lost at the beaches. Our new world of today needs new words, new vocabulary, and new narratives to allow correctly knitting the tapestries of our miseries and equally weaving strong and fit enough sails for the coming stormy winds of tomorrow. Muffled in the old-fashioned terms of the past, the double-sided, agenda-centric language used today, already lost its authenticity. Today’s language mummified in bandages of political correctness, already tombed intellectualism and spoken words into deprivations, while whatever enunciated as rehearsed acts via teleprompters is still undecipherable by the global populace. Realities now demand change to honest words to assemble new narratives, to calm restless citizenry to deliver its truthful meaning in bold progressions.
Loudly enunciated are our acceptances of our victory and defeats or we stay silent to our deceptions. There is a brighter future ahead, indeed, but firstly, if we only accept for a moment that our previous attempts on grassroots prosperity creation were failures of sorts, suddenly pandemic recovery appears meaningful. If we also accept our previous trajectory of economic development spanning the last decade was somewhat hit or miss on targets, suddenly, new horizons appear. If we accept also that all our power-skills and rich-knowledge almost maxed out, suddenly brighter futures start to appear. Because, only when we discover a window, find some empty spaces tumble into voids, and chasms new things start to pour in, new ideas flourish, the processes start as enlightenment for new discoveries to commence. No matter where we stand on this earth, a new world has once again brought us on crossroads to face new transformation for brand new adventures
Our limitations on our performance are true measurements to qualify us to enter the cockpits. Historians will recognize this pandemic recovery as a very special moment; declare this era as a small blip in the course of human endeavor and a glitch that ‘possibly’ corrected the role of government administration to allow far more talented and upskilled citizenry at helm to advance. One: The corporate leaderships of technology companies acquired extraordinary smarts many times more powerful over what their own top national political leadership team displays and thus unable to tackle any technology sides of the economy. Two: Digitized and technologically advanced vertical sectors across 200 nations and 10,000 cities shut out national political leaderships and local institutional administrators as obsolete and unprepared to deal with the required speed of response and execution and therefore losing future control of the national economic drivers of national economy in global jurisdictions. Frequent flyers know a lot about flying city to city but definitely are not certified and qualified pilots to fly jumbos around the world. The power play of the digital economy once enters the ocean of platform economies of the world will become extremely specialized, therefore, unless prepared, nation-by-nation, top political leadership and government agencies will lose grip on all such technology advancement games and become simply spectators. Study crypto-currency deployments, Space travel and satellite transportation, AI and trading games, Jack Ma and China over ruling financial sectors as a start.
Our mobilization of hidden resources and talents are proof of what we just learned coming out of fog. For the first time in 100 years, globally speaking, a new world emerges; The pandemic has already prepared the humankind to rediscover “the meaning of life” the purpose of “co-existence” while to the poor of the world “re-learn to survive” and to the rich “re learn to create common good”. Is pandemic germinating our entrepreneurial intellectualism? Is this the kind of transformation humankind has been waiting for over a century? Why is futurism calling for futuristic literacy?
Our billion hungry every night despite two millennia past, we must show our resolve or our negligence will destroy us. The poor of the world; in neglect, misery and almost buried alive, Millionaires anxiously digging their own graves, now exhausted, Billionaires digging deeper to find their own legacy if any and Trillionaires buying up heavens in the clouds to block other voices. The Towers of Babylon going half empty, displaying signs of ‘vacancy’ fires of hell at the base only provide gentle warmth to the upper celestial floors of luxury living. Where sweetness is missing in the bitter medicine of our times ignored but candies alone will never cure; the message in the bottle found on the bloody beaches tossed but the noise of fakery drowns us all. Imagine, if we compressed the last two millennia in two minutes. We just evaporated at the last second. Universe did not even notice.
Wondering, what was the possible message in that bottle, if any?
Russia responsible for Navalny poisoning, rights experts say
Russia is responsible for the poisoning and attempted killing of jailed opposition figure Alexei Navalny, two independent UN rights experts said on Monday, issuing an...
Despite acknowledging strict measures, Pakistan has to stay on the grey-list in FATF
President of The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Dr. Marcus Pleyer, announced in a press conference held on 25 February...
Kenya’s Peter Mathuki appointed as Head of EAC Secretariat
Kenya’s Peter Mutuku Mathuki has been appointed to head the East African Community (EAC), the regional bloc that brings East...
Cutting Distances with a Cricket Stump
Sports are the common threads that bind people and countries together. The interlocking rings of the Olympics rings symbolize the...
Biden administration’s policy towards Vietnam, and the South China Sea
The one big question loomed large about Biden administration and it was whether there be a change in Biden administration...
Beyond the friendship diplomacy between Morocco and Mauritania
Over the past decade or so, many politicians and diplomats have held that the most significant bilateral relationship has been...
The Present Battle over Greece’s Past is Seeding New Battles in its Future
The streets of Greece have been raging with marches, violent clashes between police and protesters, and clandestine violence since the...
Eastern Europe3 days ago
Caspian: Status, Challenges, Prospects
Americas3 days ago
Rejoining the UNHRC will be the State Department’s first diplomatic mistake
Middle East2 days ago
Back to Strategic Hedging and Mediation in Qatar Foreign Policy after the Gulf Reconciliation
Europe2 days ago
Dara of Jasenovac
Americas2 days ago
Transition 2021: How Biden is likely to approach the Middle East
Economy3 days ago
No let-up in Indian farmers’ protest due to subconscious fear of “crony capitalism”
South Asia2 days ago
Pakistan Day Celebrations: Civilian Participation
Human Rights2 days ago
UN Security Council demands COVID-19 vaccine ceasefires