Art Diamond's web log
After hearing a "leapfrog competition" mention in Gerstner’s book, I did a phrase search in Amazon. Apparently he uses the phrase once, as follows:
(p. 159) This doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good transaction for AT&T. It allowed AT&T to leapfrog its competitors. But for IBM it was a strategic coup.
The book is:
Gerstner, Louis V., Jr. Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? Leading a Great Enterprise through Dramatic Change. New York: HarperCollins, 2002.
Billionaire entrepreneur Mo Ibrahim. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article cited below.
At a news conference in London on Thursday, Mo Ibrahim, a 60-year-old Sudanese-born billionaire who made his money in the cellphone business, announced that he was offering a $5 million prize for the sub-Saharan African president who on leaving office has demonstrated the greatest commitment to democracy and good governance. The money will be spread out over 10 years.
“We must face the reality,” Mr. Ibrahim said, referring to Africa’s leadership record. “Everything starts by admitting the truth: we failed. I’m not proud at all. I’m ashamed. We really need to resolve the problem and the problem, in our view, is bad leadership and bad governance.”
. . .
Unlike many projects that aim to help famine-stricken villages or far-flung AIDS clinics, this one is supposed to focus on political leadership — and the post-independence culture of autocrats and kleptocrats that spawned such figures as Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire or Idi Amin of Uganda.
. . .
Africa’s culture of the Big Man clinging to office was built in part, Mr. Ibrahim said, on a sense among many of its leaders that, if they relinquished power voluntarily, they would face penury and powerlessness and would no longer be the font of patronage or the tenant of what he called “the hilltop palace.”
“We want them to have a life after office,” Mr. Ibrahim said.
“Your leaders here become rich after they leave office,” he said, referring to the directorships, book deals and lecture circuit tours that accrue to Western leaders. “What life is there for our people after office? Some of our leaders cannot even afford to rent an apartment” in their own capitals, he said.
For the full story, see:
(Note: ellipses added.)
Source of book image: http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0060523794.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1122531345_.jpg
Gerstner is known for turning around IBM, when many business experts thought it was headed down the tubes. His book is useful as a report on what happened at IBM during his time as CEO, and also has some more broadly applicable observations. I’ll mention a few of these in this and a few other postings in the next couple of weeks.
It is interesting how many successful and important business leaders and experts have spent some time associated with the McKinsey consulting group, where Gerstner started his career. One major McKinsey figure, Richard Foster, is a strong advocate and elaborator of Schumpeter’s process of creative destruction.
I wonder if perhaps some of the success of McKinsey is due to the firm’s embracing and applying Schumpeter’s ideas?
Those who oppose creative destruction emphasize the destructive effect that the process has on some workers. In fact the effects on labor are seen by many (e.g., Thomas Friedman) who are otherwise sympathetic, to be the major drawback of the process. As a result some of them (e.g., Thomas Friedman) propose paternalistic ‘safety net’ labor policies.
We usually think of government as the main implementer of such policies, but among firms, IBM’s labor policies were among the most paternalistic. This is usually viewed as one of the positives about IBM. But one of Gerstner’s insights is to suggest that some of those in the IBM work force were hurt by IBM’s paternalistic policies:
(p. 186) . . . I came to feel that the real problem was not that employees felt they were entitled. They had just become accustomed to immunity from things like recessions, price wars, and technology changes. And for the most part, they didn’t even realize that this self-contained, insulated system also worked against them. I was shocked, for instance, to discover the pay disparities—particularly in very important technical and sales professions—of IBM comployess when comapred to the competition and the industry in general. Our best people weren’t getting what they deserved.
Maybe I should mention that I don’t endorse everything in the book. For example, Gerstner seems to think that a desire to "win" is crucial to success in business. But I think the analogy between business and competitive sports is usually taken too far. Can’t one also succeed in business from a desire to innovate and to improve the world?
The reference on the book is:
Gerstner, Louis V., Jr. Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? Leading a Great Enterprise through Dramatic Change. New York: HarperCollins, 2002.
(Note: in the quote, the ellipsis was added, but the italics was in the original.)
One of the dogs cured of melanoma by a new vaccine. Source of photo: screen capture from NBC news report.
Melanoma has taken many human lives, including my father’s on April 15, 2000. Government licensing and regulations reduce competition in medicine and slow the pace of medical innovation. Animal health care is less regulated. Is it an accident that dogs are being cured for melanoma before humans?
Vet Philip Bergman remembers the first time he tried the vaccine in a dog.
"That was a dog that thankfully underwent complete disappearance of his tumor," says Bergman. "It was remarkable, obviously, to us."
Since then, more than 100 dogs have been treated, including Lawana Hart’s Lucky, who last June appeared to have only a few months to live.
For the full report, see:
For the video version, go to:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=d7f603e0-86bb-44db-bad0-524ec79b02c8&f=00&fg=copy
The Flagler Memorial obelisk was erected in on a man-made island in 1920, when Miamians still remembered the accomplishments of Henry Flagler. Source of image: http://www.miamibeachfl.gov/newcity/depts/arce/art_public/rw_flagler_monument.asp
The Standard Oil "monopoly" is often lambasted as a sorry episode in our economic history. And yet a strong case can be made that the Standard Oil wealth was created mainly by efficiently providing consumers with a commodity they valued. In addition, mention is often made of the Rockefeller philanthropic activities. Less known, is that others who became rich from Standard Oil, also engaged in productive entrepreneurship, and philanthropy, with their wealth. One of these was Henry Flagler.
In a region that prizes showy monuments to wealth, the lone monument to the man who made it all possible has languished in isolation for decades.
A soaring concrete obelisk dedicated to Henry Flagler, the oil tycoon who hastened South Florida’s development by building a railroad all the way to Key West, it sits on a tiny man-made island in Biscayne Bay, reachable only by boat or, more typically, Jet Ski. Almost everyone here has glimpsed the Flagler Memorial, but few know what it is called, why it exists or how battered it looks up close.
”I’m telling you, it’s a beautiful work of art,” said Paul Orofino, a board member of the Environmental Coalition of Miami Beach, a nonprofit group that occasionally tidies up Monument Island, the memorial’s scruffy, overgrown home. ”It’s a tragedy that nobody pays attention to this thing.”
It is not the kind of South Florida tribute one might expect for Flagler, who extended his railroad from St. Augustine to West Palm Beach in 1894, Miami in 1896 and Key West — a segment that lasted only 23 years until a hurricane demolished it — in 1912.
Flagler was the state’s original megadeveloper, after all, creating its tourism industry by turning swampy pioneer settlements into the world’s grandest resorts. He was also, perhaps, its first huckster, advertising the nascent Miami as ”the most pleasant place south of Bar Harbor to spend the summer.”
His over-the-top winter home in Palm Beach, awash in gold, is now a museum, but most of its visitors come from out of state, said John Blades, the museum’s executive director. Mr. Blades has tried to get a statue of Flagler erected in Palm Beach, which owes its sumptuous existence to the man, but has so far failed.
”Flagler,” Mr. Blades said, ”is probably the most unappreciated titan of the Gilded Age.”
For the rest of the story of the impressive, but deteriorating, Flagler Memorial in Miami, see:
(Note: the hurricane destroyed the Key West link of the railroad in 1935.)
Henry Flagler. Source of image: http://flaglermuseum.us/html/flagler_biography.html
One version of the laptops produced by One Laptop Per Child for roughly $100 a piece. Source of image: http://www.laptop.org/OLPC_files/nigeria.jpg
Simply giving each child a laptop, won’t much improve their standard of living. (See Easterly’s The Elusive Quest for Growth.) But maybe a few of the children will obtain access to information about what is possible in the outside world, and maybe that will lead them to fight for more freedom?
But at least, if they remain poor, it will not be possible to lay the blame on some sort of ‘digital divide.’ Lay the blame, instead on government economic planning.
Note the aside buried in the article: ‘competitive advantage’ economist Michael Porter is telling the Libyans how to develop a "national economic plan"?? (Say it ain’t so, Michael!)
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 10 — The government of Libya reached an agreement on Tuesday with One Laptop Per Child, a nonprofit United States group developing an inexpensive, educational laptop computer, with the goal of supplying machines to all 1.2 million Libyan schoolchildren by June 2008.
The project, which is intended to supply computers broadly to children in developing nations, was conceived in 2005 by a computer researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nicholas Negroponte. His goal is to design a wireless-connected laptop that will cost about $100 after the machines go into mass production next year.
. . .
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January, Bill Gates, Microsoft’s chairman, suggested that the next generation of cellphones might be a better way to reach across the so-called digital divide.
Mr. Negroponte said Microsoft refused to sell its Windows software to the project at a price that would make it possible to include in his system. As a result, his laptops will come with the freely available Linux operating system, which is becoming increasingly popular in the developing world.
The idea of a laptop for every schoolchild grew out of Mr. Negroponte’s experience in giving children Internet-connected laptops in rural Cambodia. He said the first English word out of the mouths of the Cambodian students was “Google.”
Discussions between the One Laptop project and the Libyan government began as part of work being done by the Monitor Group, an international consulting firm co-founded by the economist Michael E. Porter. It is now helping the Libyans develop a national economic plan.
. . .
The first test models will be distributed to the five participating countries companies at the end of this November, according to Mr. Negroponte, and mass production is planned for June or July of 2007.
The computers come with a wireless connection, a built-in video camera, an eight-hour battery and a hand crank for recharging batteries. They will initially be priced below $150, and the price is expected to decline when they are manufactured in large numbers.
For the full story, see:
(Note: ellipses added.)
MIT’s Nicholas Negroponte. Source of image: online version of the NYT article cited above.
In Free to Choose, Milton Friedman compared Hong Kong’s free market, with India’s state control of the economy. The dynamism and growth of Hong Kong was a stark contrast to the inertia and stagnation of India. In the decades since Free to Choose, India has become more free and, alas, Hong Kong less free:
(p. A14) . . . it was sadly unsurprising to see Hong Kong’s current leader, Donald Tsang, last month declare the death of the policy on which the territory’s prosperity was built.
The really amazing phenomenon is that, for half a century, his predecessors resisted the temptation to tax and meddle. Though a colony of socialist Britain, Hong Kong followed a laissez-faire capitalist policy, thanks largely to a British civil servant, John Cowperthwaite. Assigned to handle Hong Kong’s financial affairs in 1945, he rose through the ranks to become the territory’s financial secretary from 1961-71. Cowperthwaite, who died on Jan. 21 this year, was so famously laissez-faire that he refused to collect economic statistics for fear this would only give government officials an excuse for more meddling. His successor, Sir Philip Haddon-Cave, coined the term "positive noninterventionism" to describe Cowperthwaite’s approach.
The results of his policy were remarkable. At the end of World War II, Hong Kong was a dirt-poor island with a per-capita income about one-quarter that of Britain’s. By 1997, when sovereignty was transferred to China, its per-capita income was roughly equal to that of the departing colonial power, even though Britain had experienced sizable growth over the same period. That was a striking demonstration of the productivity of freedom, of what people can do when they are left free to pursue their own interests.
For the full commentary, see:
MILTON FRIEDMAN. "Hong Kong Wrong." Wall Street Journal (Fri., October 6, 2006): A14.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
The welcome arch in Stuart, Floriday. Source of the photo: online version of the NYT article cited below.
STUART, Fla., Oct. 2 — As land-boom boasts went, the 1925 headline was only mildly preposterous: “Stuart Bigger Than Miami in 10 Years,” it sang.
A cross-state shipping canal was in the works, and Stuart, about 100 miles north of the city it hoped to surpass, sat at the eastern terminus. It envisioned becoming a thriving commercial hub and built the Stuart Welcome Arch, a proud gateway on the old road into town, to embody that dream. "Atlantic Gateway to the Gulf of Mexico," its bronze lettering proclaimed.
. . .
The cross-state canal became more bane than boon when the state started using it to flush polluted overflow from Lake Okeechobee out to sea.
“Everyone wanted that canal,” said Sandra Thurlow, a local historian, “and yet it has caused so many problems.”
For the full story, see:
(Note: ellipsis added.)
Source of illustration: online version of the NYT article cited below.
APPARENTLY, I’m an idiot. Every financial advice columnist seems to be telling me so.
My crime: buying morning coffee from Starbucks for my wife and me.
Avoiding the regular cup of overpriced coffee has become an easy cliché for financial advisers, a symbol of money frittered away. The advice has appeared just about everywhere. Drop the caramel mocha frappu-whatever, they say, or you’ll spend your retirement testing recipes that combine Hamburger Helper and dog food. David Bach, the author of “The Automatic Millionaire,” pushes what he calls the Latte Factor, which he has defined as “the daily extravagances that drain your resources.” Another guru, Paul Farrell, has estimated that skipping Starbucks and compounding the savings could save you an eye-popping $500,000 by retirement. At my own newspaper, Damon Darlin, a financial columnist, has repeatedly brought up this issue.
Before bringing up a point of disagreement — what logicians call the “Big But” — it is common to bestow a few compliments to ease the sting. So, as a preface to the Big But, let me say that Mr. Darlin is a fine journalist and, for all I know, a swell dancer besides.
Still, I disagree. Buy the damned coffee, if it makes you happy. When I show up back at the house after dropping off my high schooler in the morning and I have that latte in hand for my wife, she will sometimes refer to me as “my hero!” After more than 30 years together, this is about the only time I am called that.
For the full commentary, see:
(p. W4) Though scarcely known today, Andrew W. Mellon was a colossus in late 19th-century and early 20th-century America. He would come to play a major role in the management of the American economy, but first he built one of the country’s great fortunes, one that would rank him today with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. He is now the subject of a comprehensive, if slightly grudging, biography by David Cannadine, the distinguished British historian.
Mellon is not associated with any single industry, in the way that Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller are. He was a venture and equity-fund capitalist, one of the first to function on a major scale. He and his younger brother, Dick, took over their father’s Pittsburgh-based investment and coal-mining business and expanded it into many fields, including copper, oil, petrochemicals and aluminum (Alcoa).
No banker was as gimlet-eyed; Mr. Cannadine shows Mellon shrewdly and coldly calculating every investment prospect. Yet few venture capitalists were as daring. In the 1890s, when Rockefeller was ruthlessly monopolizing the petroleum industry, Mellon didn’t flinch from setting up a competing refinery. When Mellon finally sold out to Rockefeller, he did so at a considerable profit. Several years later he came back to oil and eventually built Gulf into an industry giant.
Original Supply-Sider
But Mellon was more than an entrepreneurial industrialist. In his mid-60s he became a famous — and infamous — public servant, performing as Treasury secretary under three presidents, from 1921 to 1932. He was the original supply-sider, pushing tax cuts under Presidents Harding and Coolidge. He argued that the high tax rates left over from World War I were depressing economic activity; that lower rates would turn the economy around; that high-income earners would end up paying more and that low-income earners would be removed from the tax roles entirely.
His program was a fantastic success. The top rate was cut to 25% from 77%. The rich did indeed pay more, while low- and middle-income earners saw their tax bills shrink to nothing or next to nothing. The economy boomed. The U.S. outstripped more heavily taxed nations, such as Britain and France. Mellon also pushed painstakingly for the creation of an international monetary system to replace the one shattered by World War I. The big challenge was huge Allied war debts to the U.S. and onerous German reparations. Mellon negotiated the easiest terms that were politically possible so that trade and economies could revive.
We sometimes forget just how dynamic the 1920s were in America. The automobile became a commonplace item for working Americans; labor-saving devices, such as the washing machine, grew ever more common as well; movies and radio provided mass entertainment as never before (an experimental television broadcast was carried out in 1927); and stock ownership widened to include more members of the middle class.
It was a time of great innovation and inventiveness, and in a sense Mellon presided over it all by allowing it to happen without intrusive government policies.
For the full review, see:
Reference for the book:
David Cannadine. MELLON. Knopf, 2006. 779 pages, $35
Source of book image: online version of the WSJ article cited above.
