One Red Hot Country Mama!

This quote from Hamlet reminds me of a few recent situations.

I was at a dinner with a former colleague the other day. We worked together several years ago at a large corporation. A smart and thoughtful man, we had a nice chat and enjoyed talking about the old office politics, people who were fairly treated and not and annoying bosses.

As the conversation progressed, I realized that he was still upset about some of the unfair treatment that went on. He remembered everything that happened vividly as though it were yesterday where for me it was quite fuzzy and distant. I remember being annoyed back at the time that it happened, but I had let it go – and moved on. The fuzziness of it for me somehow soothed the memories. When I rehashed memories about some unfairness that I experienced, I felt annoyed, but the upsettedness passed quickly and was soon replaced with other thoughts. On the other hand, my friend seemed rather distressed about it.

I find the same is true for other people in my life who have not let go of past pain from family members and loved ones. It seems, when someone hurts you, they can hurt you in two ways – right now… and persistently in the future. If you don’t somehow let go and move on… you let the pain that the person put you through persist and persist. They hurt you originally, and they continue to hurt you. That’s just not fair! Forgiving them, and forgiving yourself for putting yourself in that situation are both important early steps. Although I know from experience that sometimes it takes several tries. The thinking of something in the past makes it persist in being bad.

I found this to be a very interesting overview of the book that I am listening to Reviving Ophelia by Mary Pipher. It is about how our popular culture is poisonous to young girls.

I am reading the biography of Mohammad Yunus, the father of Micro credit with much interest. At the heart of Micro credit (advancing small loans to people with no credit history or capital) is the idea that the poor can lift themselves out of their own circumstances using entrepreneurship.

This is counter to how some see the poor -  people who do not want to work. Others see the poor as victims of the flaws or inequality in the system – that the poor are especially powerless to change. The approach is then to pump more money into the system to give the poor a chance. Essentially, there are two options – either you go to work for someone or you accept hand-outs. Yunus is putting forward a third option – being self-employed.

In Micro credit programs undertaken in the US for example, Yunus said that there was disincentive to become entrepreneurs from the government in the form of reduction in welfare payments and other welfare benefits. He also says the administrative burden of businesses in the West is high, making it difficult for non-professional to start businesses. Any entrepreneurship programs that do exist, are based on training which he thinks is not necessary

In Canada in particular, I find there is a general distrust of business, and people with conscience want to stay away. He makes an interesting point:

I am not a capitalist in the simplistic left/right sense. But I do believe in the power of the global free-market economy and in using capitalist tools. I believe in the power of the free market and the power of capital in the marketplace. I also believe that providing unemployment benefits is not the best way to address poverty. The able-bodied poor don’t want or need charity. The dole only increases their misery, robs them of incentive and, more important, of self-respect.*

He continues on a justification of using private-sector means to help the poor:

We can condemn the private sector for all its mistakes, but we cannot justify why we ourselves are not trying to change things, not trying to make things better by participating in the economy. The private sector, unlike the government, is open to everyone, even those not interested in making a profit.

The challenge I set before anyone who condemns the private-sector business is this: If you are a socially conscious person, why don’t you run your business in a way that will help achieve social objectives?

I agree with his point. The government is very hierarchical and naturally authoritative, where as entrepreneurship is free and creative.

I am proposing two changes to this basic feature of capitalism. The first change relates to this overblown image of the capitalist entrepreneur. To me, an entrepreneur is not an especially gifted person. I rather take the reverse view. I believe that all human beings are potential entrepreneurs. Some of us get the opportunity to express this talent, but many of us never get the chance because we were made to imagine that an entrepreneur is someone enormously gifted and different from ourselves.

If all of us started to view every single human being, even the barefooted one begging in the street as a potential entrepreneur, man or woman to explore his or her economic potential, the old wall between entrepreneurs and laborers would disappear. It would become a matter of personal choice whether an individual wanted to become an entrepreneur or a wage earner.

Who would have thought… an almost Marxist justification of entrepreneurship. I obviously don’t think that Micro credit and entrepreneurship are the catch-all solutions to global poverty. The political issues such as corruption and wars, environmental issues and system, race and gender inequalities still exist and contribute to the problem. But I find Yunus’s approach a refreshing contribution to solving the poverty problem.

*All references are from pages 205-207 of Banker to the Poor by Muhammad Yunus. 

I was reading this story originally published in Esquire magazine, about outsourcing your life, where one of the editors outsources his life to India. He outsources his editorial research, his online shopping and even his phone calls to parents reading stories to his son and settling arguments with his wife. In the story, the author A.J. Jacobs outsources his apology to his wife, Julie to his Indian personal assistant, Asha:

Hello Asha,

My wife got annoyed at me because I forgot to get cash at the automatic
bank machine. . . . I wonder if you could tell her that I love her, but
gently remind her that she too forgets things — she has lost her wallet
twice in the last month. And she forgot to buy nail clippers for
Jasper.
AJ

I can’t tell you what a thrill I got from sending that note.
It’s pretty hard to get much more passive-aggressive than bickering
with your wife via an email from a subcontinent halfway around the
world.

The next morning, Asha CC’d me on the email she sent to Julie.

Julie

Do understand your anger that I forgot to pick up the cash at the
automatic machine. I have been forgetful and I am sorry about that.

But I guess that doesn’t change the fact that I love you so much. . . .

Love
AJ

P. S. This is Asha mailing on behalf of Mr. Jacobs.

As if that weren’t enough, she also sent Julie an e-card. I
click on it: two teddy bears embracing, with the words "Anytime you
need a hug, I’ve got one for you. . . . I’m sorry."

Damn! My outsourcers are too friggin’ nice! They kept the apology part
but took out my little jabs. They are trying to save me from myself.
They are superegoing my id. I feel castrated.

Julie, on the other hand, seems quite pleased: "That’s nice, sweetie. I forgive you."

Disappointingly, the article is sexist at times but A.J. has an interesting point at the end about Honey, his other personal assistant and the economy in general:

The point is, she’s got talent. If Honey is a guide, the Indian
workforce can be just as innovative and aggressive as the American, so
the "benefits" might not be so beneficial. Us high-end types will be as
vulnerable as assembly-line workers. (Friedman’s other pro-outsourcing
argument seems more persuasive — that free trade will open up the huge
Chinese and Indian markets to American exports.)

He concludes:

Yes, America, we’re cooked.

I think an article like this gets to the heart of the outsourcing dilemma. However, I think it is exaggerated. The premise of the article was based on Thomas Friedman’s book, The World is Flat, which is a about how we are getting a more level playing field in global economy due to the technological, economic and sociological shifts.

The book and the premise that it is based on has been criticized by Economists and Political Scientists alike. The fact is, 90% of the world’s phone calls, web traffic and investments are local – so it seems the world is still quite round. Professor Michael Veseth argues in his article The World is Flat? Globaloney: 

Government, I think, it the ultimate reason the world remains
persistently round. Brazil is a country blessed by natural and human
wealth. In a truly flat world, Brazil would be filthy rich. But Brazil
has been cursed by decades of bad government, and that has created an
environment where it’s nearly impossible to start a business, much less
develop one that can compete in the global marketplace.

The world is in fact filled with cultural, natural, political and
economic barriers that keep individuals and nations from competing on a
level playing field.

So – even though a guy can outsource his life for a week, the world is still as round… at the moment.   

My inbox if full of discussion on India’s Tata taking over Jaguar. I was sent an interesting article from Time Magazine about  how traditional white brands are reacting to mergers and acquisitions from Indian companies. One of my friends mentioned that there is a similar problem for Chinese companies. No one ever questions the ability (or right) of Western companies to
buy out firms in developing countries, but people get upset when it
goes the other direction. Every time a Chinese firm tries to buy out a
Western one, people worry about Chinese imperialism.

The Time article talks about how when the India luxury chain Taj received a letter from the Orient Express that its overtures were not welcome. Indian Hotels Vice-Chairman R. K. Krishna Kumar wrote that he was offended by the letter.

White’s letter, he says, "will go down as one of the most uncivilized
exchanges of views between two companies in the 21st century." Its
sentiments, Kumar says, reflect "an era that is now prehistoric."

India’s Economic times was later quoted as saying:

The days of "white supremacy are disappearing rapidly, and white brand
value with it," the piece went on. "When Arab financiers are needed to
rescue Citigroup, notions of white cachet seem ludicrous."

Orient Express said that the statement had more to do with branding than anything else. As a Marketer, I can’t disagree more. My thinking is that if an Indian company can make Jaguar make good cars again, then that will be good for the brand – who cares where the improvements come from. And by the way, being an intolerant global brand in today’s world… is totally off-brand.