via mindmovies.com
Bob Proctor and Ryan Higgins on visualization, emotion and repetition. Enjoy!
7/27/2010
Jeff Schweitzer: Seed Corn, Discount Rate and Our Endangered Future
The human species is consuming resources unsustainably and inefficiently. The problem all boils down to discount rate. Before we can understand such an odd and simple conclusion we need to look first at a few gross patterns of consumption.
Ocean Orgy
Worldwide, about 1 billion people rely on fish as their main source of protein. Humans currently consume about 100 million metric tons of seafood annually, close to or slightly exceeding the amount the ocean can naturally supply sustainably. Over-fishing, coastal erosion from badly managed developments, pollution and loss of critical habitat are now threatening the resource that once seemed so vast and limitless. We have managed in the last 100 years to deplete 90 percent of all primary food stocks of fish in the oceans, including tuna, marlin, cod, skates, and halibut. More than 80 percent of all fish species are now considered over-exploited.
Even if we stopped fishing, recovery is not ensured: the larvae of many commercially important fish rely on coral reefs for shelter during critical stages of development. But more than half of the world's coral reefs are dead, dying or highly endangered. Why should you care? Coral reefs provide about $375 billion worth of economic and environmental services each year. About 500 million people live within just sixty miles of a coral reef, and benefit directly from the reefs' productivity and protection they provide from the ocean's wrath. The Great Barrier Reef alone supports about 8 percent of all of the world's fish species. You eat many of them.
A 400 pound blue fin tuna will sell for well over $100,000. The magic of the market offers no refuge to the diminishing population. In an ideal world of perfect markets, as a population declines scarcity would drive up the price to a point that the commodity (tuna in this case) would no longer be economically viable, hitting a price consumers would no longer be willing to pay. Reduced commercial pressure would allow the population to recover and start the cycle anew. Alas, that is not the case because our appetite for tuna is so voracious, and our willingness to pay for the privilege of eating sushi so great. We will not only hunt blue fins below a sustainable number of survivors, we will hunt down the very last tuna.
By over-exploiting fish we risk not only running out of food; we also significantly endanger critical ecosystem functions. One result is the attack of the jellyfish, as we now see off the coast of Namibia. Up until about 20 years ago, this area was a rich fishery and an important source of sardines. The sardines thrived on plankton that proliferated in nutrient-rich waters upwelling from the deep. But the sardines were overfished, and in their diminished numbers no longer kept plankton growth under control. The plankton growth, now unconstrained, resulted in masses of dead plants sinking to the bottom where the process of decay used up most of the available oxygen creating a vast dead zone killing the once thriving coastal waters. Jellyfish were unaffected, and could munch with abandon on now abundant plankton; their numbers exploded, filling the waters with thick mats of stinging goo. Not a fisherman's or swimmer's delight, nor a source of food for the locals. All because nobody thought to stop fishing the sardines until they were no more.
Tropical Trouble
Our species is destroying 40 million acres of tropical forests every year. We are losing up to 50,000 species annually, a rate nearly 1000 times the natural background level of natural extinction. Along with those species and habitats we lose knowledge, medicines and critical ecosystems functions. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in Haiti, where the impoverished nation's barren, brown eroded hills butt up against the lush growth of the Dominical Republic forests to define a border of intense contrast visible from space. Haiti's population grew from 3 million in 1940 to 9 million at the turn of the century. Forests were cleared for cropland to feed the growing number of mouths. Downed trees were used as fuel for cooking, or sold as charcoal for cash to supplement farm income. Unfortunately the trees eventually ran out, and with 98 percent of all trees gone, so too went all of their ecosystem functions. Flooding became more frequent and more severe because trees were not there to slow down and absorb the water. Crop yields dwindled in the face of flooding and erosion. With no trees, rains wash almost 40 million tons of precious dirt into rivers every year. The rapid buildup of sediment in waterways killed off vital fisheries, leading to food shortages. With little water being sopping up by trees, aquifers were not replenished, leading to severe shortages of drinking water. With no trees, with diminished resilience, every storm brings another cycle of destruction. All because nobody thought to stop chopping down trees until there were no more.
Fossil Foolish
If the standard of living in China grew to levels now seen in the United States, China's existing population would consume more oil per day than the entire world combined now does in 2010. Experts estimate America's per capita oil consumption is on average of 2.3 gal/day; Japan and Korea come in at 1.4 gallons of oil per person per day. If China's consumption grew to equal America's, China would use about 90 million barrels of oil per day, exceeding the current total daily global oil production of about 80 million barrels. Even if China instead consumed more moderately, equal to what Japan and Korea do today, China would use 55 million barrels of oil per day. Obviously economic, political and environmental constraints will prevent China from consuming all or even two-thirds of the world's available oil; something will give. Right now the average American consumes five times as much energy as the average Chinese citizen, but those dynamics are shifting rapidly. As that gap narrows we race toward a breaking point of insufficient energy reserves to sustain growth in per capita consumption in both countries.
Unlike the trees of Haiti or sardines of Namibia, we are not in danger of running out of oil any time soon. Oil is in fact relatively abundant still, just more difficult to reach. But we are running out of time nonetheless. Given that almost every aspect of our economy is currently dependent on fossil fuels, the shift to renewable energy sources will be an extended process lasting multiple decades. We do not have the luxury of waiting until oil becomes scarce to start doing something about the inevitable scarcity. Every year we wait to institute a national plan to create a green energy economy brings with it more pain in the transition. Creating a smooth transition is not the only problem. Massive oil spills create local environmental disasters, but fossil fuels also have significant global impact. Our planet is warming unnaturally because we are dumping 70 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year as a byproduct of our oil lust. All because we cannot muster the collective will to stop sucking oil from the ground until the holes are dry.
Common Thread
These stories of consumption share a common denominator. Humans tend to deplete nonrenewable resources (and resources that should be renewable) even when the doomed fate of the resource becomes as obvious as the many tragic consequences. We do not stop even when doing so would be universally beneficial to all involved. This is not a "tragedy of the commons" but a case of momentum combined with the extremes of capitalism.
Think about this: Haitians must now survive in a world with no trees. At some point long before the forest was irreversibly destroyed Haitians knew that people would have to come up with a means of survival once the forest was completely cleared. When surviving without trees became an inevitability, ideally society would have transitioned to a post-tree economy before the forests were actually gone. Continuing to cut trees at that stage did nothing to prevent the inescapable transition, only made a post-tree economy that much more miserable with erosion, choked waterways and scarce drinking water.
The same tragic story of momentum applies to the Namibian fishermen, who are now living in their world without sardines. As the supplies diminished, a future with no sardines was seen clearly enough. Those fisherman could have transitioned to a post-sardine life before the last fish was taken. Continuing to fish when the consequences of local extinction were clear did not stop the inevitable, only made life after the transition that much more difficult.
Modern western societies are now repeating the mistake of the Haitians and Namibians with our fossil fuels. As oil supplies become more difficult and expensive to secure, we can see a future in which oil is inevitably no longer our primary fuel. We know that at some point in the future our economy must be based on renewable energy sources. Yet we continue to deplete our resource without any serious effort to transition to a post-fossil fuel world. Our ancestors will look back and with great regret say about us: "At some point long before oil was depleted Americans knew that people would have to come up with a means of survival once the wells ran dry. When surviving without oil became an inevitability, ideally society would have transitioned to a post-oil economy before the fossil fuels were actually gone. Continuing to pump oil at that stage did nothing to prevent the inescapable transition, only made a post-oil economy that much more painful and miserable."
Personal Discount Rate
How can we explain human behavior that is so clearly counter to our best interests, individually and collectively, and so dangerous to current and future generations? Why would we deplete a resource when we see the depletion coming, knowing that no matter what, we will need to adjust to the absence of that resource? Why not adjust and adapt before the resources is actually gone? The answer is personal discount rate.
Roughly speaking, our discount rate measures how much we would pay to have some future benefit given to us now (the classic example is taking a lump sum instead of an annuity). Money today has greater perceived value than money tomorrow. This is perfectly rational; money in hand now is not at risk of not materializing later; inflation lowers the value of future money, creating an actual cost of waiting to receive the funds; and taking the money now allows for investments that could grow over the waiting period (in other words waiting for future money entails an opportunity cost). Economists try to capture some of these variables with "diminishing marginal utility" and "social time preference rate" and other esoteric measurements.
On the other hand....let us make this easy. Consider a starving man, who is offered a choice: he can have a sandwich now, or $10,000 a month from now. The unfortunate man will certainly forego future riches for immediate nourishment. He essentially has an infinitely large personal discount rate. The sandwich is worth everything to him, and the $10,000 a month from now has zero value. He completely dismisses the value of a future $10,000. Now consider a wealthy man given that same choice. The sandwich has zero value to him (he just ate a big lunch), and waiting for the $10,000 causes no pain but some modest gain. He basically has a personal discount rate of zero, meaning he is willing to pay nothing to have a future benefit given to him now. He will take no amount less than the $10,000 for the privilege of getting the money sooner. Most of us fall somewhere in between. We believe that $100 one year from now has less value than $100 in hand. We encounter this "time value" of money (or goods) in the form of loans, too. A lender is willing to forego the use of $100 now if the borrower will pay back $120 one year later; the transaction reflects the same time value of money as captured by interest rate.
The actual value of personal discount rate is notoriously difficult to nail down. The value is impacted by personal circumstances such as our age and health, the perceived desirability of what is being offered, the immediacy and urgency of our needs (food, clothing, shelter), our moral commitment to future generations, our emotional state and our level of patience in waiting for a result.
However, for our purposes nailing down a precise value is not necessary. Haitians were able to cut down the last tree because the individuals taking the specific actions had high personal discount rates. On any given day the value of a tree cut down was worth significantly more than one standing one year later, just as the starving man dismissed the future value of $10,000 in the face of a sandwich in hand immediately. The tree today meant fuel for cooking and money to buy food for hungry mouths. The forests of Haiti and the sardines of Namibia and the blue fin tuna in the Atlantic were depleted by people acting rationally, even if with very different motivations.
But a paradox arises because while an individual acting rationally can chop down the last tree in the forest, he is simultaneously acting irrationally by jeopardizing the future of the society in which he lives. Discount rate is more than just a fancy way to say a starving man will take food over any future benefit. That is trivially true. The concept becomes important when relatively wealthy individuals and society, no longer shackled by daily survival needs, make decisions about the environment for future generations. The majority of America is not starving, but we nevertheless exhibit a high discount rate in our voracious use of oil not much different than the starving Haitian. We are telling future generations that we value our air, water and climate more today than we do the obligation to bequeath to them a sustainable world in the future.
Here is where discount rate unites the starving man in Haiti with the SUV driver in the Unites States. The rational actions of men seeking to survive short-term and of gas-guzzling suburbanites with an urgent need to attend choir practice can be transformed to meet the broader needs of society that are harmed by their current actions by lowering personal discount rates in both cases. The common cure for most environmental ills can be found here in the face of huge differences in geography, culture, biodiversity and prosperity.
We have not discovered Eden, only a common end point to help guide public policy. We know for a fact that left to our own devices humans will deplete a resource even knowing the dire consequences that will ensue. Appropriately designed and properly implemented public policies of regulation, taxation, incentives, and legislation can help prevent this tragic outcome. Such policies, highly specific to each country's and region's particular circumstances, would create an environment in which individuals acting in their own personal best interest at the same time contribute to society's long-term needs. Some confidence in a sustainable future goes a long way. Government has a critical role here, in spite of conservative objections, at least in removing perverse incentives and counterproductive subsidies.
Until we manage to reduce the average human personal discount rate we will continue to auction our species' future on eBay for pennies on the dollar.
Jeff Schweitzer is a scientist, former White House senior policy analyst and author of, Beyond Cosmic Dice: Moral Life in a Random World (Jacquie Jordan, Inc)(http://www.tinyurl.com/CosmicDice). Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Facebook.
soulhangout: Thank you Jeff for another enlightened post nailing down the
Check out this website I found at huffingtonpost.com
Mitchell Bard: Is WikiLeaks' Release of the War Logs Afghanistan's Cronkite Moment?
In light of this week's bombshell revelations about the course of the war in Afghanistan, I read an interesting commentary that grabbed my attention:
"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could."The thing is, as persuasive as this commentary may be, it isn't about Afghanistan. Rather, those words marked the conclusion of Walter Cronkite's CBS Evening News on February 27, 1968, and Cronkite was talking about Vietnam. The trusted newsman's assessment of the war is often credited as the turning point for American public opinion, moving opposition to the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam into the mainstream. Reportedly, upon hearing this commentary, President Lyndon Johnson said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America."
I can't help wonder if the release of the Afghan War Logs by WikiLeaks is our Cronkite moment for Afghanistan. In fact, when I consider the totality of the recent news on our efforts in Afghanistan, I can't reach any other conclusion, and if Cronkite was still alive, I think he'd agree.
I have not reached this pessimistic point easily. After the 9/11 attacks, I was a supporter of President Bush's military response in Afghanistan. And when Bush turned his focus to Iraq, even before we knew of his administration's efforts to manipulate intelligence and the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction, I was troubled that he had chosen to move our focus from a country that harbored the men who planned 9/11 to one that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on our country. And when President Obama made fixing this Bush blunder a center of his foreign policy proposals during the campaign, I agreed with his assessment of the situation and proposal to intensify American efforts there.
But there comes a time when you have to recognize when something isn't working (a skill that Obama has demonstrated from time to time, and one the last president did not possess at all). A time when our leaders have to demonstrate the courage and sound judgment to do what is right, regardless of how political opponents will shamelessly and disgracefully spin the decision into something that is cowardly and risky. And that time, I fear, is now.
What has brought me to this conclusion? It's not just the War Logs, but how they crystallize lessons we have been learning over the last year.
Afghanistan has a history of being unconquerable by foreign forces, something we witnessed first-hand when we helped the mujahideen repel the Soviet Union after its 1979 invasion. What was supposed to make our military action in Afghanistan different was that rather than impose our will on the country, we were there to support the wishes of the Afghan people through democratic elections. A worthy goal (especially in light of the Taliban's role in harboring Osama bin Laden), but, it turns out, maybe not one that can be accomplished (especially after years of Bush neglect).
President Obama undertook a careful analysis of what to do in Afghanistan (something the Republicans shamefully portrayed as dithering), settling on the current counterinsurgency strategy that relies on building trust in government institutions as a way of winning the loyalty of the Afghan people (at the expense of the Taliban).
It was certainly worth a try. But, when the plan was put into practice, we ran into some roadblocks, many of which are highlighted in the War Logs. Generally, we can only do so much in Afghanistan if we don't have a partner to work with, and if we don't have the support of Pakistan.
It all starts with Hamid Karzai. His 2009 election was dogged by allegations of fraud. His government has been accused of being corrupt. He cozied up to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He even threatened to join the Taliban. It's hard to argue that it is worth risking American lives (more than 1,000 so far) and treasure (more than $300 billion) to prop up Karzai.
Similarly, the War Logs illustrate what we have long been told: The Afghan police, army and local government officials are unwilling and/or unable to provide the kind of services the Afghan people need. James Traub, in a compelling piece in the New York Times Magazine on June 15, did a great job of demonstrating the problems U.S. commanders face in trying to support Afghan institutions, from the power of tribal leaders to the ability of the Taliban to intimidate locals.
The War Logs also reveal the civilian casualties caused by U.S. military and intelligence operations. In what is emerging as a Catch-22 situation, the longer we are there, the less we are wanted there by local Afghans, and the harder it is to convince citizens that they will be safe from the Taliban if they throw in their lots with the Americans and the Karzai government.
But the most problematic obstacle raised in the War Logs just may be the evidence that Pakistani intelligence is aiding the Taliban. President Obama has frequently noted that there is no solution to the Afghan question without also addressing Pakistan, a country that receives billions of dollars in American aid. If the Pakistani government is aiding the Taliban, it seems that we have bigger problems than just trying to prop up the Karzai government until it can take over governing the country without us.
So while the mission in Afghanistan began as a necessary operation (remove the Taliban government that supported and harbored the 9/11 perpetrators), was botched by the Bush administration (who shifted resources to Iraq) and was reassessed and refocused by President Obama, our moment may have already passed. We have a corrupt and ineffectual government in Afghanistan (including the police and military), and we have an ally in Pakistan that is aiding the enemy. And the result is an Afghan population that just doesn't have an incentive to choose the government over the Taliban.
Afghanistan just may be the living embodiment of a no-win situation.
We were told if we let the Communists take over Vietnam, the repercussions would be severe. But history found those warnings to be unfounded. So it seems to me we can protect our interests in the region without surrendering American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up an odious government. After more than eight years in Afghanistan (and missed opportunities after early successes), a military solution may no longer be possible.
Which is why it is time to heed Cronkite's 42-year-old words of advice to "negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could."
Time will tell if WikiLeaks' release of the War Logs turns out to be a Cronkite-like turning point, the moment that the American people stop supporting the war in Afghanistan. It seems to me it should be.
Follow Mitchell Bard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MitchellBard
Concerned Women for America - Millennials: Seeking Family but Not Faith
-->Millennials: Seeking Family but Not Faith
7/20/2010
Click for more multimedia content.
Born between 1980 and 1991, the millennial generation - today's 20-somethings - are rooting themselves in family and close relationships. However, unlike previous generations that have turned toward home, faith is not among their priorities. Dr. Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow and Director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, has more findings on this generation, and what it means for the church. Listen | Download
via cwfa.org
Sugar and Old Spice
Sugar and Old Spice
It's 2010 and apparently what's new is a 73-year-old deodorant
July 27, 2010
It's 2010 and apparently what's new is a 73-year-old deodorant. Fresh off its Grand Prix award at the 2010 Cannes International Advertising Festival, Old Spice is now the talk of the social media town based on its "damn, I wish I'd thought of that" two-day social media blitz, where pitchman Isaiah Mustafa personally responded (scantily clad in nothing but his signature towel) to over 180 contacts who engaged "him" and/or the brand via Twitter, YouTube and Facebook comments.His correspondents included key "influencers" ranging from Perez Hilton and George Stephanopoulos to Digg's Kevin Rose and Ashton Kutcher. The social media elite (although the list sounds a lot more like traditional celebrities) was swept up in a wave of narcissistic delight, which in turn reflected itself in a mega-amplification of earned media -- the likes of which have probably never been seen so rapidly and explosively. (See also: "Spice It Up - Did the Old Spice Campaign Work?")
To be sure, the commercial itself is good. Not great, but good. OK, maybe great insofar as it is highly creative, engaging, well executed and amidst a sea of clutter, sameness and mediocrity is about as TiVo-proof as the dying seconds of a tied Super Bowl game. But was it worthy of the crème de la crème of the global advertising film elite? Personally I think the beleaguered 30-second spot took another giant step back this year, especially after the BMW Films, "Campaign for Real Beauty," chocolate loving gorillas and Honda "Cog" of yesteryear. This was a great CPG commercial, which you just get the feeling has been done before, only you just can't quite place it. But that's irrelevant, really.
What is relevant is that television advertising will likely never be the same after this particular approach. With a whiff, spray or spritz of 73-year old scent, the 30-second spot became a conversation starter; a means to an end; the first piece of an ever-expanding puzzle.
Gone are the days of the new media zealots begging to be sent to the shoot so they can think about how best to version, adapt and extend the original assets to the fullest extent of online's potential. Gone are the days of lobbying for the social media navel gazers to be FedExed to the set, armed to the hilt with their HD Flip cameras, M-Audio mixers, Verizon MiFi access points and Twitter apps. Gone are the days of simply plonking a commercial on YouTube for bonus "hits."
This is a game changer. Or at least it will be until sales go south, the CMO moves on and the agency realizes it should have locked in Isaiah Mustafa to a long-term contract and now his residual rights alone rival only LeBron James' appearance fees.
But was this ever about sales? If it was, the results from the overarching campaign would seem to indicate a decent amount of groundswell: Although according to SymphonyIRI, in the 52 weeks ending June 13, sales of the featured product, Red Zone After Hours Body Wash, dropped 7 percent, according to Nielsen, over the past three months, sales jumped 55 percent and in the past month, they rose 107 percent. It's hard to determine how much of this was due to an aggressive couponing campaign which was in market simultaneously, but directionally, there does appear to be a correlation between creative resonance, social momentum and sales. (See also: "Old Spice Campaign Smells Like a Sales Success, Too.")
On the flip side, there's the branding argument. Again -- on the surface -- the jury is out on that. The creative brief seems to have been transplanted into the messaging loud and clear: somewhere down the discovery path, an eager account planner noted an insight that Old Spice was over indexing against female millennials (read: Hello ladies. Look at your man . . . now back to me).
I like to use a simple benchmark or litmus test against differentiation: if there had been no reference to a brand in this commercial, would you have known it was for Old Spice? Or if a different brand (competitive such as Axe or otherwise, like Listerine) had replaced Old Spice, would you have been any the wiser? On both counts, I'd say ownership or association is tenuous at best.
And then there's the prime directive for Old Spice (a brand that is otherwise in perceptual purgatory insofar that it is "still" associated with my Grandfather, may he rest in peace): Old Spice: The mark of a man. It's about as persistent and permanent in my impressionable mind as "Just do it."
Hell, just type "Old Spice" into Google and you'll see both the paid and organic results for the brand proudly bragging about a 73-year heritage that might resonate with a 73-year-old man, but surely not on a female millennial.
But again, perhaps none of this is relevant. After all, the campaign is the earned media belle of the ball in 2010. It's the endless BP gushing well (but in a good way). It's a gift to the marketing community presented on a silver platter in terms of how -- finally -- a campaign should be launched and ultimately sustained. It is as close to integrated as we'll ever see.
It isn't exactly what I'd call a "commitment," but I'd like to give both Procter & Gamble and its agency, Wieden + Kennedy, the benefit of the doubt on this one. I actually think Wieden has shown arguably the best understanding and interpretation of social media and advertising integration than any of its competitors -- most notably, Crispin, Porter + Bogusky, which don't seem to move beyond the wham, bam, thank you ma'am of viral fad of the month.
This isn't a perfect program, but it's without question head and shoulders (wait, is that a competitor?) above anything else the tired and lethargic me-too industry has to offer. I won't be buying Old Spice anytime soon, though, unless I receive my gift pack and personalized YouTube response from Isaiah, but both of those are stories for another day.
Joseph Jaffe is chief interruptor at Powered Inc. He is also the author of Flip the Funnel: How to Use Existing Customers to Gain New Ones. Contact him at jaffe@powered.com or @jaffejuice on Twitter.
Want to write an opinion column? To send your idea and/or a draft, click here
via adweek.com
EU study shows swing to entrepreneurship | Newstalk - Ireland's National Independent Talk Radio Broadcaster
Newstalk Nation
Are you tired of being told what you think without anyone bothering to ask?
We want to recruit loyal listeners to form the Newstalk Nation. We'll email you to ask you your views on what matters to you. It might be about elections, schools, sport, economy or what brings a smile to your face. It's your voice, your station, your nation. It's your chance to be heard.
Click here to join up
via newstalk.ie
Women's Views on News: Entrepreneurship progamme aims to empower African women
« Career or baby or working mum? | Main | Harvard law professor moves a step closer to heading up new US consumer financial protection body »
Entrepreneurship progamme aims to empower African women
The African Women’s Entrepreneurship Programme (AWEP), taking place in Washington, DC, from the end of July, and Kansas City, Missouri, in the first week in August, aims to empower African women and increase their opportunities in business.
As the programme is organised in conjunction with the 2010 United States/sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum (AGOA), women from AGOA-eligible countries can also take part.
The AWEP is organized by the U.S. Department of State and United States Agency for International Development, under the auspices of the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program.
It basically aims to empower African women entrepreneurs to become part of their national and global business network by increasing opportunities for them to use the AGOA programme and expanding opportunities for exports and US investment in sub-Saharan Africa.
Go to AllAfrica.com for the full story.
Alison Clarke on July 27, 2010 in Business and financial news, World news | Permalink ShareThis
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a010536f09b05970b013485bbab34970cListed below are links to weblogs that reference Entrepreneurship progamme aims to empower African women:
Comments
Technological Innovation: Women Versus Men and Entrepreneurship | News Techno
Innovation is often explained in technical terms-tangible products or processes that result from technological development-there has been a preoccupation with rational, analytical innovation models. However, a number of industrial studies have shown that for a technological innovation to succeed three important people involved and seven important conditions to satisfy. The combination of these people and conditions satisfies the need for creativity and implementation. The three key people are:
Creative source: the inventor or originator of the idea that led to the knowledge or vision of something new, the artist of creative endeavor.
The champion: the entrepreneur or manager who pursues the idea, planning, its implication, acquiring resources, and establishing its markets through persistence, planning, organizing, and leadership.
Sponsor: the person or organization that makes possible the champion’s activities and the inventor’s dreams through support. Major countries in Asia are following this technique to acquire the higher position in the world economy. India, in this sense, is struggling hard.
The seven conditions are as follows: Outstanding person for leadership, Operational leader, sufficient potential consumers, Realization of product, Good cooperation among the crucial players, Availability of resources, Cooperation and support from external sources.
Women are the important part of development. No doubt they are taking active participation in the business and industry and doing dual jobs to meet their expenditures. Women of every level and society (high or low-income countries) hop to work. So, the rate of women entrepreneurship is high than men. According to GEM report across the 40 countries in the report, low/middle-income countries showed the highest rates of female early-stage entrepreneurial activity, while high-income countries reported the lowest. Even so, men are more likely to be involved in entrepreneurial activity than women. In high-income countries, men are almost twice as likely to be early-stage or established business owners than women. Across all GEM countries, women in low/middle-income countries (such as Russia and Philippines) exhibited the highest women’s early-stage entrepreneurial activity (39.3% and 22.5%), while high-income countries (such as Belgium and Sweden) reported the lowest (1.0% and 2.3%). A similar situation exists with established businesses. In no countries is the female rate higher than the male rate of established business ownership.
Related posts:
- Bible Versus Quran Versus Sciences (11) the Bat
- Bible Versus Quran Versus Sciences: (8) the Hoopoe
- Samsung Armani: the New Technological Innovation From Samsung
- Linshu Fertilizer Industry, The Focus On Technological Innovation And Transformation To Obtain Good Results
- The Latest Patent Applications: Kernel Of Technological Advancement
- Technological Advances in Permanent Hair Removal, Skin Rejuvenation and Cellulite Treatments
via newstechno.org
Technological Innovation: Women Versus Men and Entrepreneurship | News Techno
Creative source: the inventor or originator of the idea that led to the knowledge or vision of something new, the artist of creative endeavor.
The champion: the entrepreneur or manager who pursues the idea, planning, its implication, acquiring resources, and establishing its markets through persistence, planning, organizing, and leadership.
Sponsor: the person or organization that makes possible the champion’s activities and the inventor’s dreams through support. Major countries in Asia are following this technique to acquire the higher position in the world economy. India, in this sense, is struggling hard.
The seven conditions are as follows: Outstanding person for leadership, Operational leader, sufficient potential consumers, Realization of product, Good cooperation among the crucial players, Availability of resources, Cooperation and support from external sources.
Women are the important part of development. No doubt they are taking active participation in the business and industry and doing dual jobs to meet their expenditures. Women of every level and society (high or low-income countries) hop to work. So, the rate of women entrepreneurship is high than men. According to GEM report across the 40 countries in the report, low/middle-income countries showed the highest rates of female early-stage entrepreneurial activity, while high-income countries reported the lowest. Even so, men are more likely to be involved in entrepreneurial activity than women. In high-income countries, men are almost twice as likely to be early-stage or established business owners than women. Across all GEM countries, women in low/middle-income countries (such as Russia and Philippines) exhibited the highest women’s early-stage entrepreneurial activity (39.3% and 22.5%), while high-income countries (such as Belgium and Sweden) reported the lowest (1.0% and 2.3%). A similar situation exists with established businesses. In no countries is the female rate higher than the male rate of established business ownership.
Related posts:
- Bible Versus Quran Versus Sciences (11) the Bat
- Bible Versus Quran Versus Sciences: (8) the Hoopoe
- Samsung Armani: the New Technological Innovation From Samsung
- Linshu Fertilizer Industry, The Focus On Technological Innovation And Transformation To Obtain Good Results
- The Latest Patent Applications: Kernel Of Technological Advancement
- Technological Advances in Permanent Hair Removal, Skin Rejuvenation and Cellulite Treatments
via newstechno.org
146 Votes Away from Afghanistan Exit
The secret documents released Sunday by WikiLeaks provide 92,000 additional reasons why Congress should stop the US war in Afghanistan. It will take 146 votes on the floor of the House to do so. Call your Representative now at (888) 493-5443 and tell them to vote no on the war funding bill HR 4899.
It was July 1 when 162 Members of the House voted for Congressman Jim McGovern's amendment requiring an exit strategy with a time certain for US combat troops to be withdrawn. The leaked documents underscore why the open ended military commitment to the second most corrupt government on earth, the Karzai government, makes no sense. Under the rules of the House, if these 162 House Members hold their ground today and vote against sending an additional $33 billion for this endless war, the motion to pass the appropriation will be defeated.
The WikiLeaks documents demonstrate why those 162 Members of the House were so right in casting their vote against an open ended military commitment to the government of Afghanistan. As the New York Times editorial page says this morning:
"But the most alarming of the reports were the ones that described the cynical collusion between Pakistan's military intelligence service and the Taliban. Despite the billions of dollars the United States has sent in aid to Pakistan since September 11, they offer powerful new evidence that crucial elements of Islamabad's power structure have been actively helping to direct and support the forces attacking the American-led military coalition."
And then there is the previously hidden report by the US Civil Affairs Office, detailing why the insurgency strategy is doomed to fail: "The people of Afghanistan keep loosing (sic) their trust in the government because of the high amount of corrupted government officials. The general view of the Afghans is that the current government is worst (sic) than the Taliban." This makes any counterinsurgency strategy mission impossible to achieve regardless of the number of soldiers who are sent into harm's way.
It is unconscionable to send American men and women to Afghanistan to risk their lives for a strategy that is built on quicksand.
It will take one-third of the House to defeat the Supplemental Appropriation under the rules that apply to this vote (it is being brought up through a suspension of the rules which requires the support of at least two-thirds of the Members). Win Without War has asked its forty member organizations to e-mail their respective members, asking them to contact their Members of Congress and urge them to be one of the 146.
If they do, the House will today take the historic step of saying no to the Supplemental Appropriation for Afghanistan and yes to the US soldiers who they have placed in harm's way. All that is required is 146 of the 162 McGovern amendment allies to hold their ground and stand tall today.
Tom Andrews, a former Member of Congress from the first Congressional District of Maine, is the National Director of Win Without War, a coalition of forty-two national membership organizations including the National Council of Churches, the NAACP, the National Organization of Women, the Sierra Club, and MoveOn. He is also co-founder of New Security Action.
via commondreams.org
Inner Child Inspirational quote of the day | Soul Hangout
via soulhangout.net
Have a soulful and playful day/night my beautiful friends on both sides of the sun.
3 Clear Social Entrepreneurship Trends from Echoing Green | Social Entrepreneurship
Seed funding and support organization Echoing Green sees a huge number of early-stage social entrepreneurs apply to its fellowship program each year. They've just released some aggregate data that comes straight from a survey filled out by their semifinalists, and the information is fascinating. Among the trends are the youthfulness of founders, changing types of previous experience, and increasingly innovative organizational structures.
Trend 1: Social Entrepreneurs are starting early. 55% of EG finalists over the last four years have been under 35. In 2009, they made up 70% of the semifinalist pool. In 2010, 65 of the finalists indicated that they had first studied the issue they are working on in college. This certainly resonates with what I'm seeing - which is an explosion of programs catering to the passion of young people (particularly under- and recent graduates) and attempting to provide skills and discipline.
Trend 2: Previous nonprofit experience still the norm, but not a necessity. In 2010 15% fewer of EG semifinalists had previously worked in nonprofits or governments. 49% had worked for for-profits or been self employed, which was up 13% from the previous year. A little over a third of them had previously founded an organization, of which about two-thirds were still in existence. All of this is a hugely positive sign to me, as it suggests that there is more movement from the business space into social entrepreneurship, which I think is a natural next step.
Trend 3: A strong growth towards hybrid organizations. This is another one that seems pretty positive to me. 2010 saw 37% of EG semifinalists structure their organizations as hybrid nonprofit/for-profit models, which is up 20% from the previous year. The number of people starting pure nonprofits was down 20% and the number of pure for-profits remained consistent, at only 8% of the total.
Some additional demographic data that was interesting: Almost 50% of the semifinalists in 2010 were Millennials, the most of any generational group. Just over 25% were African-American, which is awesome to see.
This information is really useful for anyone interested in where this field is going, and I'm glad Echoing Green took the time to summarize it and make it available. More than anything, I think it validates the growing appeal of solving social problems to for-profit entrepreneurs, an essential next step for our field to continue to grow.
Learn more about the survey on Echoing Green's website.
Photo credit: Echoing Green - Social Change Starts Here
Tags: -->
What is the scope of MBA in Entrepreneurship Programs? | Online MBA
What is the scope of MBA in Entrepreneurship Programs?
As we all know MBA has a reputed stand in the industry when it comes to work with top multi- national companies. So, all you aspiring professionals must try your hands on MBA!
Business management courses delivers knowledge in management, data stock, data withdrawal and business study to categorize, track and develop key processes and information of any organization. Over all, it makes you fully skilled and equipped with fight against any situation and grows the business further. If we talk about any specific business course that guarantees a success in your professional life by identifying and monitoring the trends of corporate, competitor and market performance then MBA in Entrepreneurship programs would be the best one to choose!
Scope of MBA in Entrepreneurship programs
MBA in Entrepreneurship programs (MBA- ED) is a course specially designed for those who are interested to gain a command over hard core business decisions. In today’s competitive business era, you need to be ahead of others to get the best. Business degree in Entrepreneurship programs trains you to be a leader in your relevant filed. MBA- ED is a must have for small scale business owners or any individual who wants to stand out in the industry by effective handling their ventures and by taking it to the next level of success. Any one who possesses this degree automatically comes in the limelight through their unmatched skills to develop business. Hence, becomes the first preference of many renowned companies.
Career Prospects in MBA Entrepreneurship
Any one with a business degree in Entrepreneurship is all set to rule the industry with their own skill and knowledge. Apart from this, all companies love to hire professionals who need less training and can individually handle the business projects. Here by the scope of career growth in this field is immensely high!
MBA in entrepreneurship is the perfect course for the people who want to run their own business. Know more about the business management school and executive mba programs.
via onlinemba.co.in
Is Midlife Entrepreneurship for You? | The World Business
Is Midlife Entrepreneurship for You?
Last Updated on Sunday, 25 July 2010 05:12 Written by admin Sunday, 25 July 2010 05:12
Do you think that entrepreneurship is just for the young? That anyone past 50 is simply too old to start up a business? That midlife is the time when you should be thinking about retiring and preparing to live on less? If you do and if you are, then midlife entrepreneurship isn’t for you.
However, if you are someone who . . .
* likes to call the shots and live life on your own terms,
* has a strong desire for autonomy and independence,
* is a self-motivated starter,
* knows how to evaluate and take calculated risks,
* is highly self-motivated,
. . . then midlife entrepreneurship could be right for you.
I come from a long line of entrepreneurs. My grandfather owned his own business and worked as an electrician up until the day he died. He was 98. My father owned his own private practice and worked as an expert psychological witness up until three months before his passing. I, too, am an entrepreneur. And, like my father and grandfather before me, I enjoy my work, find meaning and value in what I do, and am passionate about making a difference in the world.
What about you? Could midlife entrepreneurship be right for you?
The Changing Face of Retirement
Retirement, and how we view it, has changed dramatically since the beginning of the 20th century. Before pension plans became standard offerings to U.S. workers during World War II, most people continued working until their death, relying on personal savings and family support to sustain them. While 65 is considered the normal retirement age in the U.S., many of today’s midlife entrepreneurs eschew that age, preferring instead to remain actively involved in their businesses well into their 80s. With Baby Boomers comprising nearly half the country’s self-employed workers (7.4 million), entrepreneurship among seniors is growing (so say reports from AARP and the U.S. Department of Labor). People turning 50 today still have lots of life ahead of them, and each year more than four million men and women join their ranks.
So, what is retirement, then? Is it the time when you stop work completely or is it the time when you retire from one job and begin another? Does it start at a certain age or depend on the number of years you have served in a specific capacity? Is it based on your physical condition or your personal choice?
10 Reasons for Becoming a Midlife Entrepreneur
1. You’re healthy with many years ahead of you.
2. You want to stay involved and engaged.
3. You enjoy generating extra income.
4. You get to build a business around something you enjoy and are passionate about.
5. You have a full Rolodex and 20-30 years of experience to back you.
6. You want the independence and flexibility that comes from working for yourself.
7. You have confidence and experience, and know what you’re good at.
8. You may already have a pool of money saved to help finance your business.
9. You can do business from home, using the Internet as your storefront.
10. As an entrepreneur, you aren’t discriminated against because of your age.
So what does retirement mean to entrepreneurial men or women who have successfully woven passion into what they do as small business owners? Do they plan on retiring when they reach the age of 65? Do they even want to?
If you are happily turning your passion into profit, it’s hard to think about stopping. Oh, sure, you could use some time away, an extended vacation, even a more relaxed pace. But do you actually want to retire and cease what you’re doing? Or would you rather stay involved, continuing to contribute, and enjoying life fully?
These days retirement is what you make it. At present, the Baby Boomer generation is redefining retirement, shunning the conventional traditions of stopping, ceasing, and leaving in favor of staying involved, continuing to contribute, and following their passion. Like so many of them, you, too, might find that there are some very compelling reasons to either become or continue being an entrepreneur, well past midlife.
Successful Small Business Start Up Coach, Consultant, & Author takes the fear out of starting up businesses by providing value, inspiration, and direction to entrepreneurial women transforming lives and making a difference in the world. Accidental Pren-her
Tags: Entrepreneurship, Midlife
This entry was posted on Sunday, July 25th, 2010 at 5:12 pm and is filed under Entrepreneurship. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.Leave a Reply
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)