Category Archives: Business/Economics

So much for the experts

Or commentators at least. From Gideon Rachman in the FT:

The (Davos) meeting took place against a background of crashing stock markets, panicky interest-rate cuts and a massive bank fraud. The global financial system is now so complicated that nobody really knows how deep its problems run. This central “known unknown” means that all the subsequent big questions are much harder to answer. Will America face a serious recession? It all depends. How bad will the knock-on effects be for the rest of world? Search me. How should politicians and regulators react? Difficult to say.

So the august analysis of Mr Rachman is: “I dunno”. Thanks, Gideon.

I’m being flippant though. The thrust of his column is on the looming battles for food, oil and water. Food, you say? Oh, yes. It’s very much on the cards.

US imperialism

Gideon Rachman, the FT’s chief foreign affairs columnist, says “the challenge for the US now will be to avoid sliding straight from imperialism to isolationism”. The imperial idea became fashionable in 2003, he notes, when it was driven by the likes of Dick Cheney and other conservatives. It has declined in popularity since.

Imperial analogies still fascinate America. But the latest American books on empire are markedly less optimistic than the ones appearing a couple of years ago. Cullen Murphy’s Are We Rome? – which made the best-seller lists this year – argues that the US is in danger of emulating Rome’s decline and fall by succumbing to Roman-style corruption and arrogance. America needs to rediscover its civic virtues.

Rome is the empire to which most parallels are drawn, which is a fair enough point when you consider how much Roman imagery and ideas have been incorporated into American institutions. Rome, however, did not fall because of “corruption and arrogance”, though these did play a role in its decline. Economic mismanagement and rampant inflation were major contributors to the empire’s collapse — and these are lessons from which the US (and other world powers) can learn.

The conservatives who embraced the word “empire” a few years ago were being deliberately provocative. If America was indeed in something like an “imperial” mood in 2003, it simply meant the US was determined to use its economic and military pre-eminence to change the world. If that involved invading, occupying and reshaping whole countries, so be it.

Four years on, “imperialism” looks a lot harder and less attractive. America’s generals fret publicly that their formidable military machine could be “broken” in Iraq. The fiscal deficit is mounting and the dollar is falling.

However, Rachman points to a future for Amercia’s global position — because it is so tied to the world’s economic well-being.

China, India and even a resurgent Russia are emulating America by trading their way to greatness. Their ruling elites are directly enriched by globalisation.

I wonder if the story will change in 10 or 15 years’ time. Will China have overcome most of its internal problems and truly emerged as a world power? Will India be hot on its heels? Or will the impending climate catastrophe lead to an entirely different world order?

Microsoft

Whythawk over on Scholars & Rogues has written an interesting piece on Microsoft’s business strategy.

He points out that while the computer desktop “may have gone into a terminal holding pattern”, gaming and social networking have exploded (Halo 3 has made the computing giant a fortune, while its investment in Facebook shows how the established business players are flocking to get a piece of the rising action).

But the passage I liked best was the explanation for why Vista hasn’t taken off:

With each iteration [of Windows] Microsoft learned and improved. When XP came out it all seemed to come together.

It’s easy to mock Microsoft, but it’s just as easy to mock Toyota or Hyundai or any of the motor manufacturers that aim squarely in the middle-market. If you’re a super-geek (Linux) or super-artiste (Apple) then Microsoft seems very middle-class.

But 90% of the work I do (and most office-workers) is word-processing and spreadsheets. I haven’t needed a faster machine or better office package since 2001. I still use my same version of Office and XP from then. It’s stable and more than sufficient.

Many people felt the same way. Hence the rather hum-drum response to Vista.

Agree of disagree? You know where the comments box is…

Links o' the day

The next Microsoft. Robert Cringely looks at “where Google is screwing up, why, and what they should do about it”.

‘Cool City’ to save 60% of its energy. A Japanese team wants to build an environmentally sound city in the UAE.

VerseDay: The macabre and fantastic in verse. I’ve never linked to poetry before, so get it while it’s going.

How to argue productively. It’s possible, apparently.

Make your own lifesize Jabba the Hutt. Oh come on, who hasn’t wanted this?

And the Super Mario theme, remixed for your hardcore pleasure:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3PeTItQi-8[/youtube]

Green Google

Google aims to produce 50 megawatts of electricity by 2012.

To put it in context, Ireland’s biggest power station, Moneypoint, produces 855 megawatts and is supposed to be able to cater for 40% of the country’s needs (although the claim is made on the ESB website, a spokeswoman recently said it produces 800 megawatts, or 25% of Ireland’s demand).

But that’s an aside. Google going green makes sense — if it can produce its own power it will increase its independence, limit the risk of blackouts on the main grid, have energy sources close to its centres and, just as importantly, will garner further goodwill.

Data centres in particular gulp down electricity, so it is a sound strategy to have the power source as nearby as possible.

Perhaps it will help fuel the Google global conquest that Damien has predicted.