I’ve got a new word for my small, but growing collection of useful foreign phrases and euphemisms: schlimmbesserung. It’s a German term for a well-meaning improvement which actually makes things worse. We’ve all encountered those and, truth be told, we’ve all implemented a few as well. So now whenever someone suggests that you throw out that proven milling machine/application software/bonus scheme for something new and whizzy, you can ask them to reassure you that it won’t be a schlimmbesserung. No-one will know what you mean, but you’ll sound very cosmopolitan. And it’s always good to get one back on the jargoneers.

Anyone got any others?

More than 55 international economists, including 5 Nobel Laureates, have been working for two years to assess more than 50 solutions, provide an in-depth assessment of the costs and benefits of those solutions, and prioritize them to address some of the biggest challenges faced by the world. The project, known as the Copenhagen Consensus, has recently released its report. What are the problems to be addressed?

In alphabetical order:

• Air pollution
• Conflicts
• Disease
• Education
• Global warming
• Malnutrition and hunger
• Sanitation and water
• Subsidies and trade barriers
• Terrorism
• Women and development

To make the project plausible, the panel had a notional budget of US$75 billion to spend over 4 years. They selected 30 initiatives, ranked in order of effectiveness for the money spent. The summary of the recommended solutions (available online as a .pdf document download) makes for fascinating reading. There will be some very surprised faces in the major developed countries (or maybe not). The top ranked recommendation is supplying micro-nutrients to children in poor countries. This achieves a dramatic payback for a relatively small amount. Sounds very commendable. However, the second highest ranked recommendation is to implement the Doha trade liberalisation agenda - ie. free trade including agriculture will do more good in the world than every other initiative bar one.

The recommended projects and the proposed budget are all doable. We can only hope that they will be given serious consideration by those who decide such things.

These are two subjects not normally seen together in a headline, but my intrepid exploration in recent weeks of the establishments recommended by the UK’s Good Pub Guide has, of necessity, also involved an investigation of their gentlemen’s facilities. These pubs usually have toilets better kept than most, but they still suffer that bane of the public loo, the electric hand dryer - noisy, unreliable, and either scalds you or doesn’t dry. But salvation is at hand(!), thanks to the maestros of design at Dyson. They’ve clearly thought about what the hand dryer is supposed to do, where it needs to operate, and the benefits for both the user (such as me) and the operator (the pub landlord).

For the user, the Dyson Airblade is faster (just 10 seconds), safer (ambient temperature air), cleaner (no touch operation, microbially-filtered air) and quieter (less noise in operation and only operates while your hands pass through the air stream).

For the landlord, the Dyson Airbade is elegant, quieter (not disturbing the pub atmosphere) and its annual running costs are less than one quarter those of the other air dryers (thanks to its lower power usage).

Not only great functionality (as I can attest), but an easy sell as well. Now that’s good design.

Seth Godin lists 34 steps to go through before you send an email. I particularly liked #34:

If I had to pay 42 cents to send this email, would I?

Not a bad test. If you had to buy a postage stamp to have that email delivered, would you? And even more telling, would you buy postage stamps for that email to be delivered to each and every person you’ve put in the To, Cc and Bcc boxes?

The prize for the most “something” headline so far this year must go to Max Keiser for his Huffington Post article (repeated in the title of this post). I just couldn’t find a word to describe it. Anyway, in case you haven’t guessed, it’s a rant against US investment banks:

Just before the crash of 1929 huge trusts operated by the largest banks on Wall Street were buying each other’s stock to try and delay the inevitable. It’s like the passengers of the Titanic trying to drink all the water in the ocean to avoid sinking.

And:

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it fall, does that stop Goldman, or Merrill, or some other investment bank from collateralizing the perceived sound and selling it as a hedge against some statistical probability worked out by an autistic ‘quant’ on loan from Bellevue working on the proprietary trading desk?

Is that the sound of one hand clapping, or is that the sound I make when I learn these mirror images of nothing-backed-bonds are in my pension account courtesy of non-falling trees sold by Merrill to boost their stock option related bonuses?

This man deserves a prize for inventive invective.

Some years ago (in 1999, I think), I was invited to address the Royal Society in New Zealand on “The future of work”. I assumed that I’d been invited because of my profile as a tech company CEO, and that I was expected to espouse the vision of technology transforming work and the workplace. My co-presenter was noted New Zealand academic, Dr Norman Kingsbury. Norman’s advice to me was to “surprise them”. Unfortunately, I’ve lost my speech notes, but, if I recall correctly, the gist of my presentation introduction was:

• The exploding ability to store, find, order, and connect information of all types will radically increase our use of knowledge and enable more innovation and new types of business;
• Technologies will merge, so that a successor to both the mobile phone and PC will become your primary means of accessing that vast pool of information and services (albeit linked to physically restrained appliances such as displays, printers and high capacity communication links);
• The internet and the services available on it will eventually become so cost effective that few will bother with in-house facilities, other than access to those physical devices I mentioned.

This was standard fare, with everyone nodding as I reiterated points others had made on many occasions. However, my main theme was why people come together into teams, workplaces and cities to work. Fundamentally, it is to interact with each other and to gain access to services and goods. It is the bringing together of people in informal and formal regular physical contact that has enabled society to develop to where it is today. Workplaces, cities, and organisation such as companies are the means of doing that.

This led me into an attack on a myth popular at the time that cities were inefficient because of traffic, pollution, commuting time, etc.. Telecommuting and teleconferencing from smaller centres was seen as the great future for clerical and knowledge-based workers. It was a naive idea even then. Yes, there are and will be some who can work truly location-independently, but the vast majority will still be most effective in coming together in one place. I won’t reiterate the rest of the speech, which covered access to knowledge, goods, services and communities, but my conclusion was that work in the future will not be much different from work in the past. Tools would change; speed, reach, mobility and connectedness would all increase, giving companies and workers greater freedom of where/when/how to work; but fundamentally, most people would still come together in cities, organisations and workplaces.

This clearly wasn’t what the audience expected to hear, and some dismissed me as a Luddite. However, in nearly ten years, I’ve heard nothing to persuade me that I was wrong. On the contrary, I’m more convinced than ever:

• Companies are increasingly consolidating sites, campuses and offices into larger footplate buildings in fewer locations;
• Most phone calls, text messages and emails are between people within walking distance of each other. The second biggest category are between people within a short drive of each other (for social and business purposes).
• Rents and property prices in cities are still much higher than anywhere else (and have been less affected by the current property crunches in various countries). Most organisations and households clearly still choose to be located in cities.
• Contrary to popular belief, cities generate less carbon and other pollutants, and use less energy per capita than towns, villages and rural households. It’s only because cities concentrate such use that they seem worse.

We may become more mobile and connected, but workplaces and cities will still be our primary places to do work.

Having been in the UK for just over a fortnight, I had thought to write a short post on similarities of current issues in Britain and New Zealand. However, Owld Grumbleton, who’s over here as well, has beaten me to it, so here’s his take:

1. The Labour-led governments are in trouble, after multiple terms in office.
2. House prices are stalling and predicted to fall, with owners of multiple highly-leveraged rental properties expected to be hardest hit .
3. The economy is faltering but not expected to go through the floor.
4. The retirement of the baby boomers is now starting to bite, with major gaps in most technical and managerial professions. Although the current downturn will alleviate the problem, it won’t help the solution as firms skimp on recruiting and developing young talent.
5. Violent crime, uncouth behaviour and increased alcohol consumption are constant features of news reports and general discussion.
6. School exam systems are still lambasted on all sides.
7. People expect lower taxes, but the government is proving stingy with minor reductions in this year’s budget.
8. Environmental awareness is growing, but government initiatives are often clumsy, inconsequential and fail to address the major issues.
9. City traffic is a nightmare.
10. The local wine industry is thriving. (Yes, you read that right.)

OG is more political than me, but it’s hard to dodge the similarities in attitudes to the incumbent governments. I’d add a few more similarities:

• There is heaps of cool stuff going on business-wise, if you look for it.
• Everyone’s screaming about petrol prices.
• The universities want more money (when did they not?)
• There’s really good food. wine, beer and cider, and and there’s really appalling food, wine, beer and cider.
• There’s increasing talk of protectionism, under the false flag of environmentalism.
• The countryside is beautiful.
• The cultural life is thriving.
• There are great people, nice people, naff people and scary people.
• The media tend to paint the picture darker than it really is.
• NZ sauvignon blanc and pinot noir rule their wine store/supermarket niches (pinot gris is starting to move up the ranks too).

Chris Dillow writes about a report (pdf) into the economic benefits of being tall. The report’s academic authors have estimated that every inch of extra height results in an extra 1.5% in earnings for both men and women in Britain. In part, this is attributed to better early nutrition (tallness and IQ are both enhanced), but even allowing for similar educational achievements, being taller still yields an earnings premium. The report doesn’t say why, but Dillow speculates:

One possibility is that employers taste-discriminate towards the tall. Another is that tall people - specially men - have more self-confidence and so are more likely to blag their way into good jobs. Or it could be that tall people have valuable skills not measured by formal academic qualifications; they are wittier, better-looking, more charming and - yes Megan - better in bed.

Like 6ft 2 Dillow, I find this third explanation the most compelling, as must the BBC, who wrote about similar Polish findings in 2000. However, She-who-must-be-obeyed, standing at under 5ft, might have different opinions to which I will of course defer. I also totally understood the proposition that CEOs would rather be tall and bald than short and hirsute, and that got short shrift from SWMBO too. Ouch! No dear, I wasn’t trying to be funny; honest.

In The Huffington Post, Henry Blodget offers a crash course on how to be an economist:

1. Analyze what has happened.
2. Conclude that the future might be different…or it might be the same.
3. Pick one!

Blogging may be bit slack for the next few days.  I’m in the Koru Lounge at Auckland International, waiting for my flight to London, where I’ll be based for the next  3 months or thereabouts.  Having moved out of our place in Wellington, with all our stuff in storage, we’re of no fixed abode, with just our suitcases, cell phones and laptops. It’s a very strange feeling, almost like bunking off school, but not quite; I’ve got some business to do, in between being chief bag carrier for She-who-must-be-obeyed.  I’ve also signed up for the UK branch of KEA(Kiwi Expats Assn) to check it out for myself (everyone else seemingly is a fan).   Now, just time for one more pinot gris before boarding.

No time to blog - moving out of our current place of abode today. 57 steps up to the road. Ah, the joys of living in Wellington!

In the meantime, check out this excellent analogy of Finnish ski-jumpers and momentum investors, from Rawdon Adams at Capital Chronicle.

Every developed nation seems to have a Rich List complied by a respected business magazine or major newspaper. For English speakers, New Zealand has a Rich List; Australia, too. So do the USA, Canada and Britain.  Highly skilled forensic financial analysts (i.e some journo with a minor English Lit degree and 2 years on the business pages) undertake take deep research (a quick skim of public share registries, guesstimates of property values, and wild stabs at private company valuations) to carefully develop (over a long lunch at the Queens Head & Artichoke) a ranking of the top plutocrats among us (while completely missing many with real dough).

Continuing their deeply meaningful exercise of the business journalism profession, The Times Online’s Snakes & Ladders blog has come up with what it takes to make The Sunday Times Rich List (i.e. Britain’s supposedly Richest 2000, or thereabouts):

1. Get yourself a Y chromosone (sic)- there are 1,019 men and just 96 women on the list. (Ed: so what gender are the others?)
2. Celebrate your birthday in Spring - Taurus and Gemini are the most popular star signs in the list.
3. Have a foreign birth certificate - of the top 10 richest people only three are British born.
4. Go to work - 762 of the richest 1,000 people are self-made, only 238 inherited their bank balance.
5. Get a mortgage, or two - land and property is (are) the most popular way(s) of making money.
6. Live in the South East - the majority of rich people live in London and south east England.
7. Keep on making it - if you want to get into the top 50 you will need more than a billion pounds.
8. Invest wisely - property tycoon Vincent Tchenguiz has lost £650 million in the credit crunch, I’m guessing he regrets his decision to invest in supermarket chain Sainsbury’s.
9. You don’t have to (be) glamorous - yes, there are plenty of footballers and pop stars listed, but not all those listed made their money in glamorous industries: James and John Martin made £200 million from their ejector seat business, Alan Murphy made £200 million from loo rolls, Peter Salson has pocketed £175 million from coat hangers and Doreen Lofthouse has made £165 million from cough lozenges.
10. Give it away - the rich list isn’t all about keeping it to yourself. The Sunday Times Giving List gives credit for philantropic (sic) acts. Top spot goes to hedge fund manager Christopher Hohn who has recently donated £235.8 million to Aid/HIV, education and humanitarian causes.

By the way, you need at least £40 million to make the UK’s Rich 2000 list (sigh).

Even non-techbiz readers have probably heard of Facebook, and may be wondering what all the fuss is about. I’m not a member, so I can’t really tell you, other than to say that I turn down loads of requests to join various “social network” sites, and so do many people I know, including ones much younger than me. In my case, I don’t need the noise (I get too much stuff every day as it is) and I am not interested in the so-called networking features. I am on on business networking site LinkedIn, but only to let former colleagues, clients, etc. keep up with my current email addresses (and vice versa).

Anyway, in the style of “Here comes another bubble“, I offer you “The Facebook Anthem“. (Warning - language may offend).

Nothing to do with business, but good fun. Try it at Shadowfire.

Like The Clash, London is calling me. As foreshadowed late last year, I’m off to the Big Smoke in 4 weeks time, for a 3 month stay. So if you want my attention on anything before I go, get in quick. If you’d like my help on any European projects while I’m up on the top of the planet, let’s talk soon. My email and phone will still work of course, so to those who need to get hold of me, don’t let distance put you off. Just don’t ring in the middle of the night.

Given the date, I thought you’d all enjoy this refresher course in modern finance from Peter Sinclair, Professor of Economics at the University of Birmingham (as recommended by Willem Buiter, otherwise known as Financial Times blogger Maverecon).

In my ongoing global search for daft business publication titles, I’ve found that someone at no less an institution than the Harvard Business School has published a ‘conversation starter‘ article drawing on Dolly Parton’s latest song about “‘livin’, givin’, forgivin’, and some lovin.’”

Apparently, “Better Get to Livin’”:

offers insights that every leader ought to keep at the ready….

Giving. Leaders give of themselves so others can succeed….

Forgiving. People make mistakes….

Loving. Apply this to your work…..

Most important, get to living….. Leaders who cannot let go of the “woulda, coulda, shoulda” are locked in a self-perpetuated cycle of negativity that hinders personal growth as well as alienates the very people the individual should be leading.

Ah well, at least it makes an attention-grabbing headline.

I’m afraid this video doesn’t help the cause. Also check out the Geeks are Sexy website.

USA Today reports that CEOs would prefer to be tall and bald, rather than short and coiffed. I have no comment, other than to offer you the picture on this blog’s masthead, which must surely illustrate the standard to which these guys are aspiring. Alternatively, check out Steve Balmer from Microsoft.