I am increasingly convinced that doing a triathlon next summer is a good idea. The exact variant is yet to be determined, but I'm starting to think that maybe a sprint distance at 750m swimming, 40km cycling and 10km running is a good way to get acquainted with the sport. So, why triathlons? The rationalized answer is because practicing the three different sports may in fact be more healthy in the long run when compared to only running, which itself puts a fair bit of pressure on joints and whatnot when running around the pavements in the Helsinki area. But that's not the real reason. The real reason of course is because I seriously want a new roadbike and what better way to rationalize the acquisition than to state that I absolutely need one for a triathlon.
Anyway, cycling and running should not be too difficult. The thing I'm slightly worried about is swimming and the fact that it's about a decade or so since I've last done any swimming. I'm just not that into the whole water business and I've never really liked spending time on beaches and such. You just get sand everywhere and you can't even dress like a human since it's too bloody hot and typically there aren't even shades around. But yeah, swimming is quite relevant from the perspective of a triathlon and fortunately enough it's also the first part of the shebang, meaning that if I happen to drown, at least I didn't waste effort in cycling and running. Fail fast, if you will.
So, swimming then needs to be tackled and naturally you need the appropriate attire to swim, namely the swimming suit. And oh joy, here we stumble on the age old argument about whether or not men can wear swimming briefs ("Speedos") or not, and of course I can't let a fight like this slide by without taking a stance. And of course the answer is that the only appropriate way to dress is with swimming briefs, or "Speedos". Period. End of story. It's as simple as that.
If you think about it, it's in fact quite obvious and I don't understand why there even is such a big fuss about the topic. First of all, swimming is exercising and when exercising, your attire is based on functionality. When training, it doesn't matter if you look stupid or not, the point is that you must dress in a functional fashion. I'm always baffled when you see women in polo shirts and sporting nail polish show up in gyms and pretend to work out. I go to gyms to work out and get sweaty, ergo I dress appropriately and don't really care whether it fits my sartorial image or not. And in terms of swimming, the appropriate and functional way to dress in in swimming briefs: they offer better movement ability and the fact that they are not a tent (unlike the things the Americans wear) you can actually swim more efficiently. And when you're done and leaving the swimming pool, they also dry fast and don't take as much space.
Now, someone will of course start bitching and moaning about the fact that they look ugly when you're on the beach and women will never like you if you wear "Speedos". Those just demonstrate prejudice and small mindedness. And besides, the point is moot since there is absolutely no reason why a civilized person would go on the sand to grill themselves in the first place. So that point is purely hypothetical anyway. Instead of being chavs, civilized men instead will spend their summers doing something productive, like sailing or playing sports, and dress appropriately. And when just lounging around, they shall anyway wear long trousers (preferrably linen or some other lightweight fabric) and polo shirts to look reasonable.
So there you go, the whole argument about briefs or not briefs when going swimming is hereby solved once and for all.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Decoupling and deconstruction
One of my pet theories is that the increasing level of infrastructure (security, transport, capital, ...) will decrease the size of companies. This summer it appears that the oil and gas industry is experiencing a trend of spin-offs and splitting of companies, without even regulator involvement. First Marathon Oil spun off Marathon Petroleum and in today's Financial Times ConocoPhillips announced its intention of splitting itself into two. Interestingly enough after yesterday's announcement the markets rewarded ConocoPhillips with and increase of 7.5% in valuation. So whereas nuclear scientifically fusion energy seems to often fail to materialize in the corporate world, fission certainly seems to have worked in this case.
But of course some caution should be applied before we dive into the theory of infrastructures and company sizes. Without being an expert on oil and gas, my guess is that the industry in itself is in the midst of a turmoil and from an investor perspective I would be careful as my common sense says that peak oil will have most likely already happened and that the industry, at least in terms of oil, will is already declining and buy-and-hold strategy will at this point would only result in tears in a matter of years. But another driver may be increased competition in declining markets and the inability for a large organism to adapt rapidly enough, further held back by the immense amount of effort wasted in internal communication and other functions which spin out of control as a function of company size.
It will, however, be interesting to keep an eye on what is happening and whether or not the benefits of these fission exercises will be sustainable, or whether the markets merely rewarded the companies for making any type of effort.
But of course some caution should be applied before we dive into the theory of infrastructures and company sizes. Without being an expert on oil and gas, my guess is that the industry in itself is in the midst of a turmoil and from an investor perspective I would be careful as my common sense says that peak oil will have most likely already happened and that the industry, at least in terms of oil, will is already declining and buy-and-hold strategy will at this point would only result in tears in a matter of years. But another driver may be increased competition in declining markets and the inability for a large organism to adapt rapidly enough, further held back by the immense amount of effort wasted in internal communication and other functions which spin out of control as a function of company size.
It will, however, be interesting to keep an eye on what is happening and whether or not the benefits of these fission exercises will be sustainable, or whether the markets merely rewarded the companies for making any type of effort.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Don Quijote and EU's fight against credit raters
Amusingly enough EU seems to have been caugh with its trousers down by the credit raters, who have in the past weeks downgraded a couple of more EU members into the junk bond category. And as appears to already be typical for the eurocrats, the approach now is to focus on the annoying smoke by attacking the credit raters instead of addressing the real problem, namely that of the horrible state of competitiveness and finances of its member states.
As part of the latest news today, a couple of EU commissars have been making interesting statements. Firstly there is supposedly a cartel of the top three credit raters, according to Viviane Redding. Well, judging by the past few years, the level of competence demonstrated by the raters in regards to e.g. evaluating the credit worthiness of subprime mortgage CDOs and the whole shebang, one would assume that entry barriers for a new rater wouldn't be very high. That is assuming that a new entrant could provide more credible ratings. I'm not an expert, but I fail to see how a cartel would actually work here. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but in any event I do agree that maybe more competition would be better, but rushing out and calling cartel without credible proof seems somewhat weird.
Secondly the fact that raters will change ratings has apparently caught another commissar by surprise. Well, you know, assessing the situation and changing ratings accordingly is precisely what raters do, as surprising as it might be. And even more surprising undoubtedly is that if raters don't see improvements in the actions and the expected outcomes of the actions, ratings will drop. Perhaps raters could talk with the parties that are being rated about different things, but ultimately I understood that the whole point of having third parties perform ratings was that investors who want more information on which to act could get a somewhat reliable, unbiased and objective assessment of the situation. Interestingly enough, however, it appears that historically the raters, e.g. in the subprime case, may have had conflicting interests and biases towards rating subprime mortgage CDOs higher than they should have, which I think then comes back to the whole situation where I personally would like to see raters remaining somewhat detached and distant from the parties who are likely to gain or lose basing on the ratings.
But all of this is ultimately very much moot as the fundamental issue still remains: the EU has made a total hash of things and it should now focus on fixing the core causes of the whole trouble, i.e. increasing the competitiveness and entrepreneurial activities while decreasing the corruption and inertia in the troubled member states. If this isn't done, then ultimately arranging bail outs and negotiating loan terms is pointless as the loans will never be repaid unless the countries actually get their financial growth back on track. And while this is going on, maybe EU shold resist the temptation of lashing out at windmills...
As part of the latest news today, a couple of EU commissars have been making interesting statements. Firstly there is supposedly a cartel of the top three credit raters, according to Viviane Redding. Well, judging by the past few years, the level of competence demonstrated by the raters in regards to e.g. evaluating the credit worthiness of subprime mortgage CDOs and the whole shebang, one would assume that entry barriers for a new rater wouldn't be very high. That is assuming that a new entrant could provide more credible ratings. I'm not an expert, but I fail to see how a cartel would actually work here. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but in any event I do agree that maybe more competition would be better, but rushing out and calling cartel without credible proof seems somewhat weird.
Secondly the fact that raters will change ratings has apparently caught another commissar by surprise. Well, you know, assessing the situation and changing ratings accordingly is precisely what raters do, as surprising as it might be. And even more surprising undoubtedly is that if raters don't see improvements in the actions and the expected outcomes of the actions, ratings will drop. Perhaps raters could talk with the parties that are being rated about different things, but ultimately I understood that the whole point of having third parties perform ratings was that investors who want more information on which to act could get a somewhat reliable, unbiased and objective assessment of the situation. Interestingly enough, however, it appears that historically the raters, e.g. in the subprime case, may have had conflicting interests and biases towards rating subprime mortgage CDOs higher than they should have, which I think then comes back to the whole situation where I personally would like to see raters remaining somewhat detached and distant from the parties who are likely to gain or lose basing on the ratings.
But all of this is ultimately very much moot as the fundamental issue still remains: the EU has made a total hash of things and it should now focus on fixing the core causes of the whole trouble, i.e. increasing the competitiveness and entrepreneurial activities while decreasing the corruption and inertia in the troubled member states. If this isn't done, then ultimately arranging bail outs and negotiating loan terms is pointless as the loans will never be repaid unless the countries actually get their financial growth back on track. And while this is going on, maybe EU shold resist the temptation of lashing out at windmills...
Monday, May 30, 2011
Mobility and performance
Traditional view holds that from the perspective of an individual the best approach to career development is to move positions every three to five years. Less than three years and you will come across as an organization climber who will most likely have not had enough time to actually pick up the experience or the skills of the previous position. Or worse yet, fast moving individuals may move fast because they get canned as soon as it becomes apparent that they are little more than hot air.
But stick around in a position for much more than five years and very often development on a personal level grinds to a halt. I had the pleasure of serving two steps underneath a brilliant boss for a while and he held the view that you should do a single thing three times; on the third time your performance will peak. The rationale is simple. On the first round you have no clue what you're doing. The second time around you have some clue and can formulate a more educated plan. But it is on the third time around that you are able to truly refine the process and will have become increasingly adept in what you are doing. But on the fourth time people tend to get lazy, if we put it in a simplistic fashion. Efficiency and output quality may begin to deteriorate.
So extrapolating from those viewpoints, it is thus fairly logical that it is both in the individual's as well as the organizations' best interest to have individuals move around. But I recently read some interesting bits about why taking this approach too far is also very counterproductive. In a recent article the Economist talked about Barca, the football team, and how it has achieved success while emphasizing on local values and growing its own players, as opposed to using big money to attract high-fliers. The article continues and cites studies which show that successful individuals on Wall Street will very often suffer deteriorating performance when they switch to other organizations. This would then suggest that it may in fact be in the organizations' interest not to necessarily go along with the rapid ascent of individuals.
So, where then is the balance between acquiring fresh blood and new ideas versus cultivating a strong internal culture and values? The counterargument to the culture and value argument is that very often when organizations grow old and large, they tend to begin to detach themselves from the "real" world; they gather inertia, organization builds on top of organization and performance deteriorates. Amusingly enough literature is full of these cases. Just look at any piece of cutting edge management literature from a decade back and skim over the examples of successful firms. My hunch is that most of them will have succumbed and are either in trouble or have already folded. Of course if a company is able to keep its well functioning culture and cultivate it appropriately, superior performance should ensue. But take for instance Google. The question is that has Google already peaked? It may still continue and churn out very hefty profits, but has the rapid recruitment drive already hampered what originally was the coveted Google culture? Have large numbers of employees already lowered the average performance of individuals; has mediocrity taken over the company yet? If not, chances are good that it will in a while. Because examples of this type of dynamic are plentifully around.
But stick around in a position for much more than five years and very often development on a personal level grinds to a halt. I had the pleasure of serving two steps underneath a brilliant boss for a while and he held the view that you should do a single thing three times; on the third time your performance will peak. The rationale is simple. On the first round you have no clue what you're doing. The second time around you have some clue and can formulate a more educated plan. But it is on the third time around that you are able to truly refine the process and will have become increasingly adept in what you are doing. But on the fourth time people tend to get lazy, if we put it in a simplistic fashion. Efficiency and output quality may begin to deteriorate.
So extrapolating from those viewpoints, it is thus fairly logical that it is both in the individual's as well as the organizations' best interest to have individuals move around. But I recently read some interesting bits about why taking this approach too far is also very counterproductive. In a recent article the Economist talked about Barca, the football team, and how it has achieved success while emphasizing on local values and growing its own players, as opposed to using big money to attract high-fliers. The article continues and cites studies which show that successful individuals on Wall Street will very often suffer deteriorating performance when they switch to other organizations. This would then suggest that it may in fact be in the organizations' interest not to necessarily go along with the rapid ascent of individuals.
So, where then is the balance between acquiring fresh blood and new ideas versus cultivating a strong internal culture and values? The counterargument to the culture and value argument is that very often when organizations grow old and large, they tend to begin to detach themselves from the "real" world; they gather inertia, organization builds on top of organization and performance deteriorates. Amusingly enough literature is full of these cases. Just look at any piece of cutting edge management literature from a decade back and skim over the examples of successful firms. My hunch is that most of them will have succumbed and are either in trouble or have already folded. Of course if a company is able to keep its well functioning culture and cultivate it appropriately, superior performance should ensue. But take for instance Google. The question is that has Google already peaked? It may still continue and churn out very hefty profits, but has the rapid recruitment drive already hampered what originally was the coveted Google culture? Have large numbers of employees already lowered the average performance of individuals; has mediocrity taken over the company yet? If not, chances are good that it will in a while. Because examples of this type of dynamic are plentifully around.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
Riddle me this...
If every company only hires (according to HR, anyway...) the top-of-the-class, top 1% of the population types, why isn't the unemployment rate at 99% yet?
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Eras
Change is strange. It's sort of like an untrue, even dreamlike feeling booking meeting rooms and meetings with agendas such as "Debriefing/handover of responsibilities" and "Exit practicalities".
Monday, April 11, 2011
More random thoughts
- Capitalism and free markets aren't the problem. Big corporations and the fact that there are no free markets is the problem. Confusing capitalism with corporatism is a mistake that leads to many problems and incorrect conclusions.
- If we're optimistic, the drivers of individualism, education, and technology, amongst others, will drive the decline of large corporations and return the system to a functioning competition-based free market. This will be because the friction and missing infrastructure bits that big corporations were able to get past when small companies couldn't will be reduced.
- To enable the above, one must decide what type of a mechanism should be used to revitalize the system. Competition law and regulators are an obvious choice, but this requires the regulators to act more decisively and more intelligently in the future.
Monday, April 04, 2011
Random thoughts
- Most disruptions can be taken apart into smaller pieces, which in turn often are merely small linear, evolutionary steps. Just like the metaphorical boiling frog if you look at only the small delta, you miss the big change that can make things really hot for you.
- Flexibility and adaptability is crucial for survival. Interestingly enough people seem to cling onto ideologies even in situations where the pragmatic option would be to change your stance. Like in martial arts, fixing yourself into one stance will again land you in a tight situation when the circumstance changes.
- An offshoot of the previous and originally from some smarter person: communism for 20-somethings stems out of passion, but communism for 40-somethings stems out of idiocy.
- "I'd rather be a shareholder than a customer of [insert any bank here]." Because of incentives, banks tend to take better care of shareholders than customers.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Why PS-accounts aren't selling?
Hmm... Could it have something to do with the unpredictable tax regime of Finland and the fact that the current climate seems to suggest that not only will taxes be going up but every succeeding government seems to aggressively change pension legislation. So excuse me while I don't see any point in locking my assets up for over 40 years with a product that very efficiently ties me to a Finnish banks, tax authorities, and government. If someone, however, offered good productized solutions for small investors to spin their savings into a offshore fund so that the government couldn't constantly kick your teeth. That I could be interested int.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Home ownership
One thing I've never understood is why the government absolutely feels that it is highly important to get everyone their own home. The latest subprime crisis in the US, which has its roots firmly tied to governmental practices of encouraging banks to lend to more and more people is a good example of what can ultimately happen (of course there were quite a few other factors in play as well, but the last couple of administrations have essentially shoved home ownership down the throat of just about everyone).
In Finland it may not necessarily be so blatant, but the government clearly encourages home ownership. Home loan interest is tax deductible to a certain point, first-time buyers get preferential treatment in the form of government backed loans, protection from increasing interest rates, and so on. And the profit from selling your home is exempt from taxation. With all these factors in play, is it really that strange that housing prices in Finland are what they are? Or is it that strange that in the past years news have emerged of individuals purchasing homes with little (less than 10%) or no own capital?
I talked about this issue at work with some people, and the general consensus that people appeared to have was that all of this is entirely acceptable. Buying property is very safe, prices nearly always rise, etc. Seriously. Only a few years have passed since we saw what this type of thinking can potentially bring about and already the lessons have been forgotten. Not too many people make the largest investments of their life with a leverage of over 9:1 in respect to their own capital. Especially in a market which appears to be a bubble that is being sanctioned and built by the government.
Based on this I'm having a terribly hard time seeing myself investing any of my wealth into Finnish property markets: 30-year-loans and state subsidies smack of a horribly bad idea. But I hope that if and when the bubble bursts, this time around we won't encourage moral hazard by bailing out any of the people who have voluntarily put their heads in the guillotine.
And what about home ownership in general? You are of course free to buy your home. But only if you can afford it. As of now, I don't feel that I can afford to purchase a home for myself and thus I will not buy one. Despite the fact that the banks would be more than happy to provide financing for just about any type of apartment.
In Finland it may not necessarily be so blatant, but the government clearly encourages home ownership. Home loan interest is tax deductible to a certain point, first-time buyers get preferential treatment in the form of government backed loans, protection from increasing interest rates, and so on. And the profit from selling your home is exempt from taxation. With all these factors in play, is it really that strange that housing prices in Finland are what they are? Or is it that strange that in the past years news have emerged of individuals purchasing homes with little (less than 10%) or no own capital?
I talked about this issue at work with some people, and the general consensus that people appeared to have was that all of this is entirely acceptable. Buying property is very safe, prices nearly always rise, etc. Seriously. Only a few years have passed since we saw what this type of thinking can potentially bring about and already the lessons have been forgotten. Not too many people make the largest investments of their life with a leverage of over 9:1 in respect to their own capital. Especially in a market which appears to be a bubble that is being sanctioned and built by the government.
Based on this I'm having a terribly hard time seeing myself investing any of my wealth into Finnish property markets: 30-year-loans and state subsidies smack of a horribly bad idea. But I hope that if and when the bubble bursts, this time around we won't encourage moral hazard by bailing out any of the people who have voluntarily put their heads in the guillotine.
And what about home ownership in general? You are of course free to buy your home. But only if you can afford it. As of now, I don't feel that I can afford to purchase a home for myself and thus I will not buy one. Despite the fact that the banks would be more than happy to provide financing for just about any type of apartment.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Some ideas
I was listening to Simon Cole give a presentation earlier today about value creation in the media industry these days. Overall I think the message was very much in line with intuition, but the two items that I thought worth picking out from there were related to inertia and to democratization.
I've often talked about inertia and I'm increasingly confident that in the longer run the negative aspects of inertia will outweigh the relative benefits of being big once the basic infrastructure for companies matures and does not penalize for smallness as much as it used to. In respect to dinosaurs attempting to rejuvenate themselves, Simon cited the interesting anecdote about how Disney sets aside money to a fund from which some employees can request capital to launch their companies that aim to kick Disney underneath its belt. The assumption naturally is that if you succeed in doing that, Disney will own you and thus learn from it and potentially embrace the disruption you either identified or triggered. As an idea that is brilliant and I think more companies should actively try to spar themselves with these types of initiatives. The most recent example to come to mind is of Mark Zuckerberg making an investment in Diaspora.
The second thing was Simon's comment on how Sky News gives first priority to the time-to-market of news whereas BBC emphasizes qualitative issues and will spend time to double-check stories before running them. The interesting bit here is if you think about how this actually is another situation where the underlying dynamic is that of democratization and giving the people responsibilities and freedom, or in this case that the consumer should do the editorial bit of the news process themselves. Not surprisingly with everything that's floating around on the internet, I guess most are becoming very information-savvy and are, hopefully, able to do basic fact checking and apply common sense to weed through the news. So interestingly this links back to the dynamic where things are getting chopped up into smaller pieces and individuals are becoming more empowered and free.
Amusingly enough I guess neither of these points directly related to the topic at hand, but then again, weak ties are often the source of the most interesting things.
I've often talked about inertia and I'm increasingly confident that in the longer run the negative aspects of inertia will outweigh the relative benefits of being big once the basic infrastructure for companies matures and does not penalize for smallness as much as it used to. In respect to dinosaurs attempting to rejuvenate themselves, Simon cited the interesting anecdote about how Disney sets aside money to a fund from which some employees can request capital to launch their companies that aim to kick Disney underneath its belt. The assumption naturally is that if you succeed in doing that, Disney will own you and thus learn from it and potentially embrace the disruption you either identified or triggered. As an idea that is brilliant and I think more companies should actively try to spar themselves with these types of initiatives. The most recent example to come to mind is of Mark Zuckerberg making an investment in Diaspora.
The second thing was Simon's comment on how Sky News gives first priority to the time-to-market of news whereas BBC emphasizes qualitative issues and will spend time to double-check stories before running them. The interesting bit here is if you think about how this actually is another situation where the underlying dynamic is that of democratization and giving the people responsibilities and freedom, or in this case that the consumer should do the editorial bit of the news process themselves. Not surprisingly with everything that's floating around on the internet, I guess most are becoming very information-savvy and are, hopefully, able to do basic fact checking and apply common sense to weed through the news. So interestingly this links back to the dynamic where things are getting chopped up into smaller pieces and individuals are becoming more empowered and free.
Amusingly enough I guess neither of these points directly related to the topic at hand, but then again, weak ties are often the source of the most interesting things.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Progression
Considering that progressive taxes seem to be all the rage right now, I would in fact like to propose a very holistic approach to all of this: instead of using currencies like the EUR, we could instead move to percentages. A bottle of milk would cost 0.1%, for instance. In practice this means that regardless of income, the individual would pay 0.1% of their monthly income for the product.
This type of solution would permanently resolve these pesky issues of some people earning more money than others by ensuring that regardless of the amount of money that a person makes, they will still be able to get the exact same amount of goods or services as any other person.
This type of solution would permanently resolve these pesky issues of some people earning more money than others by ensuring that regardless of the amount of money that a person makes, they will still be able to get the exact same amount of goods or services as any other person.
Monday, February 28, 2011
You learn something new every day
For a while now I've been somewhat annoyed with the performance of ETFS Crude Oil (CRUD). With the Middle East Revolution Football league (sorry for stealing this) in play and the oil prices rocketing, CRUD has trailed by a fair bit. So what's the problem? Essentially the problem was that by buying it from Germany with a euro denomination, I ended up coupling the oil price to the EURUSD exchange rate. In retrospect my flaw was underestimating the correlation between the two: it appears that every time the oil peaks, people get jittery about the fact that the US is still heavily dependent on the stuff and thus USD dives and eats away at my position.
Having held onto the position for a while, I finally decided that enough is enough and took the small 20% profit and ran. The learnings? With oil, try to decouple the currency from the instrument so you have freedom to time the currency exchanges in the most beneficial way.
(As a side-note, there may as well be other factors in play. I guess I'll need to do some more reading as homework to check out if the phenomenon of contango is in play again with these derivative-based instruments...)
Having held onto the position for a while, I finally decided that enough is enough and took the small 20% profit and ran. The learnings? With oil, try to decouple the currency from the instrument so you have freedom to time the currency exchanges in the most beneficial way.
(As a side-note, there may as well be other factors in play. I guess I'll need to do some more reading as homework to check out if the phenomenon of contango is in play again with these derivative-based instruments...)
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
On politicians and companies
The parliamentary elections are upon us again, which certainly explains the amount of point gathering that is going on in the press again. Of especial interest to me are the comments that politicians are throwing around about the state of Finnish high-tech industries. They are certainly right: something needs to be done about it if we ever hope to become a world leader in the arena. Because we sure as hell aren't leaders, nor have we truly been leaders.
So, with the latest strategy change done by Nokia, which was widely publicized yesterday, many Finnish politicians are rushing in to say how they will mitigate the amount of unemployment that will arise from these changes, as it is obvious even when observed with your forehead that there are just too many people in the company doing the wrong things. Additionally the center party has been heard to say that they have "started investigating about how this type of structural change (or even crisis) in high-tech sectors can be turned around." Perhaps that's good, but the track record of politicians understanding what's going on and what needs to be done has been so appallingly bad, that I'm not entirely convinced that it's a good idea to have them anywhere near this situation.
What, then, should be done? The politicians seem to think that the software industry should be strengthened and that there will be an ample supply of engineers being freed up from Nokia which can create the software sector. But if we actually look at the situation, we will find that most of the problems that the company has faced over the past decade have been due to software. So I'm sorry if I sound a bit pessimistic, but pray-tell, what are the chances that this bunch is in any way actually competent with software.
The politicians aren't too worried about this. They have also figured out that education always helps, so they have thought up of a brilliant plan of devising new educational venues at which people can be trained in the skills of software. Ugh... I have a bit of a background in software development, even prior to receiving any formal education on it. I tend to agree that higher education in software will widen your thinking, but in actual software business, the best way to learn is by doing it. You don't need formal training for it. Instead, with software I believe that you absolutely need a passion for software: if you never felt like writing software on your spare time or just playing around with code, don't bother wasting precious resources on schooling yourself in software. 9-to-5 coders often end up making more problems than they are able to solve as they easily engineer themselves into a corner, introduce fatal flaws and bugs, and so on.
Then there is the slight problem regarding geographic region: the Finnish market is small and it is so far away from where things happen that it's not even funny. This means that any company wishing to actually grow will need to go abroad, and fast. For a startup this means packing your most extroverted guy in a plane and sending him to London with a suitcase and orders not to come back for the next couple of years. Oh, and the budget, as with startups typically, is shoestring. So it's not a picnic. Combine this with the hostile environment towards entrepreneurial activities in Finland: high taxation, tough labor laws, stigma associated with bankruptcy, difficulty with gaining access to capital (lack of angels and VCs), and the list goes on.
So yes, the politicians can do something, but it is more involved with changing laws and taxation to encourage entrepreneurial activities. The world is already so complex that you cannot merely say that "we will train more software developers!" and hope that the problem is solved. Instead you must carefully craft the boundaries of the system to encourage a certain type of behavior. Shoveling out government resources in the form of cheques to small businesses if they are able to navigate a maze of paperwork is also not good: it's not only one or two startups that I've heard about which have gotten fairly confused regarding who their customer is. In these cases the company has yet to sell anything real to a customer, but the government keeps subsidizing it and giving it more money. This isn't doing anyone a service: if the business plan isn't working out, it's in everyone's best interest to fail fast and move to the next idea. That's what entrepreneurship is about.
And as an interesting side-note, I'm actually starting a process of preparing a paper about these things during the Spring, so hopefully I'll be able to make a clearer argument about what I think the problems are and what should be done about them.
So, with the latest strategy change done by Nokia, which was widely publicized yesterday, many Finnish politicians are rushing in to say how they will mitigate the amount of unemployment that will arise from these changes, as it is obvious even when observed with your forehead that there are just too many people in the company doing the wrong things. Additionally the center party has been heard to say that they have "started investigating about how this type of structural change (or even crisis) in high-tech sectors can be turned around." Perhaps that's good, but the track record of politicians understanding what's going on and what needs to be done has been so appallingly bad, that I'm not entirely convinced that it's a good idea to have them anywhere near this situation.
What, then, should be done? The politicians seem to think that the software industry should be strengthened and that there will be an ample supply of engineers being freed up from Nokia which can create the software sector. But if we actually look at the situation, we will find that most of the problems that the company has faced over the past decade have been due to software. So I'm sorry if I sound a bit pessimistic, but pray-tell, what are the chances that this bunch is in any way actually competent with software.
The politicians aren't too worried about this. They have also figured out that education always helps, so they have thought up of a brilliant plan of devising new educational venues at which people can be trained in the skills of software. Ugh... I have a bit of a background in software development, even prior to receiving any formal education on it. I tend to agree that higher education in software will widen your thinking, but in actual software business, the best way to learn is by doing it. You don't need formal training for it. Instead, with software I believe that you absolutely need a passion for software: if you never felt like writing software on your spare time or just playing around with code, don't bother wasting precious resources on schooling yourself in software. 9-to-5 coders often end up making more problems than they are able to solve as they easily engineer themselves into a corner, introduce fatal flaws and bugs, and so on.
Then there is the slight problem regarding geographic region: the Finnish market is small and it is so far away from where things happen that it's not even funny. This means that any company wishing to actually grow will need to go abroad, and fast. For a startup this means packing your most extroverted guy in a plane and sending him to London with a suitcase and orders not to come back for the next couple of years. Oh, and the budget, as with startups typically, is shoestring. So it's not a picnic. Combine this with the hostile environment towards entrepreneurial activities in Finland: high taxation, tough labor laws, stigma associated with bankruptcy, difficulty with gaining access to capital (lack of angels and VCs), and the list goes on.
So yes, the politicians can do something, but it is more involved with changing laws and taxation to encourage entrepreneurial activities. The world is already so complex that you cannot merely say that "we will train more software developers!" and hope that the problem is solved. Instead you must carefully craft the boundaries of the system to encourage a certain type of behavior. Shoveling out government resources in the form of cheques to small businesses if they are able to navigate a maze of paperwork is also not good: it's not only one or two startups that I've heard about which have gotten fairly confused regarding who their customer is. In these cases the company has yet to sell anything real to a customer, but the government keeps subsidizing it and giving it more money. This isn't doing anyone a service: if the business plan isn't working out, it's in everyone's best interest to fail fast and move to the next idea. That's what entrepreneurship is about.
And as an interesting side-note, I'm actually starting a process of preparing a paper about these things during the Spring, so hopefully I'll be able to make a clearer argument about what I think the problems are and what should be done about them.
Sunday, February 06, 2011
Can you say... Bubble...
Amusingly enough it's been over three years since this video was made. But with the social buzzword still churning on strongly, can you say... bubble.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Equality
With the elections just around the corner, the politicians and aspiring politicians are again at their favorite pastime: dividing and distributing other peoples' money. And one of the key themes again this time around is financial inequality, or how money should be moved from the top to the bottom. An interesting thing to think about here is what exactly the problem is and what do we want to solve. Gini coefficients have begun popping up in more international publications, but I can't really recall a single Finnish article mentioning them. Anyway, the basic idea is that a coefficient of 1 implies that 1 person gets all of the income and 0 means that every gets the same amount. With this metric, the inequality in certain regions has increased, but on a global level we've become more equal.
But which is more important: that we all earn the same amount or that the people worst off are supported enough that they are able to survive. I of course have my own strong biases and tend to feel that equal opportunities always beat equal outcomes, i.e. meritocracy is the way to go as long as everyone gets to jump from the same baseline. So in this regard I don't necessarily see high equality as something that is absolutely valuable, as long as everyone is kept in the same boat and not thrown out.
Related to this, another interesting aspect in this is that according to the Economist's recent article, in the US the inequality in the bottom 99% hasn't increased since 1993. This in essence means that what is happening is that the rich are getting richer, but at the same time the poor are also getting richer, although slightly slower. If we also think about the longer term trends, overall the world seems to be slowly becoming a fairer place, as a very significant portion of today's wealthy elite has in fact made their own fortune. And that, in my opinion, is a lot fairer than being wealthy because of the fact that you just happened to have been born into nobility or royalty. What more, the wealthiest people then tend to eventually give most of their money back to society in the form of charitable donations or in other cases by becoming angel investors and pouring their money into high-risk ventures which might otherwise not happen.
So, the name of the game isn't to optimize the Gini coefficient to 0. What more, there is even hardly any solid facts one way or another as to whether equality is that important. And as previously stated, I understand the welfare state as a system which inherently does not take a stance on anything else but ensuring the welfare of the citizens. But welfare shouldn't necessarily be defined to include everything and the kitchen sink, but instead enough to allow a person who has stumbled to still continue living, despite health issues or sudden changes in employment status, or similar situations.
But which is more important: that we all earn the same amount or that the people worst off are supported enough that they are able to survive. I of course have my own strong biases and tend to feel that equal opportunities always beat equal outcomes, i.e. meritocracy is the way to go as long as everyone gets to jump from the same baseline. So in this regard I don't necessarily see high equality as something that is absolutely valuable, as long as everyone is kept in the same boat and not thrown out.
Related to this, another interesting aspect in this is that according to the Economist's recent article, in the US the inequality in the bottom 99% hasn't increased since 1993. This in essence means that what is happening is that the rich are getting richer, but at the same time the poor are also getting richer, although slightly slower. If we also think about the longer term trends, overall the world seems to be slowly becoming a fairer place, as a very significant portion of today's wealthy elite has in fact made their own fortune. And that, in my opinion, is a lot fairer than being wealthy because of the fact that you just happened to have been born into nobility or royalty. What more, the wealthiest people then tend to eventually give most of their money back to society in the form of charitable donations or in other cases by becoming angel investors and pouring their money into high-risk ventures which might otherwise not happen.
So, the name of the game isn't to optimize the Gini coefficient to 0. What more, there is even hardly any solid facts one way or another as to whether equality is that important. And as previously stated, I understand the welfare state as a system which inherently does not take a stance on anything else but ensuring the welfare of the citizens. But welfare shouldn't necessarily be defined to include everything and the kitchen sink, but instead enough to allow a person who has stumbled to still continue living, despite health issues or sudden changes in employment status, or similar situations.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
