What price will we pay for instilling consumerism in our young? That is the question I ask myself every time I see an ad on TV targeting children in their tender years. This is as unethical and immoral a marketing manoeuvre as can be offered. Brilliant as it might be in commercial terms; this strategy of generating long-term consumers by robbing children of their childhood is a monstrous thing.
What need does a 6-year-old have of owning a mobile phone? None, I tell you, but the one generated by marketing and publicity. The same is true for young girls of 10, who truly shouldn’t be concerned about make-up, high heel shoes and “clothes that make her look thin and fashionable”. These and many other things are artificial necessities instilled into our children through the media and viral marketing to foment sales and benefit manufacturers of items not generally desired by children.
If you are not yet convinced, think of the foods your children seek out in the supermarket. How often have you seen your child pick up an orange or an apple? How many fruits and vegetables is your infant able to recognise and call by name? Yet, there are very few children who cannot recognise the brands and names of snacks and dainties; even the most obscure ones. This is a natural thing when you consider that they are bombarded by ads on TV telling them how “fun and delicious” it is to stuff themselves with tonnes of sugar, salt and fat.
It is undeniable that marketers and publicists play on the guilt of parents who have little time to spend with their children in the midst of the pressures of modern life. It is undeniable that it works. However, the short-term consequences of this marketing strategy is the generation of spoilt children, whose exacerbated consumerism is a thing that both destroys their childhood and values and also makes them unhappy insatiable addicts to buying things they never even enjoy. This is a sad situation, but the more ominous threat is in the long-term.
The long-term effect is indeed to manufacture insatiable consumers who try to quench the need for affection and self affirmation through the spending of money, but there is more: We are making inconsequential people who will be utterly unhappy with their meaningless lives of consumption and who will not know how to manage their disappointment. We are making adults who will be incapable of dealing with frustration, and who will react destructively about it. They will not know that they must restrain themselves from wanting what others are not willing to give, so they will shout at, strike and harm the objects of their frustration. They will be acting like children in tantrums; yet, they will be full grown adults with all of an adult’s power. This is something heartily to be avoided.
Since greed prevents marketers and administrators from exercising restraint in this unethical targeting of children with marketing campaigns, it is up to parents to impose some restraint on their children for their own benefit. It is, as it always was, ultimately the duty of a parent to offer their kids values greater and more fulfilling than mere consumerism. Give them love, and give them principles and give them the occasion to use and develop their imagination without the TV and electronic toys that play on their own. They may cry now, when you deny them that day’s new toy and that meal’s triple-chocolate muffin with some cartoon character’s face stamped on it, but tomorrow they will thank you for their healthy bodies and their free-thinking minds. Give them that opportunity.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Corporative Self-Destruction
My reflection today is on the moronic Human Resources policies of the large global corporations. I say they are idiotic because of the inherent myopia of widespread HR policies that aim at short-term savings in the value of salaries and lawful benefits awarded to their veteran employees. For several years, corporations have been employing a policy of dismissing expensive veteran employees to replace them with younger and cheaper newly graduated professionals.
The explanation offered for this self-destructive strategy is generally that the younger professional is theoretically up to date with market practices, tendencies and, though they require indoctrination and training in corporate culture, they should be just as capable as the veteran employee, who often needs theoretical recycling. This is all good and it all makes sense; at least on paper.
However, the practical reality of the matter is quite different. The CV of the newly graduated professional may reflect curricular proficiency, but the theoretical content of his/her education is no substitute for practical experience in the field. What an HR officer calls “vices” on the veteran employee, many executives call “savvy” or “wisdom”. To make matters worst, corporations are downsizing departments and handing the work volume of 2-3 veteran professionals into the care of a single novice. Downsizing and substituting an experienced veteran for a novice to save on the cost of the employee (salary + benefits) may seem smart on the short-term, but the long-term consequences are dire for corporations. Among them, we have:
1. An increase of mistakes in operations caused by the lack of practical experience and by ill dimensioned volume of work
2. An increase of operational costs caused by the above-mentioned inexperience
3. An increase of insecurity among employees, who are afraid to be laid-off at any time
4. Lack of loyalty to the corporation, as a result of the above-mentioned insecurity
5. An increase of information security problems as a result of the lack of loyalty
6. An increase of the incidence of sabotage as a result of dissatisfaction in the ranks
7. An adverse and unproductive working environment, where employees are busier tending the keeping of their position (covering-up mistakes etc.) than they are working towards corporate objectives
It is quite clear that given all of the aspects listed above, any savings conquered with the erroneous HR policies in effect today will result in palpable operational losses that will affect Marketing and Industrial costs negatively. Therefore, if there is any savings to be made in these destructive HR policies, such values will surely be supplanted by the losses incurred as a direct result of the same disastrous HR policies.
It is my opinion that, should HR departments persist is their wanton ways, they shall be responsible for a negative revolution in the way professionals deal with their employers. Better results should be obtained by providing competent professionals with security and peace of mind with which to develop their working potential, and by paying professionals what they are actually worth. It is past the time of maximisation of profits and time now for sustainable working relationships.
The explanation offered for this self-destructive strategy is generally that the younger professional is theoretically up to date with market practices, tendencies and, though they require indoctrination and training in corporate culture, they should be just as capable as the veteran employee, who often needs theoretical recycling. This is all good and it all makes sense; at least on paper.
However, the practical reality of the matter is quite different. The CV of the newly graduated professional may reflect curricular proficiency, but the theoretical content of his/her education is no substitute for practical experience in the field. What an HR officer calls “vices” on the veteran employee, many executives call “savvy” or “wisdom”. To make matters worst, corporations are downsizing departments and handing the work volume of 2-3 veteran professionals into the care of a single novice. Downsizing and substituting an experienced veteran for a novice to save on the cost of the employee (salary + benefits) may seem smart on the short-term, but the long-term consequences are dire for corporations. Among them, we have:
1. An increase of mistakes in operations caused by the lack of practical experience and by ill dimensioned volume of work
2. An increase of operational costs caused by the above-mentioned inexperience
3. An increase of insecurity among employees, who are afraid to be laid-off at any time
4. Lack of loyalty to the corporation, as a result of the above-mentioned insecurity
5. An increase of information security problems as a result of the lack of loyalty
6. An increase of the incidence of sabotage as a result of dissatisfaction in the ranks
7. An adverse and unproductive working environment, where employees are busier tending the keeping of their position (covering-up mistakes etc.) than they are working towards corporate objectives
It is quite clear that given all of the aspects listed above, any savings conquered with the erroneous HR policies in effect today will result in palpable operational losses that will affect Marketing and Industrial costs negatively. Therefore, if there is any savings to be made in these destructive HR policies, such values will surely be supplanted by the losses incurred as a direct result of the same disastrous HR policies.
It is my opinion that, should HR departments persist is their wanton ways, they shall be responsible for a negative revolution in the way professionals deal with their employers. Better results should be obtained by providing competent professionals with security and peace of mind with which to develop their working potential, and by paying professionals what they are actually worth. It is past the time of maximisation of profits and time now for sustainable working relationships.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
The Value of a Man
A man is not the equivalent of the sum of all his property. Despite what Western Society preaches through consumerism nowadays, this remains a fact. A man is not better than another because he has gaudier clothing, flashier cars or bigger homes in more exclusive neighbourhoods, for these things are but trinkets and consequences of a man's capacity to earn money (we shall not enter the philosophical aspects of whether such wealth is merited or not because the case may vary). Nor is a man his job, for today he may be an economist and tomorrow he may be a teacher and the day after he may be a salesman.
What is important is that we realise that there is much more to a man than what he owns and what he owes. A man is first and foremost body and soul, mind and accomplishments. A man is kindness and strength, character and honour. A man is knowledge and dedication, faith and family. A man is his ideals and his loyalty, his word and his legacy. A man is what a man endeavours to be.
What is important is that we realise that there is much more to a man than what he owns and what he owes. A man is first and foremost body and soul, mind and accomplishments. A man is kindness and strength, character and honour. A man is knowledge and dedication, faith and family. A man is his ideals and his loyalty, his word and his legacy. A man is what a man endeavours to be.
Friday, 6 March 2009
Global Economic Crisis
None of us can honestly believe that financial institutions did not know the consequences of the abuses they made concerning the use of private real-estate debt as an investment option. It would be unfathomable to believe that the unavoidable Global Economic Crisis was completely unforeseen by the mathematical brains employed by the world’s most powerful banks. It must have at the very least occurred to them that offering incentives for private citizens to incur into debt beyond their capacity for credit and then using the re-financing of that debt as the means to fill investors’ pockets was a flawed concept to say the least. Also, to even think that they could not have know that lending the same values in digital “pixie money” many fold, thus generating an illusion of a greater availability of funds that there really existed, was obviously going to have penalties down the road.
I think it is perfectly logical to believe that a financial institution that is replete with economists, mathematicians, strategists and what not, makes scenario studies for whatever options they decide to make available to the market in general. It would be irresponsible of them not to. So, if they did run scenarios, it is reasonable to think that the consequences we face today were indeed predicted; even if not precisely. After all, even through plain common sense it is easy to figure that lending money to someone who cannot repay you is bound to end up badly, more so even if you have the brilliant idea of using the debt to attract more money into your pocket by saying that the payment of the bad debt is the thing that will generate a return to your investors. Come on! We cannot be naive to the point of thinking these institutions were not well prepared to anticipate and counter these effects.
So, if they knew – and I say again that they had to know – why did they do it anyway? The unsurprising answer is quite simple: For Profit!
This scheme perpetrated by these institutions must have generated such a flow of funds to them that it was all worth it; at least to those men and women who controlled these institutions. Some say we are the ones paying the bill for it, and they are correct. We happy investors and private citizens, but can we blame them? Certainly we can, but not only them because we were greedy too. Each of us, investors, has a share in the guilt for the current crisis. Why? Because we CHOSE to believe in a continuous growth of world economy that could not possibly be. We CHOSE to let them mislead us into thinking that constant economic growth was a good thing and that it would make us all very rich. We chose to surrender to the allure of consumerism and easy money.
The dynamics of the world economy in the age of globalisation is a very perverse thing. It is wicked in the sense that it is totally dehumanised. Investors see only the return upon their investment as a collection of numbers on a computer screen. They are not privy to the consequences of those numbers in terms of the human, social and ecological cost of their profits. Banks and corporations have a glimpse, though. They should know better but greed is supreme to them; it’s their nature. As for us, we let them do it because it is comfortable to us. Now, we pay the bill and rightly so.
The Global Economic Crisis is an opportunity for us to re-think our ways. It is a time of reflection for the lot of us, greedy consumers, who were doing everything for easy money so that we could own luxury cars and travel with style to exotic destinations. In the process, we ruined our economy, our society and our planet. Shall we try something different now?
I think it is perfectly logical to believe that a financial institution that is replete with economists, mathematicians, strategists and what not, makes scenario studies for whatever options they decide to make available to the market in general. It would be irresponsible of them not to. So, if they did run scenarios, it is reasonable to think that the consequences we face today were indeed predicted; even if not precisely. After all, even through plain common sense it is easy to figure that lending money to someone who cannot repay you is bound to end up badly, more so even if you have the brilliant idea of using the debt to attract more money into your pocket by saying that the payment of the bad debt is the thing that will generate a return to your investors. Come on! We cannot be naive to the point of thinking these institutions were not well prepared to anticipate and counter these effects.
So, if they knew – and I say again that they had to know – why did they do it anyway? The unsurprising answer is quite simple: For Profit!
This scheme perpetrated by these institutions must have generated such a flow of funds to them that it was all worth it; at least to those men and women who controlled these institutions. Some say we are the ones paying the bill for it, and they are correct. We happy investors and private citizens, but can we blame them? Certainly we can, but not only them because we were greedy too. Each of us, investors, has a share in the guilt for the current crisis. Why? Because we CHOSE to believe in a continuous growth of world economy that could not possibly be. We CHOSE to let them mislead us into thinking that constant economic growth was a good thing and that it would make us all very rich. We chose to surrender to the allure of consumerism and easy money.
The dynamics of the world economy in the age of globalisation is a very perverse thing. It is wicked in the sense that it is totally dehumanised. Investors see only the return upon their investment as a collection of numbers on a computer screen. They are not privy to the consequences of those numbers in terms of the human, social and ecological cost of their profits. Banks and corporations have a glimpse, though. They should know better but greed is supreme to them; it’s their nature. As for us, we let them do it because it is comfortable to us. Now, we pay the bill and rightly so.
The Global Economic Crisis is an opportunity for us to re-think our ways. It is a time of reflection for the lot of us, greedy consumers, who were doing everything for easy money so that we could own luxury cars and travel with style to exotic destinations. In the process, we ruined our economy, our society and our planet. Shall we try something different now?
Do You Really Like Your Car?
It has been a while since I wrote last. Like many of us, I’ve been busy trying to stay afloat during the phenomenon we all have come to know and cherish as the Global Economic Crisis. The good side of the crisis in my personal life is that the lack of orders and new projects – I work with international commerce – leaves me a little extra time to partake in more idealistic activities.
Yesterday, during a conference with representatives from a few prominent NGO’s and associates of Mr. Jim Garrison, I was exposed for the first time to the certainty that global warming will influence our daily lives as of 2015 and to the palpable possibility that we will all face famine and water shortage by 2100. There is no mistake about it; the scientific community has presented conclusive evidence to this effect. Truth be said, I should not have been so surprised as this theme is present in the back of all our minds for decades. I remember having seen Carl Sagan talk about it on TV during the 1980’s in his series “Cosmos”. Yet, we – as a species – have done next to nothing to work towards the prevention or at least the minimisation of the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It simply isn’t “economically interesting”.
Of course some of us do a little here and there to help and to feel good about ourselves, and this is where I include myself so I know what I’m talking about. We recycle, abdicate from our cars once or twice a month – maybe share one “green” car between husband and wife, take short showers, turn off the lights when no one is using the room, buy the occasional “green” product and watch cultural programmes about ecology on the tele so we can talk intelligently about the subject. This is all commendable, but it frankly isn’t enough! Nevertheless, the sad truth is that we, as individuals, can do very little beyond incorporating sustainability and preservation into our habits.
There are certain individuals who are catalysers for the type of change we need, and these include politicians, industrialists, bankers and a lot of such notable people around the world, who detain the power to effect the change with the necessary expedience. Unfortunately, they are also much more concerned with their own priorities and will not act unless we, as a group, tell them that they must. Greed, self preservation and self promotion all take precedence over taking courageous action to prevent the worst and most immediate crisis in the history of Mankind: Global Warming.
Yesterday’s conference was aimed at making preparations for the State of the World Forum (http://www.worldforum.org/state-2009.htm). The World Forum itself is an entity created by Mikail Gorbachev and Jim Garrison to prompt global leaders and influential individual to act in the creation of creative solutions to critical global challenges. While Jim Garrison himself was in a meeting with President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva in Brasilia, we were in Sao Paulo – one of the largest and most populated cities in the world – discussing global warming at an abnormal 34ºC weather. We could see through our open window to the outside the perpetual cloud of brownish-grey carbon dioxide that hovers over the commercial and industrial heart of Brazil; a by-product of the city’s primary mode of transportation.
The problem is, we’ve been telling people to own cars for 50 years. We told ourselves that we need them and that they make us more important and happier. Now, it has become difficult to reverse that process, but it is paramount that we do. Ministries and regulatory bodies around the world should tell individuals of the consequences of utilising an automobile on a daily basis. Governments should work towards making automobiles unnecessary by providing quality public transportation that’s based on an energy matrix different than fossil fuel. We, as civil individuals, should realise and press for these changes in our habits lest we are forced to change much more than that by the effects of global warming. This is something we, as individuals, can do. We can get together to change this one thing common to every nation on the globe. We can unite, as a species, to do away with the petrol era and replace it with a different model. The current economic crisis has affected the automotive industry very gravely and it will have to rethink itself and rebuild its foundations. Perhaps now is the time for that change.
Yesterday, during a conference with representatives from a few prominent NGO’s and associates of Mr. Jim Garrison, I was exposed for the first time to the certainty that global warming will influence our daily lives as of 2015 and to the palpable possibility that we will all face famine and water shortage by 2100. There is no mistake about it; the scientific community has presented conclusive evidence to this effect. Truth be said, I should not have been so surprised as this theme is present in the back of all our minds for decades. I remember having seen Carl Sagan talk about it on TV during the 1980’s in his series “Cosmos”. Yet, we – as a species – have done next to nothing to work towards the prevention or at least the minimisation of the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It simply isn’t “economically interesting”.
Of course some of us do a little here and there to help and to feel good about ourselves, and this is where I include myself so I know what I’m talking about. We recycle, abdicate from our cars once or twice a month – maybe share one “green” car between husband and wife, take short showers, turn off the lights when no one is using the room, buy the occasional “green” product and watch cultural programmes about ecology on the tele so we can talk intelligently about the subject. This is all commendable, but it frankly isn’t enough! Nevertheless, the sad truth is that we, as individuals, can do very little beyond incorporating sustainability and preservation into our habits.
There are certain individuals who are catalysers for the type of change we need, and these include politicians, industrialists, bankers and a lot of such notable people around the world, who detain the power to effect the change with the necessary expedience. Unfortunately, they are also much more concerned with their own priorities and will not act unless we, as a group, tell them that they must. Greed, self preservation and self promotion all take precedence over taking courageous action to prevent the worst and most immediate crisis in the history of Mankind: Global Warming.
Yesterday’s conference was aimed at making preparations for the State of the World Forum (http://www.worldforum.org/state-2009.htm). The World Forum itself is an entity created by Mikail Gorbachev and Jim Garrison to prompt global leaders and influential individual to act in the creation of creative solutions to critical global challenges. While Jim Garrison himself was in a meeting with President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva in Brasilia, we were in Sao Paulo – one of the largest and most populated cities in the world – discussing global warming at an abnormal 34ºC weather. We could see through our open window to the outside the perpetual cloud of brownish-grey carbon dioxide that hovers over the commercial and industrial heart of Brazil; a by-product of the city’s primary mode of transportation.
The problem is, we’ve been telling people to own cars for 50 years. We told ourselves that we need them and that they make us more important and happier. Now, it has become difficult to reverse that process, but it is paramount that we do. Ministries and regulatory bodies around the world should tell individuals of the consequences of utilising an automobile on a daily basis. Governments should work towards making automobiles unnecessary by providing quality public transportation that’s based on an energy matrix different than fossil fuel. We, as civil individuals, should realise and press for these changes in our habits lest we are forced to change much more than that by the effects of global warming. This is something we, as individuals, can do. We can get together to change this one thing common to every nation on the globe. We can unite, as a species, to do away with the petrol era and replace it with a different model. The current economic crisis has affected the automotive industry very gravely and it will have to rethink itself and rebuild its foundations. Perhaps now is the time for that change.
Friday, 12 December 2008
The Price of Consistency
Why is it that some people can't let the Catholic Church be? The Vatican keeps being viciously criticised for its standpoint on themes such as Abortion, Use of Condoms, Stem-cell Research etc. and it seems to me that most of these critics have not stopped to think that all the Vatican is doing is to pursue consistency between what it preaches and what it condones.It is my view that the Catholic Church is no-longer the political influence it once was during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and doesn’t wish to be. Unlike what critics seem to suggest between the lines of their blind condemnation of the Church’s morality, the Catholic Church has distanced itself from politics considerably and seeks to act more in the area of its competence, which is to say matters of Faith, Charity and Ethics. It is true that the Vatican State pronounces itself before the world about issues of political relevance, but it is clear to me that this is done where political events overlap with humanitarian issues, questions of ethics and matters of faith. I don’t think that the Vatican seeks to overthrow the sovereignty of any country, as I see no sign at all to that effect.
Yet, how can the Vatican remain silent about what it perceives to be destructive to Christians and, in fact, destructive all Mankind? This is because the Church nowadays remains the guardian of the Universal Truth as Catholics see it. As such, it is the Church’s obligation to safeguard and preach this Universal Truth to those who want to listen to it, and as a consequence, the Church must be consistent with what it preaches. Remember that Catholics and the Catholic Church believe that we received this Universal Truth from God and from Christ whilst he walked among us here on Earth. This means that the Vatican cannot resort to a democratic process to change Truth; after all it is a Universal Truth and we cannot hope to supplant God’s wisdom.
Hence, I think anyone with a sparkle of logic in them will see that the Catholic Church cannot advocate one behaviour and then condone another that presents stark contrast to the first. In order to preserve its consistency with the Universal Truth it defends, the Catholic Church must be unswerving where new trends and new technologies endanger the object of its precepts. For example, if the Church preaches that all life is precious, that murder is wrong and that human life begins at conception, how could it accept abortion? If the Church advocates monogamy and no pre-marital sex, how could it condone the use of condoms? Moreover, why would a monogamous married couple that is not supposed to prevent child birth need condoms at all? The Church must advocate and support only that which is consistent with what it expects of its followers, regardless of what the world thinks of it and what the current scientific trends are.
Finally, let’s face it: Nowadays being Catholic is a personal choice. It is not a compulsory act, nor is it socially mandatory. In the eyes of the Christian Faith, we are each and all free to chose, but the Church’s responsibility is to inform us of the Truth and the consequence of our choices. In this sense, one could think of the Church as a private club where you are not obliged to enrol, but if you so choose, you must follow the rules of the club. You either choose to be Catholic or you choose not to be, so why criticise the Church when it is only preaching to those who chose to be Catholics?
Yet, how can the Vatican remain silent about what it perceives to be destructive to Christians and, in fact, destructive all Mankind? This is because the Church nowadays remains the guardian of the Universal Truth as Catholics see it. As such, it is the Church’s obligation to safeguard and preach this Universal Truth to those who want to listen to it, and as a consequence, the Church must be consistent with what it preaches. Remember that Catholics and the Catholic Church believe that we received this Universal Truth from God and from Christ whilst he walked among us here on Earth. This means that the Vatican cannot resort to a democratic process to change Truth; after all it is a Universal Truth and we cannot hope to supplant God’s wisdom.
Hence, I think anyone with a sparkle of logic in them will see that the Catholic Church cannot advocate one behaviour and then condone another that presents stark contrast to the first. In order to preserve its consistency with the Universal Truth it defends, the Catholic Church must be unswerving where new trends and new technologies endanger the object of its precepts. For example, if the Church preaches that all life is precious, that murder is wrong and that human life begins at conception, how could it accept abortion? If the Church advocates monogamy and no pre-marital sex, how could it condone the use of condoms? Moreover, why would a monogamous married couple that is not supposed to prevent child birth need condoms at all? The Church must advocate and support only that which is consistent with what it expects of its followers, regardless of what the world thinks of it and what the current scientific trends are.
Finally, let’s face it: Nowadays being Catholic is a personal choice. It is not a compulsory act, nor is it socially mandatory. In the eyes of the Christian Faith, we are each and all free to chose, but the Church’s responsibility is to inform us of the Truth and the consequence of our choices. In this sense, one could think of the Church as a private club where you are not obliged to enrol, but if you so choose, you must follow the rules of the club. You either choose to be Catholic or you choose not to be, so why criticise the Church when it is only preaching to those who chose to be Catholics?
Monday, 1 December 2008
When governments opt to fight a nation’s perceived enemy by pre-emptively striking at their homes overseas, more often than not the initiative results in a new and bitterer generation of enemies.
When citizens forgo common sense and let themselves be fooled by foolhardy politicians even in the face of evidence, they surrender themselves to convenience and corruption and condemn their offspring to perpetual strife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)