Eldon-Online

Life is Like .... a Toilet Roll!

I must have led a sheltered life - I had not heard that one before but someone sent me a message a couple of days back with that notation. Life is like a roll of toilet paper - it says - the closer you get to the end the faster it goes.

Ooh - how true, albeit somewhat sobering. Mind you - the trick surely is to keep another roll close by so that you can switch rolls and start again. Bit like retirement?

Someone said to me yesterday that her Father was about to retire and was not looking forward to it especially as he's still kind of young in this longer life-expectancy world, but the company policy said it was time for him to go. And let's be honest there are people for whom retirement cannot come soon enough - and then there's people like me. My argument is that currently I know things that I have learnt over many years and which still have their uses - and I am happy to share the experiences while others still want them. And in the case of the gentleman to whom I referred above, and knowing what he has been doing, there is certainly life after retirement for him. New role or new roll!

The alternative to working, unless you are fortunate enough to have enough hobbies and other entertainment to keep you happy, is maybe to sit in front of the television and scare yourself silly by watching the news.

In the (dis)United Kingdom, the best President that America has ever had - according to him - is imminently arriving to dispense more advice on how to run the country and leave the European Union. Apart from opining that the British public love him - some questions there I fear - he has even taken to anointing the people who he thinks would be the best negotiators and leaders. Although the people concerned, by and large, do not seem to welcome the interference support. Anything, it seems, to divert attention from himself, his tax returns, his tariff war (becoming a serious issue for many within the USA) and what is likely to be a higher cost of living when either the goods carry the cost of the tariffs or they don't get shipped at all.

And he is stepping into the Brexit debate - rather grandly referred to by certain people who wish to leave Europe as it being "the will of the people", which of course it was - or least just a little over half of the people who voted. Hardly a decisive majority. The other 48% who voted against leaving now have no voice it seems - unless you support the Liberal Democrats.

When you look around the world today you think of the populist trends and the rise of both right and left wing extremes, and then note the honest endeavours of many who suffer as a result of the widening (as commented many times before here) gap between the rich and the poor. Particularly when there are some among the rich who think they should not pay taxes!  No wonder the richer countries want to keep out the impoverished, the disadvantaged, the people saddled with corrupt leaders, in countries with few natural resources and therefore neither food nor water in sufficient supplies.

A world that lacks compassion generally, and no common purpose.

This might not please my Australian friends much, but we were talking the other day about what New Zealand has been doing that is positive under its new leadership. The reaction, for example, to the shooting in the mosque and the action taken over gun laws immediately. Truly genuine compassion. Contrast that with the latest shooting outrage in the USA - 12 people shot which apparently is the 150th incident this year so far where more than 4 people have been shot in one go! Carry on like this and there'll be no-one left in some places.

Nothing detrimental about Australia, of course, because I'm still looking around for places to live. Hong Kong for me is still home, but my other home - Britain - has a significantly declining appeal as a place to go, and seeing as even Mr. Trump seems to be giving advice to Britain now I'm not sure who is running the country!!

Ah well, with all that is going on it is hardly a surprise that the toilet paper comes in handy, and given the number of sheets one needs these days it should not be a surprise when you look and see that the roll is running down rather quicker that one might like! Time to panic buy?

Social Sustainability, Climate and Environment Change - But Who Pays?

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today"

                                                                                  Abraham Lincoln

It is small wonder people get confused over the many conversations related to sustainability, climate change and the environment. The topics themselves, identifying multiple related issues and the debates over them, get longer, and more varied with experience. Even down to the very basics of discussions over climate and weather.

And while the debates are going on there is then all the noise around who carries the responsibility for dealing with so many different elements leading to differing solutions and arguing over what is right and what is wrong. As a result, not enough is being done.

But at least most people agree - even if they don't entirely get it, that rivers and lakes are drying up, food is therefore difficult to produce to feed an endlessly growing global population, not all (any?) of it in the developed countries, and that glaciers and ice floes are melting at such an alarming rate that should it continue, many low lying areas of the world will be under water (and not drinking water at that!).

Of course, I say most  people. There are still the naysayers who say this is just a normal pattern of climate change that goes around in 300 year cycles, and that therefore this century (I have heard it said but don't know if it's true, that the Indians describe this as the "Fire Century") will eventually revert to more normal climatic behaviour (whatever that is) and get cooler to positively freezing. Meantime our children and grandchildren get hotter and hotter with less and less water and lower food resources - but don't worry, they say, it'll be alright in the end, and they will sort it out!!

It is not surprising then that the recent focus brought to the matter by initially the student population in a number of cities around the world, and then by more disruptive action in places like London, has caught the attention of Governments. The downside to all of this however is that under pressure you now have Governments going over the top and making promises about emission controls and global warming targets that they probably cannot meet, and then conveniently omitting to tell anyone how these changes are going to be funded. And just as an aside, I do think the London demonstrators frankly ultimately did their cause more harm than good amongst the general public. Should have left it to the children, and if not, then the adult support should have known when to move on!

There is also another less easy matter to deal with here, and that is the pressure on everyone to stop using non-renewable sources of energy or fossil fuels. It is easy for the better off countries to do this, and demonstrators tend not to be overly specific with their slogans, but how do you expect countries like Bangladesh for example to survive if they haven't got the money or the wherewithal to use anything other than fossil fuels - or doesn't a country like that matter? I mean it's only 170million people after all, and a country more than most others likely to be really badly affected by rising water levels! There does need to be a sense of reality here.

But I come back to a fundamental question - who is going to pay for all of this? Making a noise and demonstrating is all very well - and of course the present young, who are likely to be the worst affected, cannot be expected to put their hands into pockets that are largely empty. So, who pays?

The organisation with which I have been associated for very many years is a traditional financial institution. One that is undergoing change, as it must because parts of its business are coming under threat from new "players" in the market. Is it perfect? No it isn't and it knows it, but I am unashamedly happy to note that the bank is actually doing its bit - not by paying lip service to the concept of "appearing to be" environmentally friendly, but getting everyone involved.

Of course my association with them now is principally in the Middle East, and from first hand I know just how committed the team here are - this is not for them just a job but a passion and a commitment with love - and the good thing is they take everyone along with them, and I am proud of them! The bank globally has been increasing its commitment financially as well - but my question is whether the new knowledge economy has the same level of commitment as the traditional providers of services? Will they be prepared to put some of their profits into the same causes? There's not much sign of that yet - and neither are they subjected to abuse and criticism seemingly reserved for the “traditional”.

It's all very well for the urban protesters to harangue and criticise business for being profitable. But there has to be level of rational thinking here. Shouting slogans and being disruptive generally makes newspaper headlines, which they all love, but do the organisations not also deserve some credit - at least those that do make and honour commitments?

Bringing attention to the plight of the world is perfectly legitimate. I am totally on the side of the people who care. Equally I support their genuine efforts, by getting involved myself both physically and financially but someone is going to have to pick up the bills at the end of the day. 

It is already late in the day to make changes in thought, understanding, and behaviour - so don't make it any later; start now. Remember though that everything worth doing has a cost attached so give credit where it is due to those that can pay, and this is not just a role for the few - everyone should contribute be they old established institutions or the knowledge economy - although do not expect miracles overnight. 

The world is worth saving; if not for you, at least for future generations, and when you are older what will your answer be to your grandchildren who stand - maybe accusingly - in front of you asking "... and what did you do to help save our planet grandad?"

An Unholy Terror

I would venture to suggest that many of us are prone to taking a small piece of information, interpreting it - or listening to the interpretation of others if we cannot think for ourselves - and not as a result seeing the whole picture.

History is something we are encouraged to learn about. It was in fact one of the (only) subjects I passed in my school exams and okay it was only just a pass but I would credit that to a dedicated history teacher who sparked my somewhat lazy academic mind into an interest that has subsequently stayed with me, as readers of this Blog will know.

Religion, as we read in history, has been the cause of many wars throughout the centuries. Be it Non-Believers and Christians, and Crusaders against the Moslems, or internally within the Catholic Church with the Inquisitions, and so on through to battles between the Catholic Church and the Protestants in Ireland, and in Islam between the Sunni and the Shia.

History, you would think, reveals to us what has gone on in the past. Actions that today you hope would never be condoned - and for which we are still apologise for the sins of our fathers. Death and destruction by the hand of people, and not by forces of nature over which we have no control, surely provide for us the necessary warnings that wandering around killing people is not something that generally leads to universal rejoicing. Indeed it more often invokes the response that "this must never happen again!" But inevitably it does.

Religions, on the other hand usually exhort people to be nice to each other; the opening words of the Quran read "In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful..", in the Bible it is said "love your neighbour as you love yourself" - suggesting to me, anyway, that the idea of going around and killing people because you don't agree with their beliefs is not something you should be doing. But that said, in both holy books - written centuries ago and with only modern people to make interpretations - there are also, if taken in isolation more vicious streaks. 

The recent incidents, a few weeks ago in New Zealand and over the weekend in Sri Lanka, where Moslems and then Christians were targeted - although in the case of Sri Lanka I am sure the indiscriminate nature of the attack caught up people from all faiths - highlight surely the senseless nature of terror crimes carried out in the name of religion. But is it going to stop? It's hard to see how.

Western leaders have been quick to condemn both sides for the attacks, and it seems to me that New Zealand's Prime Minister has really taken this head-on with a view to trying to make a difference. I hope she succeeds. Sadly, I think, leaders from elsewhere do not seem to have been quite so forward in their condemnation, although at least not through the media that I have seen.

That said there is one Middle Eastern leader who stands out for me for having summarised the issues succinctly. He wrote a scenario that is based on the simple notion that if you read something in isolation (in his case the Quran) and act upon the small piece you have read or interpreted in a certain way you will behave in a contrary fashion to the overall meaning that was originally intended. You therefore, he writes, need to keep the lights on and be awake to your surroundings.

I think this is really powerful and should be a message to everyone in following a way of life that would lead us to stability and peace - but it leads me on to developing a concern I have now.

The world has become a more dangerous place to live in. The people who shout the loudest are getting heard and getting action. I honestly do not entirely believe that Britain voting to leave the EU, albeit by a small margin and a low turnout, was all about EU laws, straight croissants and re-financing the National Health System - but it was as much about Nationalism and keeping jobs in Britain that are currently being done by people from other countries. "Making America Great Again" and Building Walls are other examples of Isolationism that if pursued will in the longer term not make the world a better place to be. Immigration by refugees with no hope, Climate Change (denied by some - embraced by many), strong leaders with selfish motives in mind are all combining into a perfect storm. You can see the signs - and there seems to be no "trip switch" to stop it happening.

Islamic State has been defeated; oh yeh? It may have lost its physical territory, and I was assured a couple of weeks ago that they are really no longer a credible threat. I don't know about you, but more than 310 people killed in Sri Lanka this week - and who knows how many next week somewhere else, sounds pretty credible to me. And if we pursue nationalist and isolationist goals it will mean people get disadvantaged, especially amongst the younger generations. And if the young have nothing better to do guess who will find them, and use them?

My late Mother, a WWII soldier, said a few years ago, "you know, we have been so lucky there have been no big wars for years but the way the world is going it is going to take another war to bring matters back to normal". For the sake of our children and the generations that follow I can only pray - to whoever - that she is wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

The Nationalist Club - Limited Entry

Rather disturbingly my last Blog about 5 weeks ago mentioned a return to work after some "early in the year" holidays. I had obviously overlooked the fact that work restricts one's free time to write Blogs ... solutions I suppose are pretty obvious but because I still enjoy the work I do I guess it's too early to stop yet!! That said I do have another Blog lurking in the background about a dilemma for those of us who have lost our support - the administrative one, not the other one silly!!

Back to now:

Every Club has rules, some more stringent than others as far as entry qualifications and rules are concerned, but one seems to have gathered a lot more momentum in recent years and it's the Nationalist Club. Not heard of it? Well, I think you have, although if you have an interest in social history you may also be aware of the Nationalist Clubs, which were organised in the late 19th Century in the USA and disappeared before the end of that century, lasting maybe 8 years.

The new Nationalist Club is amending its "rule book" as it goes along with conditions making it harder to join if you are an outsider, but once you are a member - an insider - you guard what you have with increasing and fervent jealousy, conveniently forgetting in many cases where you came from in the first place.

While organisations try to broaden general acceptance and improve the circumstances around employment criteria, covering pay and gender for example, and the workplace endeavours in many cases - not all, I admit - to become a more respectful and humane place in which to work, it seems that at the country level, some are adopting a more restrictive “it’s my ball, and you can’t play” attitude. As a child I was always brought up to share, so this jealousy over possessions does not sit well.

So, what am I talking about here? The Mexican border wall comes to mind immediately. The emotive commentary from the top cannot be missed, from which I am led to believe that the building of the Wall is going to bring an immediate end to shootings in schools, and deal with the current opioid epidemic sweeping the country. As of course Brexit, (I shudder every time I think about it with 8 days to go) - will mean that the sudden and alarming rise of knife crime - carried out by recent immigrants of course (oh ... it wasn’t them?), will suddenly cease because nobody will be allowed to cross into Britain anymore. And then there is the refusal to accept apparently wild-eyed and unstable refugees who cross the Mediterranean in search of a better life - or refugees created as a result of a war they started in somewhere like Syria (oh ... they didn’t start it?) is going to improve as we all crouch behind our mini walls to protect what we have.

The amazing progress that we have made in our lives - in our own lifetimes - with the improvements in health care, in technology, in bringing many people out of poverty are not insignificant changes to be disregarded. And yes, let's not go overboard, there are many things still to be done but what seems to have gone into reverse is our ability to act as rational human beings. Why do we actually need nuclear weapons to protect ourselves? If we as a human race were needing protection from an alien planet then perhaps there would be some justification but if we actually found a way to get on with each other rather than be jealous we wouldn't need these things.

Okay I know, all this sounds very serendipitous and not at all like real world comment. Of course we need weapons to protect ourselves because I am ignoring basic human nature; the tendency we have to gain possessions like they do in the animal kingdom. The race for supremacy - but come on, does it have to be like that? And what is causing me to reflect like this comes down to events of the past very few years.

We have enjoyed peace for many years now, in relative terms, but leaders generally are pumping up the rhetoric. In some cases it is justified, in many others it is just bullying for position and power, and when you get to the phase where no one is willing to back away or see reason, you end up with a collision. You obviously   know what that means in the modern world. And the bullies, who speak well but who are sometimes just a little deliberately short on the facts, take with them swathes of people who buy into the rhetoric. We have seen it before - albeit 80 years ago, but I am concerned given recent events that it is heading full circle.

The Nationalist Club movement is gaining serious momentum, although I hope it only lasts as long as the previous one or else we are all in trouble.

Protectionism and Poverty - The World Today

I am privileged, and according to some of my friends (?) and colleagues, I am rich. That, I submit, from them is a little like the pot calling the kettle black - an old expression that I hope does not cause offence to pots or kettles and that I have not now inadvertently started a “#movement”.

In my defence - not that I am proposing to mount one, I am not as “rich” as many other people I know - at least not in monetary terms, but then neither are the people who call me “rich” - in some cases in rather derogatory terms - actually poor, as they most certainly would themselves qualify for a place in the top 1% of the world’s wealthiest people. [To be in the top 1% worldwide for income, you need to be in receipt annually of around GBP25,000 pension or salary - and in net worth terms - GBP600k. Remember that is to be in the top 1% globally!!]. “Rich” for me though is measured not just in terms of fiscal and asset wealth, but also in terms of freedoms, happiness and health. So yes, I am rich and so I also have to say while we are about it that I am also lucky.

Where I am right now, the people are not financially rich! I am on the Mekong River in Laos. It’s really interesting. The part I have been going down bisects Laos and Thailand and the contrast between the two sides has been stark. The more prosperous Thai side with its brick built villages shows up the poorer Lao side with its run down wooden huts and dirt tracks. Oh yes, say the tourists, the Lao side is just so much more picturesque and unspoilt. I was having a chat with Lee, our Lao guide, and asked him about the border between the two - with the river providing a natural boundary. He told me it was very easy to cross between the two sides to visit but only for a day. No visa needed, but if you stayed any longer you would be sent back to the other side, and anyway you couldn’t work without a permit. So, I asked him more about his feelings when he saw the prosperity on the Thai side and didn’t it make him wish Laos was more like Thailand? His response was simple. Yes, of course it would be better, but then he also said why couldn’t they be the same country? They have many ethnic similarities - even the Thai Baht is accepted in Laos, but of course the Thais don’t want to share what is theirs. And there you have it, the problem in a microcosm. Why should they share something they have built up? What is wrong with possession even if your neighbour is poor.

The world was once made up of small communities, happy in their own environments but then those communities started to spread out to meet their needs for food or grazing then ultimately other raw materials gathering influence on the way by bullying or by diplomacy. But it became a matter of ownership and possession, and over the ensuing centuries it has ever been thus. The explorers, the adventurers ... Marco Polo, Vasco de Gama, Zheng He, Captain Cook. The colonisers and acquirers of land and property - the Vikings, the Romans, Genghis Khan, the Portuguese and Spaniards, the Dutch in Asia and the British everywhere. Did they develop the countries they invaded or colonised ... well some will argue yes ... or did they just take what they wanted. And then did they prepare those countries to fend for themselves when they became independent? I would argue no. They made possession the key word. It’s rather the opposite of what we tell our children, which is to share. As adults do we encourage sharing? 

Lee, the Laotian is interestingly not bitter about the wealth of Thailand, but does wish they had some of it, or that they could live together. Possession is I am sure what drove many of the people of Britain to vote to leave the European Union (and I know I will be criticised for this view) because “protecting your own” is what possession is all about. The USA - a country built on immigrants - now wants to protect the possessions it has acquired and build some wall to stop other people from having the same opportunities afforded to their forbears.

What can one do? Look, this is as much a matter of human nature as anything else. Like a child, you have something - you think it is yours and you want to keep it. But everyone seems to agree that the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” is growing. This cannot, in the longer term, be sustainable. Don’t we owe it to our children and the generations that follow to see sense, to both educate and encourage this generation - and beyond - to reign in the excesses. Are the huge salaries paid out actually justified, and just how much do you need to live comfortably? Yes, you can still reward success and hard work - and that would be right because there should be no room for the idle. But people like Lee work at least as hard as many millionaires I know - and while he is rich in knowledge and in culture, he needs a little more to be able to build a better house and educate his family. Although being my usual cynical self, that “little more” of course needs to find its way into the hands of the people who need it and not the hands of the corrupt; yet another problem seeking a solution!

The Power of "C"

Amongst my more annoying habits - and people will tell you I do have a few - is a fascination with words. Etymology, the study of the history and origin of words and phrases is, to me anyway, a source of entertainment, amusement and ... okay, education. It often sidetracks my thought process although that doesn't take much to do these days - witness the lack of blogs.

But I have suddenly sunk into "micro management" and developed a somewhat persistent relationship with the letter "C". It is an important letter to me being the start of so many words relevant to our world today. For example words like Confusion, Corruption, Criminal, Chaos, - all of which are overshadowing better words like Compassion and Caring, but playing very well to one of my favourites (no not that one!!) - cynic!

I have been a cynic pretty much all my life, not believing that people do things for me out of a genuine desire to do so but because there is an ulterior motive. I will be honest, I don't let many people into my inner self because I find it hard to do - and perhaps fear they will take advantage of it or find fault, and let me clarify that this is not nearly as "sad" as it might sound, it is just who I am.

So, as one person I do know well might say after all that  ... "the point being?". Simply this ... my cynical distrusting world, where the only point of agreement I have with the present US President is his distaste for the media, is going downhill. He talks about "fake news" or perhaps "alternative news" but there is in reality little news that is truly fake. There is no smoke without fire. But the media do have an uncanny ability to twist stories to suit their headlines rather than providing a full and balanced view of events, global or otherwise. It's not funny - you read an article about something of which you have a lot of knowledge and you note that what is written is correct in parts - but then the other side of the story that would provide context is conveniently omitted, leaving the reader with an impression of dastardly goings on when actually the opposite is true.

But back to my "C" list; I for one am Confused by the lack of leadership in our world that as a result leads to even more confusion. Our in many cases, but not all, elected leaders go through a process of constant mind-changing leaving their audience scratching its heads in a manner of uncertainty. Then I am concerned by what appears to be growing disregard for honesty and the rise of Corruption. The accusations levelled against former and current leaders in countries such as Malaysia and Pakistan, and by the behaviour of certain African leaders - now mostly fallen it is true but who have still not been brought to account. My vision is further clouded by the level of Crime - hate (racism), knife, gun, and not excluding crimes committed in the name of religion - that is becoming a more regular feature of our daily lives. Lives by the way where greed and a desire for dominance have overtaken our more decent traits. It is not pretty, and one can only hope that a wiser generation of young people eventually get tired of these antics and begin to veer back towards tolerance and decency - although I suspect the younger generation is currently just as confused.

But in the Chaos and uncertainty that surrounds us can we really see a way through? In Britain the annual results are out for this year's batch of school leavers. The highest number of top grades (A), being awarded in the last five years. The suggestion is that the pass marks were lowered to ensure that enough pupils got top marks. (Obviously true - I read it in the media!!). But if that is the case, then who is kidding who? And with Britain about to leave the European Union the number of people studying languages appears to be on the decline. It seems to me that someone is not thinking straight - chaotic. For me, Britain leaving Europe (and remember I live in Hong Kong so why should I care?) all just adds to the confusion and ultimately to the chaos. And it is not helped by changing words initially spoken, and sometimes misspoken, by people in authority. Oh, and where the hell did "misspoken" as a word come from anyway - and to save you looking it up, actually it comes from a Middle English word of the 12th century - misspeken!!

My concern with letter "C" words focuses on the negatives. Where is the Compassion and the Caring in our Community today? Well there are some totally amazing people in this world who display and practice such positive traits but they are hugely in the minority. If the luckier ones in this world, and yes I am amongst them, could just go that extra step to demonstrate by our actions rather than merely words that we do care and we do have compassion, the world overall would be in a better place - but we need help to deal with the bullies the corrupt and the criminals. So who, my friends, is brave enough to take on that task? Our leaders - or do they just conjure up visions of yet another word beginning with the  letter "C"?!!

From One End To The Other

It’s all very well isn’t it to think that after many years of work and knowledge acquisition you are up to date with, and still a participant in, world affairs. Maybe still invited to take part in debate, public or private, that you think is meaningful. To demonstrate that you are worldly wise and making some sort of important contribution.

I wrote recently about the inevitable rise of Artificial Intelligence, pointing out that the ability to prevent this new technology from taking over the human race in due course was at least for the time being still very much in our control. Then this week we have had “important” events like the Bitcoin rise - a bubble if ever I saw one, a boost for Theresa May in the Brexit negotiations albeit a small step forward in what - for me - is not a clever strategy to leave Europe in this manner, and President Trump leading us all closer to global violence with his announcements about Jerusalem.

And then I was brought back to earth with a bump!

I was in Dubai and had been invited by my colleagues at HSBC Middle East to attend a workshop for young  people about finance. Right up my street, you might think. But actually it has been a long year what with one thing and another - no complaints, it’s what I do because I want to, although the health bit in the middle was something of a distraction (mending nicely thank you) - and after a particularly taxing week I admit it, I was tired and honestly, less than enthusiastic.

However, I duly turned up with some fellow Directors to participate in this “workshop”. It was in a warehouse-like space that was rented out for events like this, and after a general briefing on what was expected of us the attendees came to join us. Sixty of them, boys and girls - aged variously from about 14 up to early 20s. Many of them - but not all - born in the UAE of originally immigrant parents who themselves had been in the UAE maybe for 20 or 30 years. A few recent arrivals from Syria/Palestine. None of them with citizenship they could use, the majority of them without schooling or at best very elementary, from low-income families, a few with jobs - but my goodness, all of them eager and with aspirations and with hope. A hope that was etched on their faces as they sought even the most rudimentary knowledge and took in the sort of advice that said, for example, if you were lucky enough to get a job and receive money, the idea was to resist the temptation to immediately go and spend it. All of it. “Save” was the word of the day

They were asked to create a future time-line of their lives and put their aspirations on paper taking into account that everything they did cost money, and pointing out that the more attention they paid to learning the better equipped they were to get jobs, and fulfil some of their dreams. The young 16 year old boy on my right said “you know, dreams never come true”. I asked him how he knew, and of course he didn’t really have an answer but it was a belief borne of the life he had lived so far. I gave him and the others at my table some of the background to my life (readers of my Blog know the history) and said that although I agreed life was made up of many combinations of things including luck and opportunity you also had a part to play in making your own luck. He understood what I was saying although I’m not sure I convinced him - but despite that, he did still want a better future. And he wanted to work for it. And as for the young man opposite me - he will either rise to the top of the pile or sink (and then probably come back up again). He gave a really good impromptu rap performance and was prepared to get up and give a presentation on some of the things we had spent time talking about - with a bit of prompting. But lively - oh yes.

The aspirations were interesting. They wanted to go to college and study; own their own businesses - anything from construction companies to car sales to restaurants. But what I found really interesting was that many of them wanted to devote some of their time and money to helping those who were even worse off than they were. That was a lesson for me - not a lesson from me! 

I left the workshop refreshed, energised and ... humbled. And it was not purely and simply that I had been a part of something that I was not initially looking forward to and realised that I had done something that was truly worthwhile, and clearly I was impressed by the enthusiasm of the young people themselves. But I was also very taken by the dedication of the adults who were giving their time to try and ensure that these children had better lives than their parents, and were in a position to make a difference, including I am pleased to say colleagues from the HSBC team in Dubai who are fully involved and unstinting in their support.

Similar sentiments have been expressed by others - but in relation to the UAE most vocally by HH Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, Ruler of Dubai, - whose view is that if we do not educate our children we are making them vulnerable to pressures representing elements that will only lead our world down a slippery slope of temptation and make them easy targets for the recruiters of terrorists.

How true!

Gimme, Gimme, Gimme

You have to be of a certain age to remember the Abba song Gimme, Gimme, Gimme - although the line did go on to say "a man after midnight". Well the first part of the song, and therefore the Blog title seems to apply neatly to some recent revelations, but for the follow-on lyrics frankly in my particular case the last thing I want is a man after midnight. Each to their own.

But the Gimme bit ...? Maybe I'm getting overly sensitive (unlikely) but there has been much in the news of late about pay and pay differentials. It's a subject that has been a favourite theme of mine over time although more in the nature of my concerns over widening gaps between "haves" and "have-nots" and without it being controlled the possible fallout that will eventually arise.

It all started with the appalling revelations about the disparity in pay in the BBC between the men and the women. Are Chris Evans, somewhere in the £2.2m p.a range, or Graham Norton with his salary plus the money from his production company worth the money they apparently receive? Certainly when Jeremy Vine was asked on his radio show if he thought he was overpaid he was stumped for an answer. (And just as an aside, I haven't heard too many people ask the question about whether Wayne Rooney is worth his £13.5m a year.)

Well, I guess I would have been stumped for an answer too, because you should pay people based on the value they bring - and the audiences they entertain, and personally I think these entertainers work very hard. As a result, and for once, I actually don't have a problem with some of those pay cheque amounts.

I do however have a problem, big time, with the disparity in pay between the men and the women at the BBC. It's a total disgrace. And I certainly don't buy the argument of one of the higher paid men who said it was the fault of the agents not to have negotiated better terms for their women clients when in many cases the agents represent both sides of the gender equation in the same business, and would have been aware of the disparity.

The Gender/Pay gap is not however my focus here. It is money itself which, like it or not, causes many problems. You will say it's human nature. You look over the fence at the house next door that is bigger than yours and you want one the same. You look at how much people spend, and the shops they go to and you are envious. So you seek to enrich your position and almost get to the point where your ethics and morals head for the door. If you have a decent amount of money already, the little devil inside you still wants more and doesn't care what ploys you use to get it.

Maybe I am more naive than I thought possible, but I have witnessed recent cases where a job seems to be undertaken because of the money being paid to do it, rather than for the sake of the job, and the responsibility that comes with it.

I am not referring here, by the way, to those people who need to take any job with any pay, because they cannot live otherwise, but this is from people who have already worked and are comfortably off - without being rich - but for whom money is their driving force. That said, we also have the recent plethora of fraud cases where people have been claiming money for disabilities and then found to have been competing in various sporting events or climbing mountains.

Personally I find it disappointing. We seem to have fine-tuned the well-trodden path of give and take into an art form called take and take. We are becoming selfish - not universally, let me add because being an optimist I still believe there are more unselfish people out there than there are selfish ones.

But how much is enough, how much is too much and how much do you need? The argument that a professional footballer is worth £10m a year, for example, because he has a limited playing career suggests that if he plays for only 3 years at that level he will earn £30m. Divide that by a 45 year working life gives you £650,000+ per annum. What's the average wage in Britain - some £28,000 a year? Hmm. There's something odd here, isn't there?

Anyway, back to the point. We are living in a world where greed has become commonplace. And where, sadly, in some countries where there is a welfare society it has become easier to take money from the Government than to go and find a job. I am not saying that everyone is lazy but if you are faced with a situation where you get paid roughly the same amount for going to a job every day ... and paid for not going to a job - what do you choose? It lowers self-esteem and raises the sense of entitlement - for which someone has to pay!

Which brings me back to where I started. This was from the premise that some people who should know better seem to be happiest when singing the opening line of "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme..."

 

Practical Regulation

I had a colleague once who thought that if you put your thumb over the barrel of an air rifle and pulled the trigger, you would have created a vacuum within the barrel so that the pellet would never reach the other end. He was called "Jeb shot-thumb" since that fateful day he discovered painfully that his theory didn't hold true! Being involved as I am with regulators from time to time I am getting a sense of déjá vu here in terms of potentially putting my own thumb over a barrel with no rational sense as to the outcome, and therefore probably shouldn't do this but anyway here goes.

I attended some years ago a conference in Asia for Regulators. It was an annual event but this one was special, if I recall, because it was their 10th anniversary. I was honoured to have been invited to speak, albeit somewhat surprised, as apparently it was the first time they had a speaker from the industry they were regulating. So there they were, having a meeting "plotting" how best to regulate the banks without actually asking the banks if they had any issues with their proposals. In fact, partly rationally I could actually understand some of that logic. If you asked the banks whether they thought regulation was a good idea they would quite possibly have said "no, don't be silly, we are very good at regulating ourselves so stop interfering". That was before the global financial crisis.

Since then we have had an awful lot of regulation in the industry. Much of it, frankly, needed despite protests from the banks who were not as it happens regulating themselves quite as well as they believed, and where even the excesses were becoming excessive! What did we get as a result - Dodd Frank, Volker Rules, Sarbanes Oxley and heaven knows how many versions thereof to the extent that regulation has now become an industry. And even Regulators themselves seem to try hard to make "refinements" to the various rules so they appear to be more rigorous than the next one in their desire to ensure that nothing gets through the net at all - sadly, not even business!

I was talking to a colleague just today actually following his attendance at a board meeting for a financial services company - his first of this particular institution, and he said "You know, it was very interesting but I am not sure at what point the Board got to talk about business". Fair point, and from other people I speak to around the world, not unusual. Boards today, and particularly those in the financial sector spend most of their time ensuring that what they do is "regulator-proof"! The meticulously produced minutes evidencing challenge, debate, discussion, dissent so that you have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Then the regulator still comes back and says okay, but how do you know this is right or that or that is right, and by the way provide us with names and addresses. To which one is often tempted to say "you know what - here are the keys, go run the Bank yourself"!

It seems to me that our regulators are full of people who are technically brilliant. Seriously bright human beings and certainly with far more intellect and intelligence than I have, but who have never had to run a financial institution from a business and practical viewpoint in their life - or run anything else for that matter. It brings us back to the old debate about the difference between intelligence and common sense. I favour the Merriam Webster definition that says "common sense is defined as sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like". It goes on to say that intelligence is the “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity". It's sometimes only the "understanding" bit of that definition with which I am at odds.

What we need are regulators who not only have the intelligence to create appropriate regulations that will keep the financial services industry on a safe, productive track but have the common sense to understand that businesses are dynamic, creative and affect our daily lives. We need to create a regulatory formula that is practical and serves all sectors of the community. Regulations, per se, will never be perfect. Life is not perfect and there is an element of risk tolerance - developed over many years - that we should be prepared to accept.

I am afraid that today we live in a world where we are trying to prevent every unpleasant eventuality. Such a utopian life does not exist, but we should try at least to take a practical view, and let the world breathe again. 

A Choice of Topics

 Often any decision, even the wrong decision, is better than no decision.

                                                                                            Ben Horowitz

I started off by thinking I was going to comment on a report I read earlier this week on the subject of strikes in Britain and the demands being made by the unions for a fairer distribution of corporate profits.That would have led to a discussion on the wealth gap. Then I got sidetracked by a conversation I had on what has happened to women in the recent past. Not just the fact that we were anticipating a more prominent showing by Women Leaders - now Clinton has faded, while Merkel and May are both under pressure, but the issues go deeper than that. So, a possible opportunity for a rant there - or should I say a series of thoughts. But then I got sent an interesting YouTube clip which deals with a subject I am hugely interested in - millenials. And this one was a clip - 20 minutes of it - that touched on a variety of topics that made me feel unsettled, troubled, somehow having failed, and yet in agreement ... and wondering what it all means. Oh boy! Where was I to start?

Decision time! Women first!!

Surely, any right thinking person in the modern era has to understand the enormous benefits that women bring to our society. It doesn't matter whether it is social or business; technology, finance, design or shipbuilding.

There are negative issues surrounding the beliefs and practices in some cultures over the role of women but, and I accept this is a controversial statement, if those people want to practice such beliefs then they should find an environment in which they can do so and not try to impose their culture on others. That, by the way, works both ways and if you find yourself in a country where greater attention is paid to modesty then don't think as a westerner, for example, that because what you do in your own country is acceptable it should be okay anywhere else.

I am a great believer in diversity in general, and also in getting the right person for the job - irrespective of gender, ethnicity or other any persuasion. I am also not generally in favour of having quota systems. But I am not at all convinced that we provide the necessary training or create the right opportunities for women to prepare them for roles.

There are various initiatives in a number of countries whereby corporations are either encouraged or required to have a certain number of women on their Boards. This works to a degree, but too often the ratio of male:female workers in senior positions is heavily skewed in favour of the males. This means that the pool of available women becomes limited and surely we should not be focusing just on Board positions but asking companies why they don't have more senior women in their corporate structure?

I am due to moderate a panel at a conference in a week or so and I was looking at the list of speakers and panellists. Frankly, I was shocked at the lack of women speakers, less than 10%, and asked the organisers for a comment. The response was that they had asked a number of high profile women speakers but most had declined. I'm afraid this goes back to an earlier comment. There are so few women in senior positions that the pool is small and they are therefore much in demand. But do you always need to have the very top names - and nothing else will do? There are many highly articulate, talented women out there who just need some exposure, and in my view we are letting them down.

I said earlier on that I was against quotas, and I am. I came from an era where business was done based on principles of good behaviour and trust. This subsequently became eroded to the extent that rules and regulations had to be imposed. Perhaps we do need to something similar to make companies wake up to the value of women.

In one or two of the Middle Eastern countries with which I am involved, there are quotas for localisation. These are set not just on an overall basis but on a layered basis - level by level.

Maybe it's worth a thought.