How Many Economists Should Be Fired?
National Association for Business Economics survey:
Nearly half – 47% – of surveyed economists said overall industry demand was falling, compared with 35% who said so in the October survey. Just 10% of respondents said profit margins were rising, compared with 52% who believe they are falling. And 38% of economists said capital expenses are falling, up from just 15% in October.
Just 22% believed the U.S. economy would expand this year, down from 62% who thought so in October. Although 26% now believe the economy will shrink less than 1% this year, 52% now think the economy will shrink by more than 1%, which no one predicted in October.
Let’s do some econo-math on these numbers:
- 35%, in October, estimated demand falling. That number jumped to 47% this time. 47-35= 12% cut.
- 62% in October thought the economy would expand in 2009 , down to 22%. Should be sliced right off the top, starting with the 22%.
- 10% still think profit margins are rising. All slashed.
- 26% think the economy will shrink less than 1% this year. Overly optimistic, half fired.
In sum: 12%+10%+62%+13% = 97% of economists should be fired.
*(Oops. Bold = all caps.)
Post Carbon Institute + Energy Bulletin
Nice combo. Really impressed with the quality of both institutions.
Colleges + Strategic Technology
At most colleges, the head technology guy is treated as a high level technical support guy. Some are gaining traction (evidenced by a surge in online courses, etc) but can, in a lot of ways, only accentuate and slowly shape the college. This is why you will always “see” the technology as opposed to it being deeply ingrained, like plumbing. If MIT reached that level of technological penetration, it would look surprisingly like this.
Sadly most, suffer from a lack of the ability to think about technology strategically. Here’s a test to see how innovative your college is (useful for administrators, students, and even forward thinking professors):
IDEA:
- Most colleges and professors take feedback forms at the end of the year – on paper. Instead, create an indexed and searchable database where this data is input -save some part of a tree and that extra short class period and skip the paper process altogether.
- Allow for manipulation based on year, professor, and the various other criteria reflected on the course review form. Make this database accessible by the community (including prospectives and alumni).
IMPACT:
- Doing so would create a marketplace for its courses which creates incentive for professors to innovate and simultaneously allows students to gain the most bang for their buck. Alumni could reinforce the most innovative classes by earning advanced degrees and paying higher fees etc.
BENEFITS:
- Professors will have to constantly innovate with new knowledge, new multimedia and new course material.
- Students will not choose their classes without knowledge or based on hearsay, instead relying upon a large peer generated dataset, and by doing so they are able to ensure that their money is best spent.
- Also, as a result of peer generation students will know their input has impact and will have a community imperative to put their best thinking into the course review.
// I sent some of this as a report to a few college administrators at a few top schools when I was involved in student government a couple years ago. Unfortunately, none took this simple, cheap revolutionary project to heart.
//Now, sadly, their endowments are suffering, and they’re struggling as to how to proceed. All are overly dependent on donations. I’d love to help out, but the barriers to changing college administration are about as high as barriers to helping government think.
PMC Protection Rackets
This is a follow up to a brief I gave to a top academic audience a few years ago, titled “Rising Market-States: The Evolving Role of Private Military Contractors.”
The only difference between Hamas, LeT, Naxals, Shining Path, Taliban, Zetas and private military corporations (PMCs) is that the latter is tasked with security (protection) by choice, whereas the others establish dominance in a TAZ.
PMCs have thus far enjoyed a parasitic relationship with nation-states, absorbing functions of states in return for large swaths of cash. This has demanded large firms with large scale resource (fuel, infrastructure, manpower) requirements. Many have ramped up their organizations to take advantage of the golden age – Iraq, and Afghanistan.
The breakdown of the nation-state demands that this industry adapt to smaller clients. PMCs will have to detether themselves from the nation-state and its trappings, compete with these various insurgencies, and restructure the industry to suit this new reality. Others, the non state actors previously listed, are better suited – adept at violence, experienced in governance, and already agile – to the emerging future.
Some will provide top notch security services, help stand up new microstates, protect homes and businesses, and enable life to continue with lean governance structures. However, many will not be able to continue offering their clients a choice (a function of quality of service), instead choosing to coopt the tactics of their competitors – forcing participation for one, and taking on the multiple black economy revenue streams for another. In essence, private insurgencies.
// The upcoming funding disruption to the DoD can help accelerate this process.
The Nation-State Protection Racket
John’s has a great post up on the idea.
The nation state bubble is popping. It will be critical to really understand what the nation state was, what role it played, and the larger context so as to regenerate some of its more crucial functions.
I did some work on the nation state as a market distortion a couple years ago, though my focus was on private military contractors. It should help contextualize the racket from another angle. Should probably work up that idea in a short article.