Occasionally I am asked why I have failed to list my qualifications on my resume. The reason for this omission is simple and obvious; I don’t posses any qualifications and I wouldn’t falsify my very lengthy CV.
Trust me I’m a highly intelligent person, offered entry to MENSA after taking a preliminary test, truly the reason for this lack is not because I didn’t have the ability to gain the bells and whistles of academic excellence. At every opportunity I was too busy, too young, or too old or not simply too tired to be bothered enough. This lack is entirely my own fault and responsibility but I did have good reasons at every stage.
As I’ve written previously in various other articles and blogs I dropped out of school early to rush headlong, and somewhat blindly after a career in film production. I was exactly 16, which was the first legal age you could leave school in those far off days. My father, who apparently had turned down an opportunity to go to Cambridge when he was very young prior to the war to pursue his original career as a structural engineer was more than keen that I went to university. To that end he insisted I qualified to enter higher education and then could take a year out to find out the realities of employment.
Following the line of least resistance and being a lazy sod, I discovered that you could then take the necessary tests to get into the California education system over the road from where we lived in the American Embassy. I remember my joy at discovering how comparatively easy it was and I was offered the chance at an American university, which I deferred. Approximately forty years later I think I’d better tell them I wouldn’t be taking it up!
I went on to start my career at the run. Working on wonderful films and for the Ministry of Defense via a small Soho media production company called Searchlight and even more fun, the Avengers TV series. From this run of work I found a friend called Mike Lytton, and together we started making small documentaries. Before we knew it the films were getting bigger and we even got cinema distribution internationally.
Now I was about 21 and had a burgeoning career. I thought it was high time I had an education to go with it. I applied to be amongst the first intake for the National Film School (it didn’t add the word television to its name for a few years) but was informed that I needed to have qualifications prior to obtaining entry. However I was offered the opportunity to teach one of the classes. I remember them telling me that the pay for the job was less than I then paid to my own assistant!
Years of a productive, creatively satisfying and remunerative career followed. I was in my middle forties before I returned to academia.
I found myself working at the Bournemouth Film School, first as an Associate Lecturer, then onwards in many roles including lecturer, Acting Course Director, Course Director, then moving to the Northern Film School at Leeds Metropolitan University where I was Course Leader and Head of Production for the MA Film Production and led the putting together and validation of their Foundation Degrees in Media Production. I sat on the validation and academic committees and then moved on to the University of East London where I was Director of the Media Production Centre. In addition to this I had two other academic and research Directorships and then became an External Examiner for the Open University Validation Service at various higher education establishments in this and other countries.
During this period I delivered academic papers at conferences and became National Secretary of the Association of Media Practice Educators and organized and hosted their conference at my university. I felt that the time had come for me to finally obtain some higher education of my own; after all I had been giving out degrees for about a decade!
I saw a Masters degree in scriptwriting at Salford advertised and applied. I was invited to come and sit their entrance test, which I did. I was taken into the room with the lecturing staff that told me that although I had passed the test with flying colors I should be teaching the course. They intimated that it would be silly, and faintly embarrassing for them if I took up the place on offer, so I didn’t. It was then proposed that I pursued a practice-based doctorate to accompany the film I was then making, called Full Circle. This would have involved me in running three university Directorates, making a film, serving as National Secretary of AMPE and now writing a few hundred thousand words for the doctoral thesis. I declined this opportunity.
So here we are, making films, writing books and screenplays, doing a bit of business and serving the Open University Validation Service, but still with not a qualification to my name but giving them to others. Life is awfully strange sometimes.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
SomeAdviceForThoseStartingOutInTheBiz
About two or three times a month I get a call from someone telling me that they have a younger relative, or the son or daughter of a friend who is looking to break into one part or other of show business.
Firstly let me make it very clear that there simply isn’t a one size fits all answer to the question of how to best get ahead in show business. Generally I am a fan of getting an education where and when you can, after all, a bit of knowledge can’t hurt can it? Well, in show business it actually could. There are leaps of faith in the creative arts that are best taken in sublime ignorance. I started that way, without any film education other than that I picked up on the run. I made my first few films in blissful ignorance, armed only with naïve self-belief, ambition and drive. Hopefully some talent was in that mix, but I dare say that came a long way behind dogged determination and optimism based on mostly wishful thinking.
It wasn’t until I was 21, some five years into my filmmaking career that I thought it would be a good idea to go back to formal education. I applied for the then fairly new National Film School, and was rejected. The reason given being that it was then just for post graduates and I needed to get a degree prior to applying again. However, based on my resume at that time, I was offered some teaching at an Associate Professor level. I could have taught the class I couldn’t get into!
I never took up anything other than an occasional Guest Lecturer role anywhere until many years later when I became an academic myself. But that’s another story.
I don’t want to appear to be too harsh, or negative, because I was once one of those kids looking to get ahead and I do realize that it can all seem very confusing and worrying when you’re starting out. The story of most of the aspiring talents reminds me of my bright friends when we were in our first schools who were then were sent to very good schools where everyone was as bright, or even brighter than they were. This was a shocking surprise for many of them, some of whom never really recovered their initial confidence, convinced of their own fallibility and lack of any consequence.
I also remember how frighteningly clever and prescient some of our film and media students were at the Bournemouth Film School. When we were running that course there were huge numbers of candidates for every place and half of them on the course already had an M level degree before they got to enter our program. It’s very intimidating and a great deal of it is unnecessary.
A great many of the people wanting to be in the creative industries simply are not suited to them. The prime reason is fairly obvious but needs stating here, it is because the majority of jobs within the industry are itinerant and therefore there is hardly any security, either economic or social. If, by your nature, you seek security and a warm, nurturing environment, then these are not the industries for you.
Naturally, every person proposing someone truly believes their relative or friend is the possessor of wonderful gifts as a talented ingénue, ready to be the best creative talent in the country. Usually they are described as being a bit shy, or not pushy enough but generally they are only lacking their first opportunity. Quite often when I speak to the prospective student or employee they are either not so convinced on the route they are pursuing or have any wish to listen to me, or anyone or anything else that contradicts their beliefs and aspirations. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have spoken, as a favor, to these young people, and realized, after two minutes, that they’re simply not willing to listen.
Their families are most often looking for an opportunity in the form of a job, or a pointer in the right direction. Sometimes they seek advice on where to go to university to best further their chances in their future search for a career in entertainment.
I guess I get more than my fair share of these enquiries because I am in the business, and have extensive knowledge of, and still occasionally work in higher education. So this is my general answer to all those people who ask me, and others these same questions, now and for the future.
The first question is one you should ask yourself. Do you really want to be in a business that is hugely demanding, and will give you criticism, sometimes very tough employment opportunities, amazingly long hours, intense competition from large numbers of very talented people and more often than not, bad, poorly paid start up jobs?
That’s what you have to think about first. Not the dreams of amazing money, easy chances with the opposite sex, unlimited fun and the chance to prove how brilliant you are! If you’re very lucky, in fact, unbelievably lucky, you might get a reasonable career in the creative industries. Most people in it end up doing jobs that were not their original choices. There simply are not enough roles for you all to be stars, and not nearly enough jobs as director or producer to boss other people around.
Most of the newcomers will do well to become one of the many thousands of Prop people, carpenters, plasterers, painters, hairdressers, make up, CGI artists, stunt artists, extras, bit part players, camera assistants, sound recording team, editors and hundreds of other back up, but vital roles that there are always well paid jobs for in the industry.
Whatever a newcomer has to do, following an educational or apprenticeship route is fine, if it suits them. Sarah, one of my lovely daughters undertook a film degree at Surrey University’s Farnham campus. She obtained a very well deserved, good degree and her graduation film was, by common consent, one of the best produced at the college. It won awards and made money, both of which are rarities. The irony is that after achieving all of this, and having a father, grandfather and husband in the business, she quit it, loathing the industry with a healthy contempt.
If you’re looking for help please feel free to contact me on tony@bcreativelimited.com and I’ll try to point you in the right direction at no initial charge, that’s for free for those of you who are cynical.
First published on http://www.tonyklinger.co.uk/
Firstly let me make it very clear that there simply isn’t a one size fits all answer to the question of how to best get ahead in show business. Generally I am a fan of getting an education where and when you can, after all, a bit of knowledge can’t hurt can it? Well, in show business it actually could. There are leaps of faith in the creative arts that are best taken in sublime ignorance. I started that way, without any film education other than that I picked up on the run. I made my first few films in blissful ignorance, armed only with naïve self-belief, ambition and drive. Hopefully some talent was in that mix, but I dare say that came a long way behind dogged determination and optimism based on mostly wishful thinking.
It wasn’t until I was 21, some five years into my filmmaking career that I thought it would be a good idea to go back to formal education. I applied for the then fairly new National Film School, and was rejected. The reason given being that it was then just for post graduates and I needed to get a degree prior to applying again. However, based on my resume at that time, I was offered some teaching at an Associate Professor level. I could have taught the class I couldn’t get into!
I never took up anything other than an occasional Guest Lecturer role anywhere until many years later when I became an academic myself. But that’s another story.
I don’t want to appear to be too harsh, or negative, because I was once one of those kids looking to get ahead and I do realize that it can all seem very confusing and worrying when you’re starting out. The story of most of the aspiring talents reminds me of my bright friends when we were in our first schools who were then were sent to very good schools where everyone was as bright, or even brighter than they were. This was a shocking surprise for many of them, some of whom never really recovered their initial confidence, convinced of their own fallibility and lack of any consequence.
I also remember how frighteningly clever and prescient some of our film and media students were at the Bournemouth Film School. When we were running that course there were huge numbers of candidates for every place and half of them on the course already had an M level degree before they got to enter our program. It’s very intimidating and a great deal of it is unnecessary.
A great many of the people wanting to be in the creative industries simply are not suited to them. The prime reason is fairly obvious but needs stating here, it is because the majority of jobs within the industry are itinerant and therefore there is hardly any security, either economic or social. If, by your nature, you seek security and a warm, nurturing environment, then these are not the industries for you.
Naturally, every person proposing someone truly believes their relative or friend is the possessor of wonderful gifts as a talented ingénue, ready to be the best creative talent in the country. Usually they are described as being a bit shy, or not pushy enough but generally they are only lacking their first opportunity. Quite often when I speak to the prospective student or employee they are either not so convinced on the route they are pursuing or have any wish to listen to me, or anyone or anything else that contradicts their beliefs and aspirations. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have spoken, as a favor, to these young people, and realized, after two minutes, that they’re simply not willing to listen.
Their families are most often looking for an opportunity in the form of a job, or a pointer in the right direction. Sometimes they seek advice on where to go to university to best further their chances in their future search for a career in entertainment.
I guess I get more than my fair share of these enquiries because I am in the business, and have extensive knowledge of, and still occasionally work in higher education. So this is my general answer to all those people who ask me, and others these same questions, now and for the future.
The first question is one you should ask yourself. Do you really want to be in a business that is hugely demanding, and will give you criticism, sometimes very tough employment opportunities, amazingly long hours, intense competition from large numbers of very talented people and more often than not, bad, poorly paid start up jobs?
That’s what you have to think about first. Not the dreams of amazing money, easy chances with the opposite sex, unlimited fun and the chance to prove how brilliant you are! If you’re very lucky, in fact, unbelievably lucky, you might get a reasonable career in the creative industries. Most people in it end up doing jobs that were not their original choices. There simply are not enough roles for you all to be stars, and not nearly enough jobs as director or producer to boss other people around.
Most of the newcomers will do well to become one of the many thousands of Prop people, carpenters, plasterers, painters, hairdressers, make up, CGI artists, stunt artists, extras, bit part players, camera assistants, sound recording team, editors and hundreds of other back up, but vital roles that there are always well paid jobs for in the industry.
Whatever a newcomer has to do, following an educational or apprenticeship route is fine, if it suits them. Sarah, one of my lovely daughters undertook a film degree at Surrey University’s Farnham campus. She obtained a very well deserved, good degree and her graduation film was, by common consent, one of the best produced at the college. It won awards and made money, both of which are rarities. The irony is that after achieving all of this, and having a father, grandfather and husband in the business, she quit it, loathing the industry with a healthy contempt.
If you’re looking for help please feel free to contact me on tony@bcreativelimited.com and I’ll try to point you in the right direction at no initial charge, that’s for free for those of you who are cynical.
First published on http://www.tonyklinger.co.uk/
Sunday, October 19, 2008
SundayBloodySunday
Do you remember when Sunday was a quiet day, when nothing happened, shops and entertainment were firmly closed, and there was a pause to breathe and think between last week and next?
It isn't like that in the Anglo American world any more, and it is all the less for the change. I happen to be Jewish so my rest day, my Sabbath, is a Saturday, but I grew up in the UK and therefore, not being overly religious myself, I was happy with sleepy Sundays.
Now you go to the shops on Sunday and they are packed with people who look fraught and tense, not relaxed or with their families, not taking the time to smell the air. Their lives are all the more limited because of this lifestyle change.
As I suggest above the reason for the old style Sunday in the UK and the States is religious in origin, and traditional thereafter. There was a group in the UK called The Lord's Day Observance Society who made sure the rules were kept. As a teenager I remember being hugely frustrated that there was absolutely nothing to do on a Sunday because of the efficiency of the Society's resistance.
I was one of those angry teens who battered at their reactionary gates to remove their silly rules. Our argument went roughly like this, "It does no harm if you just allow a local grocery shop or cinema or supermarket to be open for a couple of hours."
History tells us that once you remove the finger from the dyke the waters will flood in and sweep away everything in its path. Taking our metaphors a little further, once you open Pandora's Box you cannot put away the little devils you have unleashed.
We were wrong, I was wrong, our argument was wrong. I know we can't do anything about this now, and I'm sorry that we will be leaving our children such an inheritance. But next time someone argues for a small change to your life think about it very carefully before you agree.
It isn't like that in the Anglo American world any more, and it is all the less for the change. I happen to be Jewish so my rest day, my Sabbath, is a Saturday, but I grew up in the UK and therefore, not being overly religious myself, I was happy with sleepy Sundays.
Now you go to the shops on Sunday and they are packed with people who look fraught and tense, not relaxed or with their families, not taking the time to smell the air. Their lives are all the more limited because of this lifestyle change.
As I suggest above the reason for the old style Sunday in the UK and the States is religious in origin, and traditional thereafter. There was a group in the UK called The Lord's Day Observance Society who made sure the rules were kept. As a teenager I remember being hugely frustrated that there was absolutely nothing to do on a Sunday because of the efficiency of the Society's resistance.
I was one of those angry teens who battered at their reactionary gates to remove their silly rules. Our argument went roughly like this, "It does no harm if you just allow a local grocery shop or cinema or supermarket to be open for a couple of hours."
History tells us that once you remove the finger from the dyke the waters will flood in and sweep away everything in its path. Taking our metaphors a little further, once you open Pandora's Box you cannot put away the little devils you have unleashed.
We were wrong, I was wrong, our argument was wrong. I know we can't do anything about this now, and I'm sorry that we will be leaving our children such an inheritance. But next time someone argues for a small change to your life think about it very carefully before you agree.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
TheFuturePart2
In my most recent blog on this site I made myself a hostage of fortune when I predicted the future of our world. I have, thank you, received a great many communications about this. Some of you believe I am being unduly pessimistic, whereas others take the opposite view. Usually this signals to me that I have got it about right. But today I wanted to add a little more detail to this picture.
I wrote that the recent happenings in the economy meant that the old forms of capitalism have met their end. On the brighter side so have all forms of socialism. I say this because with all its manifest faults it is clear that capitalism can and usually does work when it is in balance and well managed, whereas socialism is a totally busted flush which has never worked for the benefit of the citizens of any country that has had the system foisted upon it.
The immediate future of the leading economies will be more effectively policed and the regulations more stringently applied, but it will still be a market driven economic model that prevails.
The reduction in available funds will, most likely, mean that once the immediate emergency has been addressed the percentage of the Gross Domestic Product being spent on government projects will be reduced. This is a bonus since this percentage; especially in countries like the UK have become bloated and insupportable.
When Obama becomes President, which he shall unless he manages to accomplish political suicide between now and the election, there is a distinct possibility that he might try his version of a New Deal to revitalize America if the recession bites too deep. I don’t know if he can afford not to do so in such a scenario.
Due to losses incurred by all kinds of local and regional funds there will be a concomitant reduction in the amount of cash available for anything the authorities consider non-essential projects. This will affect the quality and feel of life but is probably unavoidable over the next 3 to 5 years.
Businesses that thrive during economic prosperity will begin to suffer in the next few months, particularly fee charging specialists such as lawyers, accountants, consultants and certain purveyors of banking, financial advice and insurance.
Most seriously hit in many of the economies are mortgage brokers and estate agents (realtors) who have seen the volume of sales and their values drop through the floor but I suspect that there will be big winners in those that rent property as those prices are starting to climb and supply is finite whereas demand is bound to increase fast.
Despite all this, if our governments continue to respond with the same sense of urgency they have developed over the last month when dealing with the imploding economy then we need have no fear for social cohesion.
Now what was the good news I was going to forecast? Oh yes, Manchester United will win another trophy or two, the sun is going to come out tomorrow and my name is not Little Orphan Annie.
I wrote that the recent happenings in the economy meant that the old forms of capitalism have met their end. On the brighter side so have all forms of socialism. I say this because with all its manifest faults it is clear that capitalism can and usually does work when it is in balance and well managed, whereas socialism is a totally busted flush which has never worked for the benefit of the citizens of any country that has had the system foisted upon it.
The immediate future of the leading economies will be more effectively policed and the regulations more stringently applied, but it will still be a market driven economic model that prevails.
The reduction in available funds will, most likely, mean that once the immediate emergency has been addressed the percentage of the Gross Domestic Product being spent on government projects will be reduced. This is a bonus since this percentage; especially in countries like the UK have become bloated and insupportable.
When Obama becomes President, which he shall unless he manages to accomplish political suicide between now and the election, there is a distinct possibility that he might try his version of a New Deal to revitalize America if the recession bites too deep. I don’t know if he can afford not to do so in such a scenario.
Due to losses incurred by all kinds of local and regional funds there will be a concomitant reduction in the amount of cash available for anything the authorities consider non-essential projects. This will affect the quality and feel of life but is probably unavoidable over the next 3 to 5 years.
Businesses that thrive during economic prosperity will begin to suffer in the next few months, particularly fee charging specialists such as lawyers, accountants, consultants and certain purveyors of banking, financial advice and insurance.
Most seriously hit in many of the economies are mortgage brokers and estate agents (realtors) who have seen the volume of sales and their values drop through the floor but I suspect that there will be big winners in those that rent property as those prices are starting to climb and supply is finite whereas demand is bound to increase fast.
Despite all this, if our governments continue to respond with the same sense of urgency they have developed over the last month when dealing with the imploding economy then we need have no fear for social cohesion.
Now what was the good news I was going to forecast? Oh yes, Manchester United will win another trophy or two, the sun is going to come out tomorrow and my name is not Little Orphan Annie.
Friday, October 17, 2008
PredictingtheFuture
There are certain things a shrewd columnist should never do; chief amongst them is any attempt to predict the future. This article proves that I am not very shrewd as I am going to attempt some forecasting.
We start with a relative no brainer; Obama is going to be the next President of the USA. I’m not suggesting who my preference is here, as its not relevant, me not being American and therefore unable to cast a vote.
Once Obama is elected and in office I truly hope that the security services does everything to enhance his personal safety as he is sure to be a target for every nut case on the planet, particularly American lunatics who view him as if he were the anti-Christ.
The next people likely to test Obama once he’s in the White House will be the Russians, as its almost impossible to see President Putin not seeing how far he can push the new man. The likely spot for the test will be the Crimean Peninsula of the Ukraine, in which the majority of the population is ethnically Russian but the government is Ukrainian. The situation is made more volatile by the Ukrainian government wishing to move west politically whilst the Russian fleet has its base in Sebastopol within the Ukraine. This is the Georgian scenario writ large, and is a boil waiting to burst.
Also itching to test the new President will be the Iranian government who, like a certain Sadaam Hussein, can’t wait to goad the new man with turning their nuclear enrichment program into building nuclear weapons they can rattle at the Israelis.
This in turn will signal the new leader of Israel, who at that time will most likely be Ms. Livni into taking military action unilaterally against Iran. You might think I am over egging this pudding by signaling so many dangers but Obama scares me not because he is weak, but because extremist leaders who run other countries will perceive him to be weak.
All of this is threatening enough but doesn’t take account of potentially the biggest danger of all, the still unfolding economic crisis.
We are possibly reaching the end of the beginning of the collapse of the old forms of capitalism and don’t know yet what is going to replace it. For sure it will not take the same form exactly as its predecessor. Too much trust has unraveled for too many people for that to be possible.
Eventually the banks will be forced to unfreeze sufficiently that money will start to flow more easily inter bank and then onwards to all of us humble peasants who can qualify because of our exceptional credit worthiness. It is likely that meeting the criteria of the credit checkers will be well nigh impossible.
Property prices in the Anglo American markets will continue to fall, probably, on average bottoming out at about 30% to 40% below their peak before they start to rise again. Rental values, particularly in the UK will move in the opposite direction.
Jobless rates will rocket in many parts of the world, but will then begin to level out since the recession will not hurt the entire economy equally. There might be problems in some countries that have experienced large-scale economic immigration. As the economy shrinks there will be those who lose their jobs who will then blame the immigrant population for their ill fortune.
Raw materials and fuel such as oil will continue to drop in price simply because supply, built up to meet over demand of the recent past, far exceeds presently diminishing needs.
Manufacturing powerhouses like China will suffer huge problems as over capacity is slashed to meet the new realities. In certain sectors of their economy, such as toy production, they have already had about half of the manufacturers go out of business in the last year. This will spread across their offering.
Banking will lead the recovery of the markets that we can guess will start to meaningfully revive in about 18 to 24 months. The “real” economy might well take that long again to approach the prosperity we previously enjoyed. But, on the plus side, there will be an economic revival around the time Obama will be standing for a second term. We will survive the threats, posturing and brinkmanship but it is going to be tough and tricky for the next year or two. Now, if you keep this blog you will probably be able to wave it in my face in the near future to demonstrate how very foolish I was to make predictions!
We start with a relative no brainer; Obama is going to be the next President of the USA. I’m not suggesting who my preference is here, as its not relevant, me not being American and therefore unable to cast a vote.
Once Obama is elected and in office I truly hope that the security services does everything to enhance his personal safety as he is sure to be a target for every nut case on the planet, particularly American lunatics who view him as if he were the anti-Christ.
The next people likely to test Obama once he’s in the White House will be the Russians, as its almost impossible to see President Putin not seeing how far he can push the new man. The likely spot for the test will be the Crimean Peninsula of the Ukraine, in which the majority of the population is ethnically Russian but the government is Ukrainian. The situation is made more volatile by the Ukrainian government wishing to move west politically whilst the Russian fleet has its base in Sebastopol within the Ukraine. This is the Georgian scenario writ large, and is a boil waiting to burst.
Also itching to test the new President will be the Iranian government who, like a certain Sadaam Hussein, can’t wait to goad the new man with turning their nuclear enrichment program into building nuclear weapons they can rattle at the Israelis.
This in turn will signal the new leader of Israel, who at that time will most likely be Ms. Livni into taking military action unilaterally against Iran. You might think I am over egging this pudding by signaling so many dangers but Obama scares me not because he is weak, but because extremist leaders who run other countries will perceive him to be weak.
All of this is threatening enough but doesn’t take account of potentially the biggest danger of all, the still unfolding economic crisis.
We are possibly reaching the end of the beginning of the collapse of the old forms of capitalism and don’t know yet what is going to replace it. For sure it will not take the same form exactly as its predecessor. Too much trust has unraveled for too many people for that to be possible.
Eventually the banks will be forced to unfreeze sufficiently that money will start to flow more easily inter bank and then onwards to all of us humble peasants who can qualify because of our exceptional credit worthiness. It is likely that meeting the criteria of the credit checkers will be well nigh impossible.
Property prices in the Anglo American markets will continue to fall, probably, on average bottoming out at about 30% to 40% below their peak before they start to rise again. Rental values, particularly in the UK will move in the opposite direction.
Jobless rates will rocket in many parts of the world, but will then begin to level out since the recession will not hurt the entire economy equally. There might be problems in some countries that have experienced large-scale economic immigration. As the economy shrinks there will be those who lose their jobs who will then blame the immigrant population for their ill fortune.
Raw materials and fuel such as oil will continue to drop in price simply because supply, built up to meet over demand of the recent past, far exceeds presently diminishing needs.
Manufacturing powerhouses like China will suffer huge problems as over capacity is slashed to meet the new realities. In certain sectors of their economy, such as toy production, they have already had about half of the manufacturers go out of business in the last year. This will spread across their offering.
Banking will lead the recovery of the markets that we can guess will start to meaningfully revive in about 18 to 24 months. The “real” economy might well take that long again to approach the prosperity we previously enjoyed. But, on the plus side, there will be an economic revival around the time Obama will be standing for a second term. We will survive the threats, posturing and brinkmanship but it is going to be tough and tricky for the next year or two. Now, if you keep this blog you will probably be able to wave it in my face in the near future to demonstrate how very foolish I was to make predictions!
Thursday, October 16, 2008
ObamaCarter
The world needs the USA to be strong and true to the aspirations of its founding fathers. For this to happen the country must occasionally be lead by outstanding people of vision. This has not been the case for quite some time. Now there is a moment in history where a great leader in the USA could shape our entire world’s destiny. There are some who claim this mantle of potential greatness for Barack Obama. Unfortunately I see something very different and worrying when I look at this candidate for the presidency.
The last big US Presidential debate took place last night. Again, although I don’t admire the man or his chances too much I thought that McCain won the argument battle but probably lost the larger war.
More interesting in this brief overview was not what they said, but the way they chose to say it. The body language was vital and very obvious. Obama’s smile was almost patronizing and false, but although he clearly doesn’t rate his opponent highly he realizes McCain is a wounded beast, and is not yet dead in the water although he is clearly heading for that watery grave.
McCain clearly loathes Obama, and can barely tolerate sharing a stage with him. When he has to physically touch the man he almost takes a step back. I don’t think this is false body language; he loathes Obama with visceral hatred.
But we must ask if Obama’s very obvious attempts to wrap himself in the mantle of President John F. Kennedy is bearing fruit. Clearly it worked in Germany when he made his oration in the centre of Berlin. He was summoning the ghost of the late President when he visited that city and toured Europe.
The difference was that JFK was the President of the States when he made his visit and seminal speech, and not one of two Democratic candidates as Obama was at the time of his speech.
Kennedy had a vitally important message to deliver direct to the hearts of his Berlin audience and to the minds of the then Soviet occupiers of the other half of that country. Obama was simply nurturing an image in a more gullible, celebrity-obsessed age, in which image transcends accomplishment.
Yes, Europe particularly wants America to have a leader everyone can all admire and rally behind, and yes, Kennedy embodied that ideal for us just as Ronald Reagan embodied mom and apple pie for America itself during his tenure. Never forget that underneath the veneer of old world sophistication Europe and most of the rest of the world culturally aspires to ape America.
Yes, at first glance Obama is the type of leader Europe has seemingly been waiting for, especially if he could demonstrate the aspirational aspects of the vision and statesmanship of JFK.
However we see Obama morphing into another former President, one less lauded and admirable than Kennedy. Obama is Jimmy Carter reborn, and that is not good. You will recall that Carter was intellectually a very able man, far cleverer in an IQ sense than many of the Presidents with far better achievements on their presidential resume. Jimmy Carter was a disaster, indecisive, hectoring, and not viable. He screwed up in Iran; he failed with the economy and forced the wrong deals through in the Middle East. All of the same failed strategies he employed are being reborn with Obama and they didn’t work for the peanut farmer and they won’t work now or in the future.
Men like Carter always fail. America doesn’t need a bright Professor running the country as if it was a university department. What the world urgently need from the States right now is for its leader to lead, to be a tough guy with the courage to react, sometimes instinctively, to whatever problems the world generates. There are going to be plenty more problems available.
The last big US Presidential debate took place last night. Again, although I don’t admire the man or his chances too much I thought that McCain won the argument battle but probably lost the larger war.
More interesting in this brief overview was not what they said, but the way they chose to say it. The body language was vital and very obvious. Obama’s smile was almost patronizing and false, but although he clearly doesn’t rate his opponent highly he realizes McCain is a wounded beast, and is not yet dead in the water although he is clearly heading for that watery grave.
McCain clearly loathes Obama, and can barely tolerate sharing a stage with him. When he has to physically touch the man he almost takes a step back. I don’t think this is false body language; he loathes Obama with visceral hatred.
But we must ask if Obama’s very obvious attempts to wrap himself in the mantle of President John F. Kennedy is bearing fruit. Clearly it worked in Germany when he made his oration in the centre of Berlin. He was summoning the ghost of the late President when he visited that city and toured Europe.
The difference was that JFK was the President of the States when he made his visit and seminal speech, and not one of two Democratic candidates as Obama was at the time of his speech.
Kennedy had a vitally important message to deliver direct to the hearts of his Berlin audience and to the minds of the then Soviet occupiers of the other half of that country. Obama was simply nurturing an image in a more gullible, celebrity-obsessed age, in which image transcends accomplishment.
Yes, Europe particularly wants America to have a leader everyone can all admire and rally behind, and yes, Kennedy embodied that ideal for us just as Ronald Reagan embodied mom and apple pie for America itself during his tenure. Never forget that underneath the veneer of old world sophistication Europe and most of the rest of the world culturally aspires to ape America.
Yes, at first glance Obama is the type of leader Europe has seemingly been waiting for, especially if he could demonstrate the aspirational aspects of the vision and statesmanship of JFK.
However we see Obama morphing into another former President, one less lauded and admirable than Kennedy. Obama is Jimmy Carter reborn, and that is not good. You will recall that Carter was intellectually a very able man, far cleverer in an IQ sense than many of the Presidents with far better achievements on their presidential resume. Jimmy Carter was a disaster, indecisive, hectoring, and not viable. He screwed up in Iran; he failed with the economy and forced the wrong deals through in the Middle East. All of the same failed strategies he employed are being reborn with Obama and they didn’t work for the peanut farmer and they won’t work now or in the future.
Men like Carter always fail. America doesn’t need a bright Professor running the country as if it was a university department. What the world urgently need from the States right now is for its leader to lead, to be a tough guy with the courage to react, sometimes instinctively, to whatever problems the world generates. There are going to be plenty more problems available.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
HeadsShouldRoll
There is a wonderful expression, American I believe, called, Passing the Buck. It means when you blame someone else for your own mistakes. We now have the results of this behavior in the banks of the world. Led by the UK they are now being re-capitalized to a huge degree and, in many places, being effectively nationalized.
The biggest banks in the UK overstretched themselves to a massive degree over the last decade in which they went on a merger and acquisition rampage and leveraged themselves hugely to do so. The same is true around the globe.
It is now apparent that there were many, even within the British banks own management structures, who simply didn’t understand some of the details of how the more sophisticated banking deals were being done, organized or paid for. It seems self evident that the same is true in most, if not all of the banks around the world.
We should not be fooled into a quick look at the banks and naively think that by simply sacking a few senior managers and executive and indulging in some ritual blood-letting we will do enough to satisfy either the blood lust of the media on behalf of the nation or do what’s necessary to stop this type of lunacy happening again.
There is someone else who it is much more pertinent to look at in this regard and that is the Financial Services Authority. It is pertinent to see how the FSA describe themselves in their own web site;
“We are an independent body that regulates the financial services industry in the UK.
We have been given a wide range of rule making, investigatory and enforcement powers in order to meet our four statutory objectives. In meeting these, we are also obliged to have regard to the Principles of Good Regulation.
We summarize our Statutory Objectives and Principles of Good Regulation in three Strategic Aims:
* Promoting efficient, orderly and fair markets;
* Helping retail consumers achieve a fair deal; and
* Improving our business capability and effectiveness”
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is an independent organization responsible for regulating financial services in the UK.
The FSA's aim is to promote efficient, orderly and fair financial markets and help retail financial service consumers get a fair deal.
The FSA was set up by government. The government is responsible for the overall scope of the FSA’s regulatory activities and for its powers.
The FSA regulates most financial services markets, exchanges and firms. It sets the standards that they must meet and can take action against firms if they fail to meet the required standards”.
The FSA Chief Executive has now joined the general accusations being made against the banks, the speculators and the bankers themselves. But Principle 4 of the FSA's own 13 Principles for market conduct states that firms are compelled to maintain adequate financial resources, including capital and liquidity.
This is the essence of the regulator's pay policy and the club it can swing. In the FSA's view, there are many firms that have followed pay policies which were inconsistent with sound risk management – or put another way, compromised Principle 4. So the FSA should be made to look closely at their defects in a mirror.
A great deal of financial pain and chaos would have been avoided if the FSA had done their job better and had they been tougher in enforcing their rules over the last few years. Ironically they force organizations to spend time and money out of all proportion to its usefulness on minor matters and seemed to totally miss the big targets to utterly alarming effect.
Now the question is whether this regulator with a blind spot about its own inadequacies will now actually wield its collection of shiny new weapons rather than continue to pose and clout the little guys and leave the big guys to do just what they want. Right now it looks like the boys in the bad suits from the FSA are bolting the door very carefully, well after the horse has bolted.
The draft guidelines for good remuneration practice is probably now going to serve as the guide, and there's more than a fair chance that it will. The guidelines make clear that pay will be based on profits rather than revenue; performance should be assessed on a moving average, in order that a significant part of a package is deferred; and that compensation schemes will be contractually enforced and not waived or ignored to suit the occasion.
And finally, when all things are considered it is fair and appropriate that we ask who is going to carry responsibility and resign from among the politicians and FSA chiefs because they are just as responsible for the financial debacle as the bankers who have already been forced to carry the can.
The biggest banks in the UK overstretched themselves to a massive degree over the last decade in which they went on a merger and acquisition rampage and leveraged themselves hugely to do so. The same is true around the globe.
It is now apparent that there were many, even within the British banks own management structures, who simply didn’t understand some of the details of how the more sophisticated banking deals were being done, organized or paid for. It seems self evident that the same is true in most, if not all of the banks around the world.
We should not be fooled into a quick look at the banks and naively think that by simply sacking a few senior managers and executive and indulging in some ritual blood-letting we will do enough to satisfy either the blood lust of the media on behalf of the nation or do what’s necessary to stop this type of lunacy happening again.
There is someone else who it is much more pertinent to look at in this regard and that is the Financial Services Authority. It is pertinent to see how the FSA describe themselves in their own web site;
“We are an independent body that regulates the financial services industry in the UK.
We have been given a wide range of rule making, investigatory and enforcement powers in order to meet our four statutory objectives. In meeting these, we are also obliged to have regard to the Principles of Good Regulation.
We summarize our Statutory Objectives and Principles of Good Regulation in three Strategic Aims:
* Promoting efficient, orderly and fair markets;
* Helping retail consumers achieve a fair deal; and
* Improving our business capability and effectiveness”
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is an independent organization responsible for regulating financial services in the UK.
The FSA's aim is to promote efficient, orderly and fair financial markets and help retail financial service consumers get a fair deal.
The FSA was set up by government. The government is responsible for the overall scope of the FSA’s regulatory activities and for its powers.
The FSA regulates most financial services markets, exchanges and firms. It sets the standards that they must meet and can take action against firms if they fail to meet the required standards”.
The FSA Chief Executive has now joined the general accusations being made against the banks, the speculators and the bankers themselves. But Principle 4 of the FSA's own 13 Principles for market conduct states that firms are compelled to maintain adequate financial resources, including capital and liquidity.
This is the essence of the regulator's pay policy and the club it can swing. In the FSA's view, there are many firms that have followed pay policies which were inconsistent with sound risk management – or put another way, compromised Principle 4. So the FSA should be made to look closely at their defects in a mirror.
A great deal of financial pain and chaos would have been avoided if the FSA had done their job better and had they been tougher in enforcing their rules over the last few years. Ironically they force organizations to spend time and money out of all proportion to its usefulness on minor matters and seemed to totally miss the big targets to utterly alarming effect.
Now the question is whether this regulator with a blind spot about its own inadequacies will now actually wield its collection of shiny new weapons rather than continue to pose and clout the little guys and leave the big guys to do just what they want. Right now it looks like the boys in the bad suits from the FSA are bolting the door very carefully, well after the horse has bolted.
The draft guidelines for good remuneration practice is probably now going to serve as the guide, and there's more than a fair chance that it will. The guidelines make clear that pay will be based on profits rather than revenue; performance should be assessed on a moving average, in order that a significant part of a package is deferred; and that compensation schemes will be contractually enforced and not waived or ignored to suit the occasion.
And finally, when all things are considered it is fair and appropriate that we ask who is going to carry responsibility and resign from among the politicians and FSA chiefs because they are just as responsible for the financial debacle as the bankers who have already been forced to carry the can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
