Stop visualizing success...

From Seth Godin (of whom I'm generally a fan):

The thing is: clear visualization, repeated again and again, doesn't actually decrease the chances you're going to fail. In fact, it probably increases the odds.

When you choose to visualize the path that works, you're more likely to shore it up and create an environment where it can take place.

Rehearsing failure is simply a bad habit, not a productive use of your time.

Apparently not. I first read this in Made to Stick (Amazon) but I found a reference online that details the study fairly well at Officer.com.

Basically, a study from UCLA showed that simulating past events (thinking about past problems step by step, going through them in detail, the actions you took, what you said/did, the environment) was much more helpful than simulating future outcomes. Those who simulated past events experienced better moods almost right away and were likely to have taken specific action to solve their problems.

The authors of Made to Stick, Chip and Dan Heath possibly facetiously suggest that counterintuitive to pop psych literature urging you to visualize success, maybe instead of visualizing that we're filthy rich, we should be replaying steps that led to our being poor.

Dale Carnegie vs Ayn Rand

We need both. Glenn Reynolds links to a blog comment: "Let’s just say that the libertarian movement would do well to spend less time reading Ayn Rand and more time reading Dale Carnegie." Libertarians do need to get better at not only developing ideas but communicating them and finding ways to implement them.

Perhaps it's just been my perception, but that the world has moved towards economic liberty has been more the result of government failures than any deliberate attempt to pursue economic liberty, suggests a failure on the part of libertarians.

Is that a rhetorical question?

Forbes asks "are the French lazy?". As previously noted, I generally don't think the effect of culture on economic growth is strong - it's the regulations that reinforce that view of culture that's stifling. As Forbes points out, the French malaise is largely self inflicted:

But the difficulty in hiring and firing workers is just one defect of the French labor system. Small businesses are particularly hurt by the 35-hour law, which forces employers to pay their hourly workers overtime if they work more than 35 hours a week. As a result, the French work fewer hours than just about anybody in the OECD. In fact, the average French employee worked just 1,476 hours in 2011, according to the latest data available from the OECD and the French labor department. In contrast, workers in the U.S. rocked 1,704 hours per year, 21% more than their counterparts in France.

But working a lot more doesn't necessarily mean that Americans are more productive than their French counterparts. One way to gauge productivity is to take a nation's GDP and divide it by the total number of hours its citizens slaved away that year. In 2011, the GDP for each hour worked was $57 in France and $60 in the U.S. Therefore, it appears that while the French work less, they seem to be producing just as much as their U.S. counterparts, on a relative basis. But this snapshot doesn't really show the big problem with the French labor market. Labor productivity, as defined as GDP per hour worked, in the U.S. from 2001 to 2011 grew twice as fast as it did in France. That means the U.S. will most likely widen its lead over France in the years to come unless it makes some big changes to its labor laws.

Hans Rosling: "River of Myths"

Another good look at the progress in the developing world particularly in the area of child mortality (via Freakonomics):

Making "sustainable food" actually sustainable

People who use the word "sustainable" to describe products that don't work as well as their supposedly "unsustainable" counterparts at a much higher cost, don't really know the meaning of the word.

It's heartening then that there are some real innovations (not "innovations") being funded by VCs. Gigaom takes a look at the "budding food innovation movement" in Silicon Valley:

The real reason that Beyond Eggs could eventually catch on is because it’s not striving to be an eco or vegan product. It will be about 19 percent cheaper than using eggs, will last longer on the shelf than eggs, is safer to use than eggs, and is better for you than eggs. Then there’s all of the feel good aspects — the poor environmental and inhumane conditions of the egg industry, and the reduced carbon emissions by decreasing the amount of feed (mostly corn and soy) that goes to chickens. But all of those won’t matter if the products don’t pass Tetrick’s “Dad Twinkie” test: in theory deliver a twinkie that’s cheaper and better for you, but that tastes exactly the same.

The deadly opposition to genetically modified food

Instapundit: "Where the connection between policy-advocacy and dead children is much clearer." From the Slate:

Finally, after a 12-year delay caused by opponents of genetically modified foods, so-called “golden rice” with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines. Over those 12 years, about 8 million children worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency. Are anti-GM advocates not partly responsible?

Golden rice is the most prominent example in the global controversy over GM foods, which pits a technology with some risks but incredible potential against the resistance of feel-good campaigning. Three billion people depend on rice as their staple food, with 10 percent at risk for vitamin A deficiency, which, according to the World Health Organization, causes 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. Of these, half die within a year. A study from the British medical journal the Lancet estimates that, in total, vitamin A deficiency kills 668,000 children under the age of 5 each year.

Yet, despite the cost in human lives, anti-GM campaigners—from Greenpeace to Naomi Klein—have derided efforts to use golden rice to avoid vitamin A deficiency.

Richard Epstein: "You cannot make the poor richer by making the rich poorer"

Filed under ideas that aren't popular but true (via Instapundit).

On Immigrants

From Steve Case at the US Senate Committee on Immigration (via PandoDaily):

Today, 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies in the United States were started by immigrants or the children of immigrants, employing 10 million people across the globe and doing $4 trillion in revenue. Of the 10 most valuable brands globally, seven of them come from American companies founded by immigrants or their children. In the past 15 years, immigrants founded one quarter of U.S. venture-backed public companies.

A reminder that education spending doesn't drive growth

From the LA Times, an op/ed by Jonah Goldberg (via Instapundit):

British scholar Alison Wolf writes in "Does Education Matter?": "The simple one-way relationship … — education spending in, economic growth out — simply does not exist. Moreover, the larger and more complex the education sector, the less obvious any links to productivity."

It's a catalyst.

Henry Ford on Reputation

Henry Ford via Swissmiss:

You can’t build a reputation on what you’re going to do.

Too bad politicians can't be jailed for malpractice

"Argentina Freezes Supermarket Prices To Halt Soaring Inflation; Chaos To Follow" (Zerohedge via Instapundit):

Up until now, Argentina’s descent into a hyperinflationary basket case, with a crashing currency and loss of outside funding was relatively moderate and controlled. All this is about to change. Today, in a futile attempt to halt inflation, the government of Cristina Kirchner announced a two-month price freeze on supermarket products.

The consequences of heavy handed market interventions are predictable and avoidable. To brush what will be the brutal effects away of these desperate acts of a failed ideology as 'unintended consequences' should be criminal.

Update: Zerohedge on Argentina's Financial Collapse, asking "How was it possible that in so rich a country so many people were hungry?"

Australia: Asia’s Saudi Arabia?

Shale oil and gas are radically changing the geopolitical landscape. Instead of having to negotiate with hostile governments, these resources are increasingly being found not only in democratic countries but near population centers theDiplomat h/t Instapundit:

Linc shares surged 24 percent after it told the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) on January 23 that its shale oil assets in South Australia’s Arckaringa Basin had the potential to hold up to 233 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) – an amount not incomparable to Saudi Arabia’s estimated oil reserves of 263 billion BOE.

"How the U.N. created an epidemic -- then covered it up."

It's depressing how much of the world still attributes moral authority to the UN because of the ideals it holds... ideals it fails repeatedly.  From FP:

The U.N. team refused to go across the street with us to see the dump pits.

The next day, less than two weeks after the outbreak was first confirmed, the CDC put out the results of an analysis it had undertaken: The cholera in Haiti matched strains circulating in South Asia, including Nepal. It refused to investigate further.

The death toll passed 400.

Authorities defended their refusal to investigate the origin of the outbreak on grounds that pursuing the source would detract from fighting the epidemic. So on Nov. 3, I called one of the most prominent public health experts in Haiti, if not the world. Paul Farmer's medical NGO, Partners in Health, was taking a leading role in tackling cholera. I asked if there was a public health rationale not to investigate. "That sounds like politics to me, not science," Farmer replied.

Oxfam: Confusing Inequality with Poverty

Oxfam makes the claim the rise in wealth by some billionaires is not only making the poorest, even poorer, and by inference they make the claim that the cause of poverty is the lack of resources:

An explosion in extreme wealth is exacerbating inequality and hindering the world's ability to tackle poverty, Oxfam warned today in a briefing published ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos next week.

The $240 billion (£150bn) net income in 2012 of the richest 100 billionaires would be enough to make extreme poverty history four times over, according to 'The cost of inequality: how wealth and income extremes hurt us all'. The agency is calling on world leaders to curb today's income extremes and commit to reducing inequality to at least 1990 levels.

The richest one per cent has increased its income by 60 per cent in the last 20 years with the financial crisis accelerating rather than slowing the process.

Oxfam warned that extreme wealth is economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive.

One wonders if Ms. Stocking, the CEO of Oxfam, is referring to absolute versus relative poverty. Absolute poverty, in fact, has been falling dramatically (Economist):

The past four years have seen the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and the biggest food-price increases since the 1970s. That must surely have swollen the ranks of the poor.

Wrong. The best estimates for global poverty come from the World Bank's Development Research Group, which has just updated from 2005 its figures for those living in absolute poverty (not be confused with the relative measure commonly used in rich countries). The new estimates show that in 2008, the first year of the finance-and-food crisis, both the number and share of the population living on less than $1.25 a day (at 2005 prices, the most commonly accepted poverty line) was falling in every part of the world. This was the first instance of declines across the board since the bank started collecting the figures in 1981

It's sadly predictable that Ms Stocking's solution for this manufactured crisis is to bring others down than to seeking to bring the poor up. Instead of speaking truth to the power that exists in the often despotic countries Oxfam attempts to "help" - denouncing the autocratic policies that benefit the local elite, Ms. Stocking snipes at the low hanging fruit and the politics of greed and envy in sniping at the economic success of others.

Certainly, some of these billionaires have built their fortunes through the taking of wealth - but the large majority have not, and indeed have created many of the technologies, products and services that have allowed the hundreds of millions to emerge from absolute poverty in the last few decades. Ms. Stocking makes no distinction as a result of craven politics or sheer ignorance (Reason).

It is because of attitudes and beliefs of leaders like her that the poor are often worse off despite the billions spent by organizations like hers - and a reminder that poverty truly is an industry - and if Ms Stocking is looking for those who benefit most from keeping others poor, she should perhaps "invest" in a mirror.

Happiness, Purpose and Markets

Real satisfaction comes from seeking purpose and meaning, not happiness (theAtlantic):

The wisdom that Frankl derived from his experiences there, in the middle of unimaginable human suffering, is just as relevant now as it was then: "Being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone, other than oneself -- be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself -- by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love -- the more human he is."

Baumeister and his colleagues would agree that the pursuit of meaning is what makes human beings uniquely human. By putting aside our selfish interests to serve someone or something larger than ourselves -- by devoting our lives to "giving" rather than "taking" -- we are not only expressing our fundamental humanity, but are also acknowledging that that there is more to the good life than the pursuit of simple happiness.

While others might think that this captures a fundamental flaw in markets, I'd suggest the opposite.

Markets, if anything, are better at this than other systems as they do a much better job at guiding us to see what others and society believes is important. Indeed, I'd suggest that when we seek meaning and achieve purpose while meeting the needs of others, it is here, where the wealth created is reinforcing in a virtuous cycle.

Winners, Losers and Government Spending

The Canadian government shouldn't pick winners but I'm unconvinced the solution proposed by George Takach in the Globe and Mail is any better but the conclusion is one that's difficult to disagree with:

Hiring consultants to throw our money around isn’t the answer. World-class companies are forged in basements and garages, and that’s where policymakers should focus in order to build a better Canadian economy. That’s how to make Canada can work better.

Governments should focus on improving the regulatory environment and reducing structuring disincentives for entrepreneurs - not picking winners and losers or throwing money/bureaucracies at the problem.

Reconciling Technological Progress with Dystopian Fantasies

I find it difficult to reconcile the view of those who believe that a violent revolution is coming in the West (Google) with how enabling and empowering technology is becoming - John Maeda (via SwissMiss):

As organizations shift from neatly ordered hierarchies to chaotic, flattened “heterarchies,” where anyone can “friend the CEO,” a new generation of tools will be invented that will allow design and technology to enable leaders to make true connections among people and inspire change.

Just as design enabled us to have an emotional connection with a piece of glass and aluminum that lives in our pocket, design and technology together will restore some of the humanity in what it means to lead in the 21st century

While technology may fuel the separation in absolute numbers between the wealthiest and poorest, does this really matter if technology also provides the bridge and the ability to move between economic classes? From the WSJ:

Mr. Diamandis said that the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest people may well increase, but that the definition of poverty will keep changing, much as it has over the last 100 years. He noted that 99% of the poorest people in the U.S. have amenities that the wealthiest people of 100 years ago couldn’t imagine. “It’s not about creating a world of luxury, but of creating a world of possibility,” he said. “I think it’s an amazing world,” Mr. Diamandis said.

The Tragedy of Zimbabwe and the Failure of the UN

Assuming the Associated Press interpreted the UN's comments correctly, the UN is attributing the worsening food shortages in Zimbabwe to the following reasons (WP):

The U.N. said this year’s food shortages are “worse” compared to the past three years due to drought, erratic rains and cash shortages to buy seed and fertilizers for impoverished farmers in the countryside, many who took over formerly white-owned farms.

Except they buried the lede. The absolute absurdity of believing that all of a sudden weather is the result of some of the productive farmland in Africa becoming infertile might be plausible if it were not for the fact that they are unable to deny this aid is going to "impoverished farmers in the countryside, many who took over formerly white-owned farms" as if land appropriations were incidental.

With an organization that is unable to speak truth to power, advocating financial assistance to gloss over the political failures of a despotic government, why would anyone want to contribute more resources to their care? Or really, anything at all?

The impact of economic freedom on average life expectancy

Live free or die, literally - pretty self explanatory (RCM):

The impact of economic freedom on average life expectancy is the most striking aspect of the data shown in the [below] Table. More specifically, the average life expectancy is over 80 years in all seven economically free countries (Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, and Ireland). Unfortunately, there are over 70 countries that are mostly unfree or repressed which represent almost 5 billion people with shorter life spans: in none of these individual countries is the average life expectancy over 80.

Merry Christmas (and Bah! Humbug)!

"In praise of misers and what I like about Scrooge." (via Greg Mankiw)