We want to apologise for the very late return to our blog publishing. The reason for this is that we felt that we had taken a wrong direction concerning what we have published in the past. As you are aware, we have published mostly international stories. However, the events in themselves affect the African continent one way or another. We are now resolved in publishing not just the international story but also the way it affects the African continent.
Our new format is to continue to publish international stories and then follow up with the way it affects the continent. Your comments are more than welcome as we feel there should be a debate by Africans for Africans. We hope that we can make this an interesting experience for you.
Global warming according to many is a serious issue. This issue is so serious that between the sixth and twelfth of December a new treaty will be signed. That treaty is the Copenhagen Treaty. It is most likely just about every country in the World will sign this treaty. Some are of the belief that the treaty is a backdoor signing for a World government (conspiracy theory?). We have a question though. Has anyone seen a programme, documentary, etc on a position against the current wisdom on global warming?
According to the Natsource website, (http://www.natsource.com/) defines Global Warming “as the progressive gradual rise of the earth's surface temperature thought to be caused by the greenhouse effect and responsible for changes in global climate patterns. In other words, this means an increase in the near surface temperature of the Earth. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is most often used to refer to the warming predicted to occur because of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. ”
Before we continue, we must not forget to define what a greenhouse gas is. Again, according to the Natsource web site, a greenhouse gas is “any gas that absorbs infra-red radiation in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), halogenated fluorocarbons (HCFCs), ozone (O3), per fluorinated carbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).”
Our final definition is the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the increasing temperature of the Earth’s surface caused by gases in the atmosphere. These gases allow solar radiation to penetrate, but they absorb the infrared (heat) radiation instead of allowing it to be radiated into space. This definition is from the carbondescent web site (http://www.carbondescent.org.uk/).
All the activity of global warming has been attributed to human activity in one form or another. One would expect that the media in any country would present an important issue such as global warming from both sides of the argument. Nevertheless, we ask a simple question, has anyone really seen a descent discussion programme from an anti-global warming point of view? We think not! Moreover, even if you do, it would be a sound bite or two. Sound bites you would not even remember if asked five minutes later.
One of the most prominent international bodies on climate change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is the body quoted just about all the time on there being a consensus on climate science. It is now known that there is no consensus on the science. The hero of the environmental movement, Nobel laureate and former Vice-President of the US, Al Gore, is quite fond of arguing on the consensus point of view. You can see him in action in Alex Jones’s film “Fall of the Republic” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU).
One man who is asking the questions and challenging the IPCC and other climate alarmists is Lord Christopher Monckton. Lord Monckton is the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, and a British politician who served as an adviser to Mrs Margaret Thatcher. Lord Monckton has continually challenged Al Gore to a public debate on the issue of climate change and global warming. He was also instrumental in ensuring that an Inconvenient Truth was not shown in British schools through the High Court of Justice. As far as we know, Al Gore has not stepped up to the plate. We feel that if Gore is so sure of his science then he should step up and put Lord Monckton in his place.
Before we conclude, we would like to bring to your attention a film that did not even get a tenth of the publicity an Inconvenient Truth received. The name of the documentary is “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. This documentary argues against the mainstream “scientific consensus” on climate change that global warming is very likely due to observed increases in man-made greenhouse gases. You can watch this documentary here if you so wish: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#.
We conclude by saying that we are not trying to convince or persuade you in any way. We are saying that look at all sides of the argument and then make up your mind. We are saying think for yourself. We are saying even if you disagree with another’s point of view, then do not conclude it is rubbish or say nasty things because you cannot dismiss that point of view.
We are saying be careful because if we continue like this then what Zbigniew Brzezinski talked about in his book "Between Two Ages" will take place. He said, "Shortly, the public will be unable to reason or think for themselves. They'll only be able to parrot the information they've been given on the previous night's news."
Last week we concluded by asking what George Soros was up to. Well, here he is on his soapbox lecturing at the Central European University (CEU) from Oct 26-30, 2009. Unfortunately, the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) did not load the either the transcripts or the videos to this occasion. The Financial Times (FT) was kind enough to inform us that there are transcripts as well audio and video to his lectures. We are sure that many would like to hear what he had to say on matters economic. The FT gave a brief summary as to what you can expect.
According to the FT website – “These lectures are the culmination of a lifetime of practical and philosophical reflection. Mr Soros discusses his general theory of reflexivity and its application to financial markets, providing insights into the recent financial crisis. The third and fourth lectures examine the concept of open society, which has guided Mr Soros’s global philanthropy, as well as the potential for conflict between capitalism and open society. The closing lecture focuses on the way ahead, closely examining the increasingly important economic and political role that China will play in the future”.
You could say that this is really the first shot in the battle for new economic thinking. No doubt, many will argue against whatever he has said. Enjoy people and please let us know what you think. Cheers.
We are sorry, sorry, and sorry. It seems that at Foremain apologies are the order of the day. We say this because once again we are blogging on an international issue. Please do not be alarmed as it is not about an economic or natural disaster. This week, our blog brings to your attention, the latest on George Soros. George Soros, never heard of him some of you may say. Yes people, we are talking about the one and only George Soros, the founder of the Quantum Fund with legendary commodities investor Jim Rogers. Oh and yes, we are talking about the same George Soros who made a £1 billion on betting against the UK sterling.
Mr. Soros has just founded an organisation called The Institute of New Economic Thinking (INET). The establishment of the institute is with a pledge of $5 million per year for 10 years from Open Society Institute Chairman George Soros, a long-time critic of classical economic theory, who will fund the effort through the Central European University (CEU).
A first conference will be at King's College, Cambridge on April 9-11, 2010. This conference will discuss the following: “The Economics of Crisis and The Crisis in Economics: Implications for Economic Theory and Regulatory Policy”. According to the institute’s website, it says:
“We envision that more than 150 academic, business and government policy thought leaders from around the World will convene to explore the reasons why prevailing economic theory failed to predict the financial and economic crisis that erupted in 2007 – 2008. We will also examine the implications of regulatory regimes that reflect the logic of the economic paradigm that has failed profoundly in guiding society in its recent history.”
Looking at the institute’s founding advisory board is a who’s who in the world of economics and policy making, which includes Nobel laureates George Akerlof, Sir James Mirrlees, A. Michael Spence, and Prof. Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, and Perry Mehrling to mention but a few.
The institute will make research grants, convene symposia, and establish a journal. Scholars will explore the implications of the financial crisis for regulatory policy. The first round of research grants are going to be disbursed before the end of the year to cutting-edge scholars working with leading universities around the world. INET’s Executive Director will be Robert Johnson, an economist with long experience in government, academia, and the private sector.
The question on everyone’s lips is what will the institute discuss? INET will probably discuss economic theories of the last 30 – 50 years and engage in some discourse on the 1929 stock market crash. Nevertheless, the question we ask is – will INET take a serious look at the profession of economics in the sense of admitting that it is not an exact science? It seems INET intends to do so.
In an essay written on the creation of INET, Professor Stiglitz noted,
“The financial crisis has caused a moment of deep reflection in the economics profession, for it has put many long-standing ideas to the test. If science is defined by its ability to forecast the future, the failure of much of the economics profession to see the crisis coming should be a cause of great concern.”
Very brilliant people – economists – describing rationality, econometrics, human behaviour and all sorts of variables that describe a nation’s economy and the stock market put all sorts of mathematical equations together. However, the economists had one fatal flaw, in scientific study; theories are put up against real world conditions to test their validity. Science rejects any theory that contradicts reality. Economics on the other hand reverses this process. If the model disagrees with reality, economists want reality to change. Modern economics stands on this basis.
Hence, there was no surprise when all the foundations built on models, computer simulations and other forms of mathematical wizardry crumbled. As Anatole Kaletsky of the Times of London put it in his blog on the 28 October:
Today’s academic approach prevented economists from thinking about a world that is, by its very nature, unpredictable and inconsistent – as Keynes and Freidrich Hayek, at opposite ends of the political spectrum, understood.
Many now believe that economists became arrogant and felt that they (the economists) and only they knew what was good for the economy. They believed – wrongly of course – that their models and simulations could tell them what was happening. As George Soros said to the Financial Times:
“There’s been a pretty widespread recognition by professionals that something is fundamentally wrong in the prevailing doctrine about financial markets, that you need a new understanding that this whole idea of efficient market hypothesis. I think there is a real need to change the curriculum and that’s why I’m actually sponsoring an Institute for New Economic Thinking,”
In conclusion, we take a couple of paragraphs from Anatole Kaletsky of the Times of London when he wrote:
"The dirty little secret of modern economics is that the models created by central banks and governments to manage the economy say almost nothing about finance. Policymakers who turned to academic economists for guidance in last year’s crisis were told in effect: The situation you are dealing with is impossible: our theories prove that it simply cannot exist.”
"New economic thinking could have an important political impact. For economics is not just the desiccated study of abstract equations. It is the foundation of all politics in capitalist nations. As Keynes wrote: “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”
We must not forget that Mr. Soros became a billionaire on these flawed economic models through speculation on the stock markets of the World. This begs the question – what is George Soros up to now?
It seems that at Foremain, we have gone against what we promised but, with what is going on in the World, we cannot help it. Once again, Goldman Sachs is back in the news.Once again, it is all about the bonuses paid to bankers. It does not take a rocket scientist to ask the question why people who have caused such catastrophic problems be paid huge bonuses. The lack of consideration for others on the part of the bankers has not helped either. To many it seems to be business as usual for these people.
For those of you who have been following the story will know that the Rolling Stone Magazine described Goldman as a “giant vampire squid”. For the staff of the “giant vampire squid”, there is great excitement as members of the 31,700 staff stand to receive from $700,000 to $32m, yes, fantastic if you can receive that kind of money in these difficult times. The pool of money we are looking at is in the region of $16 billion. This comes on the announcement of a $3.19 billion profits for the third quarter of this year. Nevertheless, mere mortals are left to ponder on increased taxes and unemployment.
Politicians from both sides of the Atlantic (US, UK) have been quick to condemn Goldman’s action. President Obama’s top aide in financial matters has made a few comments but the others were blunter. Vince Cable, the UK Liberal Democrat Party Treasury spokesperson, said, “People will be rightly furious to see Goldman Sachs paying out bumper bonuses just 12 months after it was bailed out by the American government. It is farcical that so soon after the greed of bankers brought the world economy to its knees, we are seeing a return to business as usual.” Perhaps most surprising was that even inside the City (London’s financial district), many battle hardened investment bankers found the bonuses distasteful.
Considering all going on now, how has Goldman made such enormous profits and huge bonuses? These profits and bonuses are attributed to a few factors. With the credit crunch biting just about every financial institution, Goldman morphed into a traditional bank holding company. This transition allowed Goldman access to cheap funding from the US Federal Reserve. The government propped up Goldman by a direct injection of cash – which Goldman has paid back. However, Goldman received money indirectly from the taxpayer in another rescue.
A little known organisation – American International Group (AIG) came onto the scene. It also emerged that Goldman held contracts in this company. AIG was bailed out to the tune of $85 billion of which some of it went to Goldman. People like Gerald Celente point out that 13 of those billions went into Goldman’s coffers due to the obligations owed to it by AIG. We must also not forget the disappearance of some its (Goldman) nearest and dearest rivals like Lehman Brothers. This allowed surviving banks like Goldman to raise fees and make even more money.
As the Sunday Times of South Africa put it in its October 25th edition –
“The masters of the universe at Goldman seized the chance to bet on recovery – and bet big. While it can claim to have avoided some of the disasters other banks steered themselves into, Goldman has profited from the socialising of losses. As Professor Stefano Harney from Queen Mary School of Business Management said: There is a question of whether these results are enhanced by the taxpayer. The taxpayer ultimately is the investor who ought to be reaping the results and getting the bonuses this year.”
There is really no point to draw any conclusions on this matter but to quote Gerald Celente once again who said - “Give me $13 billion dollars and I will show you a profit.”
One Saturday afternoon in 2005 when just starting my MBA studies, a friend of mine told me of an argument he had had with another friend about the American economy. According to this friend, living in the UK at the time, and still does, spoke about how his friend had praised the American economy, and how there was no chance of any problem. My friend went on to describe how condescending his friend was during this argument. This was interesting in the sense that my friend’s friend went on to lose a ton of money. On the day of the crash, this person went on to lose a sum my friend described as “beyond the call of duty”. Oh, and before you ask, he has made a complete u-turn in his opinion of the American economy.
I distinctly remember calls many years before the crash from those in the know about how to avoid a major crash, and how to soften the blow for people should the crash arrive. Nevertheless, many economists and financial pundits from the likes of Bloomberg, CNBC, CNN, argued that there was no need to get worried and that the “economic fundamentals were sound”. We now know that the economic fundamentals were not sound.
This was a statement from one of our partners while discussing the American economy. How the mighty have fallen, you might say. It does not look too good for the American economy.
A massive bailout program went into action with governments across the western World throwing money at the banks to stave off a major collapse. Some institutions became too big to fail further heightening the drama. Many economists have argued that this massive bailout can only fuel inflation. Some have even said that the level of unemployment in the US has helped stave off inflation. As for that argument, we let you decide.
So what else is happening on the horizon? For one the price of Gold is rising while the dollar is falling. There is now the argument that the dollar is going to collapse due to the ever-increasing weakness of the US. So what do we believe? Is this really going to happen and if so how? Are we to accept that the collapse is inevitable? By the way, which other countries are going to go down with the sinking dollar?
It seems that the only game in town is the demise of dollar. This certainly has many a pundit hot under the collar. There are stories a plenty now especially on the Internet. The newspapers are also not too far behind either. The discourse on the dollar’s demise is interesting with different twists and turns. Here are just a few examples (please note that statements have been removed for relevance):
A Financial Times (FT) report of 4th October titled “Mighty Dollar turns a paler green” states the following:
Can anything good be said about the dollar? The greenback, the world’s reserve currency, is under attack from all sides.
Such is the dollar’s power that any discussion of the direction of any other currency still has to involve the US currency – it is one side of 86 per cent of all currency deals. Even if an investor had particular reasons for believing in the weakness of another currency, that has to be considered in the context of the dollar’s likely direction.
Just now, the consensus is very definitely towards further dollar weakness and the greenback is obliging the forecasters.
The dollar has been weakening fairly steadily since 2002. Measured against an index of big US trading partners, it lost 41 per cent of its value from then to its low in April 2008. After Lehman collapsed last year, fears about bank liquidity produced a scramble for dollars, boosting its trade-weighted index by 24 per cent in five months. But since then, the downtrend has reasserted itself and the index has traded back near its lows of last year – and is expected to weaken further.
The FT goes on to give reasons for the continued demise of the dollar:
There are a number of reasons for the dollar’s slide and the expectations of further weakness. The most immediate one is excess liquidity.
“If the dollar’s huge rally at this time last year was the result of a dollar shortage, the recent weakness is driven by a surplus of the currency,” says David Woo at Barclays Capital.While other countries have similarly easy monetary policies to the US, none seem to be having quite the same currency effect. Analysts believe much of the extra cash is being parked in US Treasuries, where in spite of the stock market rally, yields have been falling – and faster than those on comparable 10-year German Bunds, leading potentially to selling of the dollar for euros.
As further evidence, a fellow weakling currency is sterling, whose poor performance has been helped by the UK, which has the most similar policies to the US in terms of pumping in extra liquidity through quantitative easing.
“It’s difficult to see this state of affairs changing in the near term, at least not until the market is assured the end of QE [quantitative easing] is near,” says Mr Woo.
Until then, the dollar is also likely to come under pressure from its role as a funding currency for carry trades. The deals were popular in the boom years as investors borrowed in low-yielding currencies to reinvest in ones with higher returns and are now returning as yield-hungry investors ready to take the risk once more.
As mentioned earlier, there are many opinions floating about. Here is an excerpt from the Independent Newspaper’s Middle East Correspondent Robert Fisk (Mr. Fisk includes some of the political implications for the de-dollarisation of the oil market):
The plan to de-dollarise the oil market, discussed both in public and in secret for at least two years and widely denied yesterday by the usual suspects – Saudi Arabia being, as expected, the first among them – reflects a growing resentment in the Middle East, Europe and in China at America's decades-long political as well as economic world dominance.
Nowhere has this more symbolic importance than in the Middle East, where the United Arab Emirates alone holds $900bn (£566bn) of dollar reserves and where Saudi Arabia has been quietly co-ordinating its defence, armaments and oil policies with the Russians since 2007.
This does not indicate a trade war with America – not yet – but Arab Gulf regimes have been growing increasingly restive at their economic as well as political dependence on Washington for many years. Of the $7.2 trillion in international reserves, $2.1trn is held by Arab countries – China holds about $2.3trn – and the nations interested in moving away from dollar-trading in oil are believed to hold over 80 per cent of international dollar reserves.
Saudi Arabia's denials of any such ambitions were regarded by Arab bankers as a normal part of Gulf politics. The Saudis, of course, managed to deny that Iraq had invaded Kuwait in 1990 – even when Saddam Hussein's legions stood along the Saudi frontier, until the US broadcast the news of Iraq's aggression to the world.
Saudi bankers are well aware that in nine years' time – the current timeframe for a transition away from the dollar in oil trading to Japanese and Chinese currencies, the euro, gold and a possible new Gulf currency – China will have doubled its national income to $10trn (assuming a growth rate of 7 per cent), at which point the US might hold no more than 20 per cent of the world's gross income.
Such massive financial movements, encouraged by the de-dollarisation of oil, will have enormous political effects in the Middle East, especially if economic superpower rivalry between America and China comes to dominate the Arab world. Will American economic support for Israel remain as loyal in nine years' time if China and the Arabs are setting the pace in global financial markets? Indeed – perhaps with this in mind – some Israeli financiers have been expressing interest over the past two years in non-dollar Arab bank investments. Whenever a change of this magnitude takes place over a number of years, it has to be commenced in secrecy.
It seems from the blogosphere and other sources; Mr. Fisk’s article has caused quite a stir. Here is Mike Whitney’s take on the Fisk article titled “Dollar Hysteria” from the Information Clearing House website on October 6th:
Yes, the dollar will fall, (eventually) but not for the reasons that most people think. It's true that the surge in deficit spending has foreign dollar-holders worried. But they're more concerned about the Fed's quantitative easing (QE) program which adds to the money supply by purchasing mortgage-backed securities and US Treasuries. Bernanke is simply printing money and pouring it into the financial system to keep “rigamortis” from setting in. Naturally, the Fed has had to quantify exactly how much money it intends to "create from thin air" to placate its creditors. And, it has. (The program is scheduled to end by the beginning of 2010) That said China and Japan are still buying US Treasuries, which indicates they have not yet "jumped ship".
The real reason the dollar will lose its favoured role as the world's reserve currency is because US markets, which until recently provided up to 25 percent of global demand, are in sharp decline. Export-dependent nations--like Japan, China, Germany, South Korea--already see the handwriting on the wall. The US consumer is buried under a mountain of debt, which means that his spending-spree won't resume anytime soon. On top of that, unemployment is soaring, personal wealth is falling, savings are rising, and Washington's anti-labor bias assures that wages will continue to stagnate for the foreseeable future. Thus, the American middle class will no longer be the driving force behind global consumption/demand that it was before the crisis. Once consumers are less able to buy new Toyota Prius's or load up on the latest China-made widgets at Walmart, there will be less incentive for foreign governments and central banks to stockpile greenbacks or trade exclusively in dollars.
Within the cacophony of noise comes a different outlook to this whole situation. The World’s number one forecaster Gerald Celente has a different take on the overall matter. He (Gerald) does agree that the dollar is falling but he adds this important caveat (on the Jeff Rense Talk Radio Show October 7th):
There is a lot of glee going around the World, for example about the battered dollar and how the Arab nations and the BRIC nations, Brazil, India, Russia, and China are talking about number one not taking dollars for oil anymore, not basing it on petro dollars and establishing an alternate currency and or doing business in their own currencies. The World should not be happy about this because something much bigger is happening.
The United States of America the empire is collapsing. And when you go back to collapsing of great empires, and no empire in recent history not even the English empire had so much clout in terms of global trade as does the United States. When this empire falls, it is going to be like the fall of the Roman Empire in that the sense that a Dark Age followed. The reverberations are going to be felt worldwide.
All of these countries, China, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, all these countries that ramped up production in anticipation of continued growth are going to be in for a big shock. So this isn’t going to be pleasant. And I say this because what happens, this country and others, we are going to see what we fear the most, is that if all else fails, and you (Jeff Rense) asked how they are going to prop it up, what they do is that they take you to war. And so as World economies decline, world war looms in the future.
For anyone who has followed Gerald’s work will know he is not the World’s number one forecaster for nothing. His accuracy in predictions has been uncanny. Are we to believe what he has described? Is this scenario possible? Many will remember how he predicted the fall of the economy way back in late 2007 when many claimed that no one saw it coming. One cannot ignore what he says nor take it with a “pinch of salt”.
For now, we cannot draw any conclusions, as it is too early. A lot can still happen especially with the Federal Reserve, who knows what stunt they pull next. Many had believed that the too big to fails would die a natural death, as they are no longer viable entities. Many also believed that the US would reign in its’ debt but it seems business as usual. We can only wait and see what happens.
No doubt, anyone who has or is studying for an MBA wonders at the many management trends that come along and keep coming along. These trends are touted almost as a silver bullet to management problems or needs. It is even more amazing how consultants swear by the trends and so do some university professors. Because there are so many trends and with a high rapidity of introduction, some people call these trends fads. Many an MBA will remember the countless books, not to mention the articles and models that promote some form of trend (fad if you prefer) or the other.
So what is the anatomy of a management fad? The article “When You Shouldn’t Go Global” in the Harvard Business Review of December 2008 explains it in an interesting way. Here is how they explained it (please note this article leaves out some sentences completely for purposes of relevance):
Company X, with talented people at the helm, pioneers a new management approach. The firm does well, and others take notice. One or two firms might experiment with similar innovations. Then stock market analysts and journalists spot the new approach. They view it as part of a broader pattern, and someone comes up with a clever sounding label. The word “paradigm” may even be tossed around. As the phenomenon gains visibility – often in publications like this one – academics develop “frameworks” to help companies understand it.
Their codification, intended to simply to explain the phenomenon further validates it. (Consultants also develop frameworks, though usually with the aim of selling the trend as a product.) Over time, people use the now-familiar label more and more loosely. They group all manner of activities under the heading. Despite its ambiguity, there is a growing sense that activities under the rubric are worthwhile.
Investment bankers cite the concept as a reason for companies to make acquisitions or other moves, and in the enthusiasm of deal making, everyone glosses over the difficulties of integration and implementation. Financial markets sometimes reward companies just for announcing that they have adopted the new approach.
Many of us remember how the financial press especially will “wax lyrical” on a strategy of some company, that is making money. We also note how pundits will speak of the CEO in terms of genius. The Harvard Business Review goes on to explain the problems that stem from the fad. Here is their explanation:
Sadly, the original insight, not to mention an appreciation of the context that gave rise to it, soon gets lost as companies scramble to become part of the trend. Before long, they are copying all sorts of elements and manifestations that are at best tangential and often irrelevant to the sought-after benefit. By the time a few books have come out on the topic, managers are embarrassed if they can’t point to examples within their own organizations.
Most MBAs can think of tons of books published over the years regarding this. Examples such as “Leading Change”, “Enterprise WideChange Management”, “Practical Guide to Business Process Reengineering” come to mind (we are not saying that there is anything wrong with these books).
As the herd piles in, smart managers are already scanning the horizon for a new idea that will give them a competitive advantage. But others continue to give little thought to whether the trend has played out – or was never likely to benefit a company in their situation. There is always a lag before misapplications of the concept start to affect companies’ numbers. Even when they do, many corporate managers, with stacks of statements and presentations extolling the virtues of the approach, are reluctant to abandon it. The stubborn ones carry on regardless of mounting costs – thereby setting the stage for activist shareowners to step in and force a change.
This discouraging scenario doesn’t unfold because the original concept was wrong. It plays out because embracing a trend often precludes careful examination of the pros and cons of the specific choices made by a single company in a particular context.
What is the conclusion? We should learn from the different trends but we should use common sense in judging what works for the organisation. As we all know, there are different solutions for different situations. We need to find the appropriate solution for the problem. This means that we need to come up with a strategy or business model or whatever it maybe to suit the situation that the organisation finds itself in. Hopefully, management across the board will heed this warning and stop looking for that “silver bullet”.
