Poem: Brand new shoes

Hiya,

this is the first poem I've ever made. At least the first one I've ever wrote down.

Brand new shoes

I once bought a pair of shoes,
I thought what could I ever loose?

They were from a famous brand,
made in a far away land.

They were made for running,
and boy did I look stunning.

They only cost me a dollar,

Bansky

didn't know it came with collar.

A friend told me how they were made,
in the sweat of the children the soles were bade.

I learned that the ads were fiction,
it was merely a market inception.

From the company I demanded an explanation,
they wouldn't reply to my insinuation.

I wailed, phoned and mailed,
They evaded, golfed and played.

They ignored everything I tested,
in the game of business they couldn
't be bested.

Therefore I returned my pair of shoes,
for I had my soul to loose.

Why Nations Fail?

Hiya,

as the title says I've red the book "Why Nations Fail" by Darren Acemoglu and James Robinson. First of all I have to recommend this book for everyone who want's to understand how the world works. This book really gave valuable insight to the inner workings of societies. 

What did I learn that was so valuable? The main premise of the book was in all its simplicity that nations succeed or fail because of the political and economical institutions that are prevalent in that society. They dismissed theories that nations succeed or fail due to geographic position, natural resources, culture or other singular aspect of the nation. The book gave good examples why the theories above just wouldn't hold under greater scrutiny.

Why are the institutions then so valuable for the success of a nation? Institutions are things like education system, law & order, political system, finance system, etc.. According to the book there are two kinds of institutions - extractive and inclusive. Extractive institutions have been the prevalent system during most of history. Under these kinds of intitutions small elite holds all political and economical power in the expense of the many. Kings, aristocrats, dictators or communist parties are good examples of the benefitors of extractive instituitions. Inclusive instituitions on the other hand spread political and economical power more evenly across the society so wider range of people can benefit from wealth and the use of power. The recent social experiment called "democracy" has been the main contributor to the most widely spred inclusive institutions boom in history.

The book makes it quite clear that if a society wants to prosper in the long run it needs to adopt inclusive institutions and spread the power in society. This doesn't rule out the possibility that economical growth would be possible under extractive institutions. For example the Soviet Union had immense economical growth all the way until late 70s. They redistributed workers from low production agriculture to heavy industy and armament industry and adopted technologies from abroad which boosted GDP growth. The growth was so fast for decades that many people in the West thought that communism was superior social order to capitalism in order to create growth. 

Then the problems start to arise. Under extractive institutions there is no creative destruction and no intrinsic motivation to improve anything. The elite is always afraid of change since it would mean that their power might be challenged. New techologies always cause creative destruction sweeping away the old and replacing it with the new. This might cause shifts in political and economical power in a society. The elite has a tendency to dread these kind of shifts in fear of losing their position as the top dog of a society. Elite wants to uphold the status quo and therefore the society starts to stagnate in the long run.

How to create inclusive institutions into societys under extractive ones? This is no easy task by anymeans. Extractive institutions are very resilient and even if the elite is deposed somehow the institutions tend to remain. The new leaders soon become the elite and the vicious cycle takes another full turn. The empoverment of the people and transparency of the society are two key elements to break to vicious cycle in my opinion. Smartphones for example are a very empowering tool in many societies. It can rally mobs, record misconduct, connect the society as whole and report news.

Summa summarum the book was really worth my while. It gives good insight and completely new perspective to many poverty stricken societies. There's no magic bullet that would break the vicious cycle but this book at least gives a starting point to understand the disease so others can create the cure.

One trick ponies

Hiya!

I've always been a generalist. I dabble on this and that. Poke my nose in different subjects, projects and such to learn, participate and get the feel of the subject at hand. I rarely go deeper and become an 'expert' on any given topic. I'm pretty good in many fields such as sports, social endevours and academia. Rarely the best but pretty good in any case. I've taken to myself the saying 'if you're the smartest in the room you're in the wrong room'. So I change rooms a lot.

Yes! I can climb. I have a meaning after all...

I've noticed a groving trend amongst my facebook friends that many of them have taken one aspect from their life and made it an integral part of their persona. This phenomena doesn't only limit to facebook, but it is most visible there. Some have taken worlds injustice or animal rights to champion. There's few politicians with their party agenda. Climbing, marathon running, cyckling or gym have become the pinnacle of some of their existence. In a way it's great that they have found meaningful things to pursue in their lives and want to share their views or activities with the rest of us. But is it that you need to cut everything else from your life to become that avatar of their given subject? To become taht one-trick-pony?

Some of my old business student friends have taken their title as their defining factor. Others are defining them through achievements in their dedicated sport. Few friends I've completely lost to the abyss of MMORPGs. I find it kind of sad that one needs to have a well defined box to help define their personality. I feel that would be immensly limiting and restraining to ones ability to pursue new vistas in life.

I can also see the temptation why so many go for this. It's easy, clear cut and quite straight forward. Especially defining oneself through profession is socially the easiest answer. When you go to a party where you don't know the crowd the most usual question is: "what do you do for living?". It's not "what do you like to do?" or "would you tell me an interesting story about you?". We need that box where can allocate people. Ah a lawyer - he must be smart, rich and dull. Uh a hair dresser - since he's a guy might be a bit queer. The answers might help us categorize people but is that what we want? Is that what we're actually interested in?

I think many skills, knowledge and connections can transfer from one area of life to another and immensly contribute there creating new perspectives and innovations. So limiting oneself to be just this or that is if not harmful then at least boring. I would highly recommend everyone who feels that they might have become a one-trick-pony to shake things up every now and then. The easiest way to check if this has happened is to check with who have you spent you time during the past weeks and what have your last 20 FB updates been about.