Communications over the world wide doesnt depend on sytax or eloquence or rethoric or articulation but on the emotional context in which the message is being heard.
People can only hear you when they are moving toward you and they are not likely to when your wordss are pursuing them
Even the choices words lose their powe when they are used to overpower.
Attitudes are the real figures of speech '-Friedman

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Cloud Computing 2015 vision by Intel

The current IT infrastructure must adapt to the requirements and continuing demands of users globally. Intel and its partners are working on the development of infrastructure and architecture of computing in the Nuba (cloud computing) to meet the needs and bring the data center to the next level, security, energy efficiency and hardware services to evolve the cloud in the next five years.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Is it possible :4GNext Generation Mobile Technology

4g Technology:Apple iPhone 4G Coming In ...

Uusitalo, chairman and head of international cooperation at Nokia ResearchCenter, points out, “4G is a research item for next-generation wide-area cellular radio, where youhave 1G, 2G, 3G and then 4G [and 5G] is the clear follow-up to that”

From these points of view, we can clearly understand that 4G does not really exist yet. Generally speaking,4G is an evolution not only to move beyond the limitations and problems of 3G, but also toenhance the quality of services, to increase the bandwidth and to reduce the cost of the resource .

In 2010, the total mobile subscriber base in North America, Europe

The trail going to 4G mobile technology embraces lots of significant trends. Major mobileplayers have been investing to 2G and the succeeding technology. 4G mobile technologies areperceived to provide fast and high data rate or bandwidth, and offer packetized datacommunications. Since 4G is still in the cloud of the sensible standards creation, ITU and IEEEform several task forces to work on the possible completion for the 4G mobile standards as well.

Users’ experiences of latest booming Internet forces industry to investigate means to provide

high data rate regardless of mobility. 4G is being discussed as a solution to the inquiry and itsvision and requirements are being standardized in various standardization bodies. There stillhave large room for the purpose of service application vision: 3G is being delayed in itscommercialization and about a decade of change is left for 4G. In this term paper, we willdiscuss about the implementation of 4G and the benefits that the world will get through the 4Gtechnology.

5G (The fifth generation): The beyond will be 5G with incredible transmission speed with no

limitation for access and zone size


4G is set to be available around 2010, getting it right first time will make it a general winner withthe one billion mobile users around the world. The end user can expect low cost per data bit, aswell as speed and reliability, something which is greatly needed, and will become second naturein the future.

Technology Companies with 4G networks are knocking on the door and mobile operators arebeginning to answer. 4G networks and Next Generation Networks (NGNs) are becoming fast andvery cost-effective solutions for those wanting an IP built high-speed data capacities in the

mobile network.

IP is pushing its way into the mobile wireless market,” said Visant Strategies Senior Analyst

Andy Fuertes, author of “The Road to 4G and NGN: Wireless IP Migration Paths.” By 2010, the

just-published study finds, there will be 113 million NGN and 4G users, with the market starting

to take effect 2006 and 2007.

A handful of wireless technologies are set to join existing 2.5G and 3G standards, , as 4G and

NGN vendors find a foothold in the mobile market. “The current race is ultimately to wrestle

control from the UMTS and CDMA2000 platforms,” Fuertes said. “Siemens carrying Flarion’s

Flash-OFDM as announced last week is a large step forward for IP-based mobile wireless.”Service Providers are considering new protocols in search of a migration to an all IP network, amove expected to lower high-speed data costs and enable new services. Some of these solutionsare considered 3.5G or even 4G.

On the other hand 4G visions take into account installed base and past investments. It has fasterdata transmission and higher bit rate and bandwidth, allow more business applications andcommercialization.Has advantage for personalized multimedia communication tools.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Intel Wireless Display

The Web offers more entertainment than cable, but who cares when it’s all stuck on tiny laptop screens? Now, Intel’s Wireless Display (WiDi) makes the Internet watchable by streaming whatever is on your PC—from House on Hulu to live games on—to your big, beautiful TV, no programming or wires required. The key is how Intel’s latest Core iSeries processors, currently found in more than 50 laptops, talk to an included receiver box, which connects to your TV with a one-time setup. When you activate the WiDi (by pressing a dedicated button on the laptop keyboard), the chip creates a data stream out of the display information. Then it borrows some bandwidth from your Wi-Fi card to beam a smooth live image of your screen to the receiver. For now, WiDi is limited to 720p video, but a future upgrade will work with full 1080p high-def. And upcoming WiDi-ready TVs will cut out the receiver-box middleman.

Ginobili was crowned Argentine athlete of the last decade.Konex Awards

The Konex Awards were instituted in 1980 to be annually delivered so that the most distinguished Argentine personalities and institutions in every field important to the country’s community be an example to our youth.

Every year the Konex Foundation offers those awards in different significant activities in the nation, in cycles that repeat themselves every ten years. Initially and in the ten-year span from 1980 to 1989, such personalities received awards for their life-time accomplishments. As from 1990 to 1999 the accomplishments to receive awards represented the last ten years of activity. From the year 2000 through 2009 such cycle is repeated, and it will be repeated indefinitely.

The jury, presided over by Gabriela Sabatini, selected five Argentine athletes with outstanding achievements in the last decade from 20 different sports (ranging from tennis and football to rugby, polo and sports for the disabled) to receive a so-called "Diploma al Mérito". For tennis, the five selected players were: David, Guillermo Coria, Gaston Gaudio, Juan Martin Del Potro and Paola Suárez.
Out of those five, one athlete in each of the 20 different sports was singled out for the Konex de Platino award. And in the tennis category, the award went to David. (His friend Adolfo Cambiaso, seen next to him in the photo above, picked up the one for polo and Lionel Messi won it in the football category.) While basketball star Manu Ginobili was crowned Argentine athlete of the last decade

David has been awarded the "Konex de Platino" by the Fundación Konex, honouring his achievements and role in Argentine sports in the last decade. The foundation's awards are given to Argentine athletes, as well as public figures from a variety of other fields.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Introducing a New Cloud Communicator, the "LifeTouch(TM)" Tablet Terminal

Empowered by Innovation NEC.Jump to NEC Home.

Tokyo, November 10, 2010 - NEC Corporation (NEC; TSE: 6701) announced today the launch of a new cloud communicator, "LifeTouch," in support of corporate client services through cloud computing. The new product starts shipping at the end of this month in Japan.

The new "LifeTouch" cloud communicator is a tablet terminal positioned in a category between PCs and mobile phones that features many of the characteristic abilities and mobility of both. As its first model in this category, NEC released this terminal with a 7-inch LCD and an open platform, Android(TM) operating system.

Due to recent corporate demand to reduce IT investment expenses and total cost of operations (TCO), both the interest in cloud computing and its actual use have steadily increased. The "LifeTouch" cloud communicator enables corporate customers to generate new revenues through customer services and to improve the efficiency of business operations through an optimized user interface. NEC provides customization and development of device and software elements in response to the content and business needs of corporate customers. NEC also provides a development environment for software vendors in order to enhance application software.

In addition to this new terminal, NEC will continue to provide its cloud service platforms that enable total service support for corporate customers.

The concept and main features of "LifeTouch" are as follows:


User friendly new terminal that everyone can use

  • Easy operation
  • High presentation ability and mobility
  • Service and function expandability
  • Main Features

  1. Design and interface for a wide range of users
    • Easy to carry (Thin design, weighs approximately 370 grams)
    • Intuitive operation with 7-inch LCD and touch panel
    • Easily operated four direction button
    • Pen operable

    • Full SD card
    • Special software for wireless LAN settings (Rakuraku Musen Start)
  2. Supporting service development for corporate customers
    • Terminal and software customization for corporate customers (*)
    • Support for developing original application software
    • Total support from terminals to service platform
  3. Expected usage scenarios
    • Electronic books, home services, e-shops, health care services, entertainment, etc.
    • Sales promotions within stores, mobile sales activities, self-ordering, logistics related work, etc.

NEC anticipates that a wide variety of market needs will become increasingly apparent, and the company will be well positioned to answer these needs in the category between PCs and mobile phones. Looking forward, NEC aims to enhance its line-up of "LifeTouch" in support of these growing cloud computing needs.

"LifeTouch" will be exhibited at the "C&C User Forum & iEXPO 2010" in Tokyo between November 11 and 12.

For "LifeTouch" specifications, please refer to the attachment.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Gracias /Thanks Fabricio Oberto

This video was created by Rita Rodriguez a San Antonio Spurs fan, from Texas to honor the career of Fabricio Oberto as well as to thank him for all the memories he has given all of us.

A seguir disfrutando de Fabricio-Fox Sports Latin America -By Leandro Ginobili


Podría hablar del gran inicio de los Spurs, de las andanzas del nuevo gran trío de Miami, de la vigencia de los Lakers o de la sorpresa agradable que son los New Orleans Hornets de la mano de un increíble Chris Paul.

Pero creo que todos estos temas quedan de lado por un campo de distancia, después de la noticia del intempestivo e inesperado retiro de un gran jugador y mejor persona, pionero de la generación dorada argentina, un líder silencioso, un tipo que se hizo a fuerza de trabajo y sacrificio. Lógicamente estamos hablando de Fabricio Raúl Jesús Oberto.

Oberto vertical

Un grande que le dice adiós al básquet merecía su homenaje. (Harry How/Getty Images)

El cordobés, al cual se le había detectado una arritmia cardíaca durante su última temporada con los Spurs, que trató y solucionó con especialistas texanos, tuvo una llamada de atención importante luego de un juego con su nuevo y flamante equipo, los Portland Trail Blazers frente a Milwaukee Bucks, el 2 de Noviembre pasado.

Había jugado sólo 4 minutos. Una vez en el vestuario su corazón no paraba de latir, como si hubiera disputado los 48. Se sentía extraño, con mareos y vértigo, pero sobre todas la cosas preocupado, preocupación que no cesó en toda la noche, pero esta vez la que trabajaba a una velocidad inusitada era su cabeza, que no dejaba de pensar en lo que había sentido unas horas antes.

Recordemos que además de su reciente intervención, donde se le practicó una especie de reseteado cardíaco para que el corazón comenzase a funcionar normalmente, durante sus inicios en el basquetbol profesional en Argentina hizo una gran amistad con otro cordobés, Gabriel Riofrio, que a la edad de 23 años falleció de un paro cardiorespiratorio durante un juego de la Liga Argentina. Fue un duro golpe para el básquetbol nacional y aún más para Oberto, que desde ese momento juega con las iniciales de su malogrado amigo escritas en sus zapatillas y a quien siempre ha dedicado especialmente cada uno de sus grandes logros tanto a nivel equipos como con la Selección Argentina.

Sin dudas que esa historia debe haber pasado una y otra vez por su mente y ya a los 36 años, habiendo ganado casi todo lo que se puede lograr (Liga Argentina, Liga Española, oro y bronce olímpico y anillo de NBA, entre lo más destacado), habiendo jugado 3 Juegos Olímpicos y 4 Mundiales, decidió por primera vez poner su vida y su familia delante del básquetbol. Y lo bien que hizo.

Oberto fue un ejemplo de entrega, compañerismo, sacrificio e inteligencia para jugar al básquetbol. No fue el más fuerte, no fue el más rápido, no tenía un tiro infalible, pero todos los técnicos y compañeros lo amaban, lo querían de su lado porque hacía lo que fuese necesario para ganar, dejando de lado cualquier tipo de “vedettismo” individual.

Una definición que lo describe perfectamente la hizo Gregg Popovich, head coach de los Spurs: “Fabricio es el peor jugador que mejor juega al básquet”, frase que resume lo valioso que fue Oberto para cada uno de sus técnicos y en especial para Pop, que siempre amó la manera de jugar del cordobés.

Se retira un enorme jugador y una mejor persona. Gracias a Dios, a la segunda la seguiremos disfrutando por mucho tiempo más. Eternamente gracias Fabricio, particularmente de parte de todos los argentinos. Si todos “laburáramos” con tu dedicación, altruismo y bajo perfil, tendríamos un país mucho mejor.

Envía tus comentarios a:

A DEVELOPMENT AGENDA FOR G-20: Korea Seoul Nov 2011

G-20 has come a long way from its inception as a group of finance ministers and central bank governors, formed in the wake of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98. Its initial agenda was rather a limited one. It was established as a forum for encouraging the adoption of the 'Washington Consensus' by Asian and other emerging economies to prevent another financial sector meltdown. This objective was perhaps over achieved.3 The need to demonstrate global solidarity and collective action in tackling the financial sector crisis and subsequent global recession led to the resurrection and elevation of the G-20 to the Summit level in November 2008. Collective action by the G-20 leaders helped to unfreeze global financial markets, prevent the recession from turning into a depression and engender a quick recovery.

The declarations at the end of successive summits in Washington (November 2008), London (April 2009) and Pittsburgh (September 2009) gave credence to the idea of G-20 having emerged as the principal global forum for financial and economic governance. This was reinforced by the establishment of several working groups on the entire range of issues that are at the heart of the present crisis. The inclusion of development issues in the agenda for the G-20 Summit in Seoul in November 2011 apparently marks a new stage in the evolution of the G-20. The objective is to give -20 greater legitimacy to the G-20 and ensure greater attention to global equity concerns.

In this context, this short paper makes two central arguments. First, that while it is important to include development issues in the G-20 agenda, this could be done with greater advantage after insuring the future existence and efficacy of the Group. Second, that the G-20 should focus on a selected minimum number of development issues that are seen as critical constraints on achieving rapid, equitable and sustainable growth in developing economies. Otherwise by spreading itself too thinly, it faces the risk of becoming yet another layer in the hierarchy of agencies overseeing global efforts for promoting development.

II. The First Priority: Existence and Relevance of the G-20

The refrain from the recently concluded G-20 Summit at Toronto, is not positive on the continued relevance of the G-20. The communiqué itself is different from the previous summits as it does not present a common understanding of all G-20 members on major global issues. (Jean rry- 2nd July Economist Blog; Also Martin Wolf Financial Times 1st July). It seems that the G-20, like the G-8 is unable to bridge the differences in approaches on handling the recovery with members seeking to go their own way in continuing with or exiting from the fiscal stimulus depending on the national circumstances. Collective action it seems is limited to handling the crisis. There was disagreement on financial sector issues like imposing a tax on banks for funding future bail outs. The UK and the US have both gone ahead with their own measures for improving financial sector regulation without waiting for the final recommendations from the expanded Financial Stability Board. On trade and protection, there is precious little , other than once again repeating the desirability of completing the Doha Round but with no suggestions on how to achieve that. It will not be incorrect to say that it will be difficult to convince the leaders of G-20 member countries of its continued usefulness. The forum, it seems, is suddenly in need of a major boost to achieve greater coherence and relevance.

The selection of maternal and child nutrition as the principal theme for the G-8 Summit at Huntsvile, close to Toronto, a day before the G-20 Summit, was itself rather strange as it would appear to undercut the very raison-d'etre of the G-20. The necessary condition for the G-20 to emerge as the principal forum for addressing global economic and financial issues, is for the G-8 to move these issues out of its agenda. This does not seem to be happening. Moreover, given that the political context provides the essential context for economic and financial issues, it is perhaps infeasible to put the political and economic issues in separate forums and not expect a spill-over of one to the other. If the G-20 is to emerge as the new high table for global issues, the trend would have to be to bring political and security issues within its purview, however gradually, rather than to take the financial and economic issues back to the G-8, as was apparently done at Toronto. Greater clarity will perhaps be achieved in the next round of G-8 and G-20 meetings that will be hosted by France in 2011. For the present it is fair to conclude that the continued relevance of the G-20 is not certain.

The two sufficient conditions for the continued relevance and evolution of the G-20 as a global forum are to ensure its legitimacy and establish its credibility. It is sometimes argued G-20's legitimacy is questionable because it is a self selected grouping, which cannot claim to be representative of the global community. Suggestions for achieving greater legitimacy range from establishing an objective criteria for the membership; putting in place a system of constituencies; or expanding the membership to reflect a more balanced geo-strategic composition. These suggestions are an attempt to formalize the G-20, and therefore strike at the very basis of the formation that is by definition and design an informal group which does not want to either replicate or substitute the United Nations or its organs. The trade off between representation and formal authority on the one hand and efficiency on the other has been well recognized. For informal groups like the G-20, legitimacy is necessarily derived from their ability to deliver on their chosen mandate and objectives.

Legitimacy for the G-20 will therefore come from implementing the several decisions taken by the leaders at successive summits. Thus, the crucial issue is to ensure the necessary follow up of the decisions and their implementation in a time bound manner. G-20's record here is rather patchy. The major achievements have been the trebling of the IMF's capital base, the increase of Asian Development Bank's capital base and the increasing the voice and vote of emerging and developing economies by 5% in the World Bank. As against this there has been no ostensible progress on the Doha Round despite repeated exhortations, emergence of new forms of 'messy protectionism', status quo on the reform of IMF's governance structure including no change in the voice and vote structure; lack of unanimity on banking sector reforms including the inability to agree on either a tax on banks or a uniform set of counter cyclical prudential or capital provisioning norms. The process of multilateral surveillance for achieving balanced economic growth has also only just started and here again major economies seem to be opting for their own national solutions.

If the G-20 is unable to improve its implementation record, both its legitimacy and credibility will be fatally affected. This will result in the forum quickly losing its relevance. It is at this stage, therefore, critical that leaders focus on these existential issues. They should be giving far more attention on establishing mechanisms for follow up and implementation including the issue of whether or not to establish a secretariat. It would do well to consider creating an appropriate incentive structure that will produce greater compliance of collective decisions by member countries. Adding development issues on the G-20 agenda will be useful only if the group remains relevant and is perceived to be effective in implementing its avowed objectives.

III. The Development Agenda for G-20

South Korea has taken the initiative to put 'development' as an independent agenda item for the summit in Seoul in November 2010, with President Myung-bak Lee first spelling out the priorities in his address at Davos.4 However, it is worth noting that, despite their pre-occupation with the global financial and economic crisis, G-20 leaders have referred to development issues in earlier summits as well.5 The rationale for including them is to try and achieve a more balanced outcome from globalization and improve equity across countries and within each economy. This will make the G-20 more relevant and acceptable to developing economies, which are not included in the grouping.6 Promoting the development agenda will help accelerate growth in developing economies and reverse the trend of worsening equity across countries that has been witnessed over the last three decades.7 In the absence of such 'convergent growth' G-20 will be perceived as an expansion of the rich nations' cartel to maximize the benefits from globalization to the detriment of the poorer countries. This will crystallize large scale opposition, the beginnings of which were visible in Toronto. This is a compelling rationale for the G-20 to give greater attention to development issues.

On the other hand, there is a danger that the development agenda being suggested for adoption by the G-20 becomes too large and precludes effective follow up or implementation. It is being suggested that the G-20 oversee practically the entire range of development activities in developing economies.8 This will include building of physical infrastructure, human resource development, poverty alleviation measures, raising agriculture productivity, greater effectiveness of development aid, better management of water resources, labour standards and employment issues and adoption of measures for mitigation of climate change impacts.

This is far too ambitious and impractical an agenda for a Summit level forum. Moreover, this completely duplicates the mandates of existing multilateral organizations like the World Bank, Regional Development Banks and UN agencies and organizations.9

There are however three development issues on which the G-20 could be effective. First, G-20 could take up the issue of global aid architecture and adoption of globally accepted norms for channelling aid flows by old and new donors . Presently, these issues are overseen by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD, which has tried through the Paris Declaration and the Accra Action Program to devise some global benchmarks for donors. However, large emerging economies like Brazil, China, India and Turkey have emerged as major donors, but who are not party to the DAC initiatives as they are not OECD members. This prevents effective coordination and in some cases could work against implementation of desirable sanctions against truant governments. On the other hand, nearly all existing DAC members (save perhaps Sweden and Japan) are in violation of their own pledge to allocate 1% of their GDP for development aid. There is apparently insufficient peer pressure within the DAC to hold them to their commitment. Such an issue where the global community would benefit from a greater coordination between emerging and advanced economies and which required a degree of name and shame and accountability would be ideally suited for adoption by the G-20, provided of course (and it bears repetition) it can resolve its existential problems by building credibility and acquiring legitimacy. For example a coordinated G-20 effort to improve the volume, design and delivery of development aid for sub-Saharan Africa and poorest countries in Asia will surely produce win-win outcome. It could lead to higher allocations by the advanced economies; greater compliance of governance norms by new donors and more effective coordination of the delivery of aid programs on the ground. This will help raise incomes and accelerate growth in Africa and in the least developed economies, which will provide much needed impetus to global economic activity.

Second, G-20 must take up the issue of developing new norms for transfer of technology that are less onerous for the least developed economies. This can also be extended to cover emerging green technologies across the entire spectrum of goods and services. The issue of access to necessary technologies and now green technologies has for long divided the global community in to 'Us and Them' or between 'Owners and Users'. These divisions are specially harmful for technologies needed to overcoming deleterious consequences of extreme poverty (for example malnutrition and illiteracy and morbidity etc) and addressing climate change issues. By agreeing to a collective approach and action towards these issues, the G-20 could help reinforce the awareness that for tacking global public 'bads' (poverty and climate change) all of us are in it together and divisions across income or other lines are disastrous.

Third, it is becoming increasingly clear that the existing asymmetry between near complete freedom and flexibility for movement of capital across national borders and highly restricted movement of migrants across the same borders is no longer tenable if globalization is to succeed and deliver on its promise of convergent growth. The argument against labour mobility across national borders is based on the rather out-dated notion of maintaining a degree of social and cultural homogeneity in a world which is increasingly a global village. In this day and age of extensive connectivity through faster travel, internet, media explosion and collapsing economic borders through multilateral (EU, ASEAN, MERCOSUR. NAFTA etc.) or bilateral comprehensive economic cooperation agreements, this is an increasingly archaic understanding. Every segment of the global economy will have to increasingly reflect the pluralistic nature of the global community and be equipped to handle it. This is the only way forward for thwarting the avoidable clash of civilizations. Moreover, we cannot expect the full benefits from globalization if two major factors of production viz. technology and human resources suffer from restricted mobility. As referred to earlier, this restricted mobility of labour and technology can also be seen as being responsible for increasing inequity and lack of convergence that presently characterizes the global economy.

All the three development issues mentioned here for G-20's attention are somewhat controversial and with major implications for both advanced and emerging economies. They are also not the typical low hanging fruits, amenable for easy and quick solutions. But they are critical for the future success of the global community in tacking global negative externalities including climate change, human and drugs trafficking and pandemics. By accepting the essential multiethnic and increasingly pluralistic nature of the global community and each of its constituents, we will engender the necessary spirit of collective responsibility and accountability. The present divide between "Us and Them' that characterises all global forums will begin to dissipate only if there is some movement towards freer movement of skills and human capital across borders. In any case, with rapid aging in a number of advanced economies, this phenomenon may soon be upon us. It is surely more efficient for a global body like the G-20 to anticipate it and take the necessary preparatory action.

The G-20, acting at the highest Summit level, is the appropriate forum for taking on tackling such apparently difficult issues, These require the generation of the necessary collective political will that G-20 alone can achieve. All other development issues, that are presently being suggested for adoption by the G-20 are fairly routine in nature and can be left to the Boards of the MDBs where the G-20 can achieve better results with more effective coordination, as they have done in raising the capital base of the MDBs by 85% in the last two years.

Also presented as a conference pap Also presented as a conference paper in a conference "G-20 in a Post Crisis World" Seoul ( 15-16th July 2010)

2Dr. Rajiv Kumar, Director and CE, ICRIER, New Delhi.

3Asian economies proceeded to insure themselves against future financial crisis by building huge, even excessive, foreign exchange reserves and exercising greater degree of caution and prudence in liberalizing their financial sector. This saved them from the worse fall outs of the 2008-09 global financial crisis, which almost resulted in a complete freezing of financial sectors in the US and Western Europe and precipitated the worst global recession since the Great Depression.

4See, Myung-bak Lee, Seoul g-20 Summit: Priorities and Challenges, Davos Forum Special Addres, 28th January 2010

5See, Shaw Zaria, G-20 Leaders' Conclusions on Development, 2008-09, Munk School of Global Affairs, mimeo, 1 February 2010

6Ngozi N. Okonjo-Iweala, Why the G-20 Should Be Interested in the Development of the G-160 + Speech at the World Bank-Korea Conference on Post Crisis Growth and Development, Busan, 3-4 June 2010, and Qureshi Zia, G20 and Global Development, Paper presented at the Busan conference.

7See Kharas, Homi, paper presented to the Brookings Institute-KDI Conference, Washington DC, April 2010. Where he points out the that the ratio of per capita income in sub-Saharan Africa have worsened in relation to the US per-capita incomes over the last two decades.

8Dr. ll SaKong Chairman, Presidential Committee for the G20 Summit, Republic of Korea, Opening Remarks World Bank - KoreaHigh Level Conference on Post-Crisis Growth and Development, June 3-4, 2010, Busan, and Overseas Development Institute , A Development Charter For the G-20, London, May 2010., accessed on 3 July.

9It is in fact rather surprising to find the World Bank and Regional Development Banks supporting such an initiative for the G-20 to include the entire gamut of development issues on its agenda as this would simply duplicate the functions of their own respective Board of Governors where all these countries are represented.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

How to Make an American Job Before It's Too Late: Andy Grove

Recently an acquaintance at the next table in a Palo Alto, California, restaurant introduced me to his companions: three young venture capitalists from China. They explained, with visible excitement, that they were touring promising companies in Silicon Valley. I’ve lived in the Valley a long time, and usually when I see how the region has become such a draw for global investments, I feel a little proud.

Not this time. I left the restaurant unsettled. Something didn’t add up. Bay Area unemployment is even higher than the 9.7 percent national average. Clearly, the great Silicon Valley innovation machine hasn’t been creating many jobs of late -- unless you are counting Asia, where American technology companies have been adding jobs like mad for years.

The underlying problem isn’t simply lower Asian costs. It’s our own misplaced faith in the power of startups to create U.S. jobs. Americans love the idea of the guys in the garage inventing something that changes the world. New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman recently encapsulated this view in a piece called “Start-Ups, Not Bailouts.” His argument: Let tired old companies that do commodity manufacturing die if they have to. If Washington really wants to create jobs, he wrote, it should back startups.

Mythical Moment

Friedman is wrong. Startups are a wonderful thing, but they cannot by themselves increase tech employment. Equally important is what comes after that mythical moment of creation in the garage, as technology goes from prototype to mass production. This is the phase where companies scale up. They work out design details, figure out how to make things affordably, build factories, and hire people by the thousands. Scaling is hard work but necessary to make innovation matter.

The scaling process is no longer happening in the U.S. And as long as that’s the case, plowing capital into young companies that build their factories elsewhere will continue to yield a bad return in terms of American jobs.

Scaling used to work well in Silicon Valley. Entrepreneurs came up with an invention. Investors gave them money to build their business. If the founders and their investors were lucky, the company grew and had an initial public offering, which brought in money that financed further growth.

Intel Startup

I am fortunate to have lived through one such example. In 1968, two well-known technologists and their investor friends anted up $3 million to start Intel Corp., making memory chips for the computer industry. From the beginning, we had to figure out how to make our chips in volume. We had to build factories; hire, train and retain employees; establish relationships with suppliers; and sort out a million other things before Intel could become a billion-dollar company. Three years later, it went public and grew to be one of the biggest technology companies in the world. By 1980, which was 10 years after our IPO, about 13,000 people worked for Intel in the U.S.

Not far from Intel’s headquarters in Santa Clara, California, other companies developed. Tandem Computers Inc. went through a similar process, then Sun Microsystems Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Netscape Communications Corp., and on and on. Some companies died along the way or were absorbed by others, but each survivor added to the complex technological ecosystem that came to be called Silicon Valley.

As time passed, wages and health-care costs rose in the U.S., and China opened up. American companies discovered they could have their manufacturing and even their engineering done cheaper overseas. When they did so, margins improved. Management was happy, and so were stockholders. Growth continued, even more profitably. But the job machine began sputtering.

U.S. Versus China

Today, manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is about 166,000 -- lower than it was before the first personal computer, the MITS Altair 2800, was assembled in 1975. Meanwhile, a very effective computer-manufacturing industry has emerged in Asia, employing about 1.5 million workers -- factory employees, engineers and managers.

The largest of these companies is Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., also known as Foxconn. The company has grown at an astounding rate, first in Taiwan and later in China. Its revenue last year was $62 billion, larger than Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp., Dell Inc. or Intel. Foxconn employs more than 800,000 people, more than the combined worldwide head count of Apple, Dell, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard Co., Intel and Sony Corp.

10-to-1 Ratio

Until a recent spate of suicides at Foxconn’s giant factory complex in Shenzhen, China, few Americans had heard of the company. But most know the products it makes: computers for Dell and HP, Nokia Oyj cell phones, Microsoft Xbox 360 consoles, Intel motherboards, and countless other familiar gadgets. Some 250,000 Foxconn employees in southern China produce Apple’s products. Apple, meanwhile, has about 25,000 employees in the U.S. -- that means for every Apple worker in the U.S. there are 10 people in China working on iMacs, iPods and iPhones. The same roughly 10-to-1 relationship holds for Dell, disk-drive maker Seagate Technology, and other U.S. tech companies.

You could say, as many do, that shipping jobs overseas is no big deal because the high-value work -- and much of the profits -- remain in the U.S. That may well be so. But what kind of a society are we going to have if it consists of highly paid people doing high-value-added work -- and masses of unemployed?

Since the early days of Silicon Valley, the money invested in companies has increased dramatically, only to produce fewer jobs. Simply put, the U.S. has become wildly inefficient at creating American tech jobs. We may be less aware of this growing inefficiency, however, because our history of creating jobs over the past few decades has been spectacular -- masking our greater and greater spending to create each position.

Tragic Mistake

Should we wait and not act on the basis of early indicators? I think that would be a tragic mistake because the only chance we have to reverse the deterioration is if we act early and decisively.

Already the decline has been marked. It may be measured by way of a simple calculation: an estimate of the employment cost- effectiveness of a company. First, take the initial investment plus the investment during a company’s IPO. Then divide that by the number of employees working in that company 10 years later. For Intel, this worked out to be about $650 per job -- $3,600 adjusted for inflation. National Semiconductor Corp., another chip company, was even more efficient at $2,000 per job.

Making the same calculations for a number of Silicon Valley companies shows that the cost of creating U.S. jobs grew from a few thousand dollars per position in the early years to $100,000 today. The obvious reason: Companies simply hire fewer employees as more work is done by outside contractors, usually in Asia.

Alternative Energy

The job-machine breakdown isn’t just in computers. Consider alternative energy, an emerging industry where there is plenty of innovation. Photovoltaics, for example, are a U.S. invention. Their use in home-energy applications was also pioneered by the U.S.

Last year, I decided to do my bit for energy conservation and set out to equip my house with solar power. My wife and I talked with four local solar firms. As part of our due diligence, I checked where they get their photovoltaic panels -- the key part of the system. All the panels they use come from China. A Silicon Valley company sells equipment used to manufacture photo-active films. They ship close to 10 times more machines to China than to manufacturers in the U.S., and this gap is growing. Not surprisingly, U.S. employment in the making of photovoltaic films and panels is perhaps 10,000 -- just a few percent of estimated worldwide employment.

Advanced Batteries

There’s more at stake than exported jobs. With some technologies, both scaling and innovation take place overseas. Such is the case with advanced batteries. It has taken years and many false starts, but finally we are about to witness mass- produced electric cars and trucks. They all rely on lithium-ion batteries. What microprocessors are to computing, batteries are to electric vehicles. Unlike with microprocessors, the U.S. share of lithium-ion battery production is tiny.

That’s a problem. A new industry needs an effective ecosystem in which technology knowhow accumulates, experience builds on experience, and close relationships develop between supplier and customer. The U.S. lost its lead in batteries 30 years ago when it stopped making consumer-electronics devices. Whoever made batteries then gained the exposure and relationships needed to learn to supply batteries for the more demanding laptop PC market, and after that, for the even more demanding automobile market. U.S. companies didn’t participate in the first phase and consequently weren’t in the running for all that followed. I doubt they will ever catch up.

Job Creation

Scaling isn’t easy. The investments required are much higher than in the invention phase. And funds need to be committed early, when not much is known about the potential market. Another example from Intel: The investment to build a silicon manufacturing plant in the 1970s was a few million dollars. By the early 1990s, the cost of the factories that would be able to produce the new Pentium chips in volume rose to several billion dollars. The decision to build these plants needed to be made years before we knew whether the Pentium chip would work or whether the market would be interested in it.

Lessons we learned from previous missteps helped us. Years earlier, when Intel’s business consisted of making memory chips, we hesitated to add manufacturing capacity, not being sure about the market demand in years to come. Our Japanese competitors didn’t hesitate: They built the plants. When the demand for memory chips exploded, the Japanese roared into the U.S. market and Intel began its descent as a memory-chip supplier.

Intel Experience

Though steeled by that experience, I remember how afraid I was as I asked the Intel directors for authorization to spend billions of dollars for factories to make a product that didn’t exist at the time for a market we couldn’t size. Fortunately, they gave their OK even as they gulped. The bet paid off.

My point isn’t that Intel was brilliant. The company was founded at a time when it was easier to scale domestically. For one thing, China wasn’t yet open for business. More importantly, the U.S. hadn’t yet forgotten that scaling was crucial to its economic future.

How could the U.S. have forgotten? I believe the answer has to do with a general undervaluing of manufacturing -- the idea that as long as “knowledge work” stays in the U.S., it doesn’t matter what happens to factory jobs. It’s not just newspaper commentators who spread this idea.

Offshore Production

Consider this passage by Princeton University economist Alan S. Blinder: “The TV manufacturing industry really started here, and at one point employed many workers. But as TV sets became ‘just a commodity,’ their production moved offshore to locations with much lower wages. And nowadays the number of television sets manufactured in the U.S. is zero. A failure? No, a success.”

I disagree. Not only did we lose an untold number of jobs, we broke the chain of experience that is so important in technological evolution. As happened with batteries, abandoning today’s “commodity” manufacturing can lock you out of tomorrow’s emerging industry.

Our fundamental economic beliefs, which we have elevated from a conviction based on observation to an unquestioned truism, is that the free market is the best economic system -- the freer, the better. Our generation has seen the decisive victory of free-market principles over planned economies. So we stick with this belief, largely oblivious to emerging evidence that while free markets beat planned economies, there may be room for a modification that is even better.

No. 1 Objective

Such evidence stares at us from the performance of several Asian countries in the past few decades. These countries seem to understand that job creation must be the No. 1 objective of state economic policy. The government plays a strategic role in setting the priorities and arraying the forces and organization necessary to achieve this goal.

The rapid development of the Asian economies provides numerous illustrations. In a thorough study of the industrial development of East Asia, Robert Wade of the London School of Economics found that these economies turned in precedent- shattering economic performances over the 1970s and 1980s in large part because of the effective involvement of the government in targeting the growth of manufacturing industries.

Consider the “Golden Projects,” a series of digital initiatives driven by the Chinese government in the late 1980s and 1990s. Beijing was convinced of the importance of electronic networks -- used for transactions, communications and coordination -- in enabling job creation, particularly in the less developed parts of the country. Consequently, the Golden Projects enjoyed priority funding. In time, they contributed to the rapid development of China’s information infrastructure and the country’s economic growth.

Job-Centric Economy

How do we turn such Asian experience into intelligent action here and now? Long term, we need a job-centric economic theory -- and job-centric political leadership -- to guide our plans and actions. In the meantime, consider some basic thoughts from a onetime factory guy.

Silicon Valley is a community with a strong tradition of engineering, and engineers are a peculiar breed. They are eager to solve whatever problems they encounter. If profit margins are the problem, we go to work on margins, with exquisite focus. Each company, ruggedly individualistic, does its best to expand efficiently and improve its own profitability. However, our pursuit of our individual businesses, which often involves transferring manufacturing and a great deal of engineering out of the country, has hindered our ability to bring innovations to scale at home. Without scaling, we don’t just lose jobs -- we lose our hold on new technologies. Losing the ability to scale will ultimately damage our capacity to innovate.

Blade Didn’t Drop

The story comes to mind of an engineer who was to be executed by guillotine. The guillotine was stuck, and custom required that if the blade didn’t drop, the condemned man was set free. Before this could happen, the engineer pointed with excitement to a rusty pulley, and told the executioner to apply some oil there. Off went his head.

We got to our current state as a consequence of many of us taking actions focused on our own companies’ next milestones. An example: Five years ago, a friend joined a large VC firm as a partner. His responsibility was to make sure that all the startups they funded had a “China strategy,” meaning a plan to move what jobs they could to China. He was going around with an oil can, applying drops to the guillotine in case it was stuck. We should put away our oil cans. VCs should have a partner in charge of every startup’s “U.S. strategy.”

Financial Incentives

The first task is to rebuild our industrial commons. We should develop a system of financial incentives: Levy an extra tax on the product of offshored labor. (If the result is a trade war, treat it like other wars -- fight to win.) Keep that money separate. Deposit it in the coffers of what we might call the Scaling Bank of the U.S. and make these sums available to companies that will scale their American operations. Such a system would be a daily reminder that while pursuing our company goals, all of us in business have a responsibility to maintain the industrial base on which we depend and the society whose adaptability -- and stability -- we may have taken for granted.

I fled Hungary as a young man in 1956 to come to the U.S. Growing up in the Soviet bloc, I witnessed first-hand the perils of both government overreach and a stratified population. Most Americans probably aren’t aware that there was a time in this country when tanks and cavalry were massed on Pennsylvania Avenue to chase away the unemployed. It was 1932; thousands of jobless veterans were demonstrating outside the White House. Soldiers with fixed bayonets and live ammunition moved in on them, and herded them away from the White House. In America! Unemployment is corrosive. If what I’m suggesting sounds protectionist, so be it.

Choice Is Simple

Every day, that Palo Alto restaurant where I met the Chinese venture capitalists is full of technology executives and entrepreneurs. Many of them are my friends. I understand the technological challenges they face, along with the financial pressure they are under from directors and shareholders. Can we expect them to take on yet another assignment, to work on behalf of a loosely defined community of companies, employees, and employees yet to be hired? To do so is undoubtedly naive. Yet the imperative for change is real and the choice is simple. If we want to remain a leading economy, we change on our own, or change will continue to be forced upon us.

(Andy Grove, senior adviser to Intel, was the company’s chief executive officer or chairman from 1987 until 2005. The opinions expressed, featured in the July 5 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek, are his own.)

Cloud Computing 2015

My Blog List


Intel #whatsnext

Jim Parsons pokes around Intel and discovers everyone needs a little downtime. #whatsnext

Sony Style USA | Blog

Interesting &; Recommended Blogs

Alan Boyle Science editor

Alan Boyle Science editor
As's science editor, Alan Boyle runs a virtual curiosity shop of the physical sciences and space exploration, plus paleontology, archaeology and other ologies that strike his fancy. Since joining in 1996, Boyle has won awards from the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Space Frontier Foundation, the Pirelli Relativity Challenge and the CMU Cybersecurity Journalism Awards program. He is the author of "The Case for Pluto," a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers," the blogger behind Cosmic Log: Bacteria can walk on 'legs' — and an occasional talking head on the MSNBC cable channel. During his 33 years of daily journalism in Cincinnati, Spokane and Seattle, he’s survived a hurricane, a volcanic eruption, a total solar eclipse and an earthquake. He has faith he'll survive the Internet as well.

Popular Posts

Blog Archive