Davos on The Huffington Post

Juliette Powell: New Internet Manifesto Backed by World Economic Forum... and You?

2009-09-09T15:48:28Z

An Internet Manifesto written by German bloggers? No, I'm not referring to The Cluetrain Manifesto, which began as a website about the 'new reality' of the networked marketplace, written a decade ago. I'm talking about a new Internet Manifesto, written by, well, us -- as in, all of us.

It all started when I came across a random link, originally posted on Twitter by @Davos, the Official Twitter account of the World Economic Forum. The post led me down the rabbit hole to a new Internet Manifesto on 'how journalism works today.' As a journalist, I was curious to say the least. The post even had a comment by Don Tapscott: "This is a good document. I support it." Was this the same Don Tapscott who authored bestselling books like Wikinomics? Probably, especially given the source of the original tweet about the Internet Manifesto. After all, @Davos has over one million followers. If so, I wondered what Huffington Post readers like you would think of the top 5 declarations (of the 17 original declarations), translated from German by Jenna L. Brinning, and reproduced in English below.

What is a manifesto anyway? According to Wikipedia, "A manifesto is a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature." Just above the Wikipedia page, a note that puts the declarations below and the intention of this post into perspective: "The examples in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue."

1. The Internet is different.
It produces different public spheres, different terms of trade and different cultural skills. The media must adapt their work methods to today's technological reality instead of ignoring or challenging it. It is their duty to develop the best possible form of journalism based on the available technology. This includes new journalistic products and methods.

2. The Internet is a pocket-sized media empire.
The web rearranges existing media structures by transcending their former boundaries and oligopolies. The publication and dissemination of media contents are no longer tied to heavy investments. Journalism's self-conception is--fortunately--being cured of its gatekeeping function. All that remains is the journalistic quality through which journalism distinguishes itself from mere publication.

3. The Internet is our society is the Internet.
Web-based platforms like social networks, Wikipedia or YouTube have become a part of everyday life for the majority of people in the western world. They are as accessible as the telephone or television. If media companies want to continue to exist, they must understand the lifeworld of today's users and embrace their forms of communication. This includes basic forms of social communication: listening and responding, also known as dialog.

4. The freedom of the Internet is inviolable.
The Internet's open architecture constitutes the basic IT law of a society which communicates digitally and, consequently, of journalism. It may not be modified for the sake of protecting the special commercial or political interests often hidden behind the pretense of public interest. Regardless of how it is done, blocking access to the Internet endangers the free flow of information and corrupts our fundamental right to a self-determined level of information.

5. The Internet is the victory of information.
Due to inadequate technology, media companies, research centers, public institutions and other organizations compiled and classified the world's information up to now. Today every citizen can set up her own personal news filter while search engines tap into wealths of information of a magnitude never before known. Individuals can now inform themselves better than ever.

The Internet Manifesto in its current form has 17 declarations. I've posted the top five above and the following five here in English for review. What if we used the points as an outline? How might you envision and add to a World Internet Manifesto?

Juliette Powell is an author, entrepreneur and integrated media specialist. Her first book 33 Million People in the Room (Financial Times Press, 2009) builds on her work as co-founder and COO of the Gathering Think Tank Inc., an innovation forum at the intersection of integrated media, business, innovation and technology. A popular key note speaker and commentator, connect with Juliette directly at juliettepowell.com and Facebook.

Dave Howe: Creativity Can Save the World

2009-07-09T16:10:20Z

How are imagination and the global economy connected? Well, if you're a Hollywood producer, you'd know that the highest grossing films of all time tend to fall in the fantasy/imagination/sci-fi genre. Think, Harry Potter, Spiderman, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. The studios behind these blockbuster franchises know that they're virtually certain to get a good return on their investment both in the States and overseas.

But beyond the box office, how else is imagination linked to a robust economy? As the global economy shrinks and America's economy contracts, smart businesses have started to focus on the need to reinvent how we think, injecting more creativity and non-linear thinking into the workplace. Writers like Daniel Pink, author of A Whole New Mind, point to a new trend called the "imagination economy." Creative, right brain thinking, they say, is how we can protect Americans from outsourcing, reinvigorate our economy, and regain our place in the world as the incubator for innovation and ideas.

At the 2006 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the theme was "The Creative Imperative." This took place a couple of years before the world economy went into freefall. But even in the good times before TARP entered the vernacular and General Motors went bankrupt,
economic experts touted creativity as the must-have for future world financial strength and growth.

As children we embrace imagination and play, but as we get older, imaginative and creative pursuits tend to be quashed or stymied by the pressures and sometimes sheer monotony of adult work life. Creativity can seem like an indulgence. It's never lost on me that the child who
builds a fantastical city out of Legos and makes music out of pots and sticks is applauded for demonstrating ingenuity and imagination, while the dad who jams with his "band" or reads graphic novels on vacation is chastised as the child who refuses to grow up.

In our bleak economic times with unemployment rising to a scary nine-plus percent, perhaps the only thing many people are fantasizing about is how to pay their bills or keep their jobs. But we all need escapism now more than ever -- not just for entertainment, but for inspiration.

President Obama is reportedly a big Spiderman fan. Perhaps he fancies himself as the webbed superhero who can save us all from the likes of the Joker or, in this case, Ahmadinejad's so-called evil ways. Between the nuclear threat of North Korea, the polar ice caps melting, and the economy crumbling, clearly America is in need of a superhero right now -- a creative, imaginative leader who can think in a non-linear way. And while President Obama probably doesn't have the time to engage in any right brain hobbies in the Oval Office, the President has admitted to reading Harry Potter to his daughters each night. That in itself may not save the American auto industry - but perhaps it may help stir his imagination to come up with new ideas to help solve the world's problems.

Dan Silverstein: Nestle Gets It Right

2009-07-06T12:18:00Z

The last thing I knew about Nestle was it tried hard to convince mothers in the developing world that its milk was better than their milk. When I received an invitation to a high level UN conference on nutrition jointly sponsored by Nestle, the Swiss Mission to the UN, and the UN Office for Partnerships I was aghast. More out of morbid curiosity than anything else, I accepted.

Nestle chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe set the table when he recounted a moment at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in which the actress Sharon Stone took the mike at one of the sessions and exhorted the captains of industry sitting in the audience to "give something back" by pledging donations for philanthropic causes. According to Mr. Brabeck, she collected pledges of a million dollars in a few minutes.

As he recounted the moment to us, he became upset at the thought that he should feel obligated to give something back because he didn't think Nestle had taken anything away. Over the next few years, with the help of two Harvard professors, he began to codify Nestle's interactions with its various constituencies in order to find that magical balance that would allow the company to thrive in harmony with everyone's best interests. They called it "creating shared value," an advancement on the concept of corporate social responsibility. This was not what I expected to hear.

As Brabeck sees it, this shared value exists at all stages of the value chain starting with the smallest stakeholder farmers whose crops are purchased, and extending upward to consumers. Critics can certainly make the argument that Brabeck falls short of the classic definition of a saint, and that Nestle's operations are inherently biased toward its own need to fulfill its primary responsibility to shareholders: Maximizing profitability. Such is the challenge of any company in a capitalist economy. But, Brabeck made the point that within the structure of inherently competing interests exists the potential for all parties to find common ground. The use of water, for instance, is high on the company's list of critical issues that challenge it every day.

Their website reports a 28% reduction in "water withdrawal" which would seem to demonstrate a commitment to sustainability. It doesn't indicate if the remaining 72% of water usage comes at too great an expense of any of the essential needs of the communities dependent on those water sources, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to any corporate behemoth takes a leap of faith that is rarely justified. But, even the most cynical skeptic is going to have to admit, if only grudgingly, that Nestle has taken specific and measurable steps to achieve sustainable, shared value. It quantifies its behavior with performance measurements versus the 10 UN Global Compact Principals on human rights, labor, the environment, and corruption. Two years ago it even sponsored a UNGC Leader's Summit. Its statistical evaluations, however, are now 18 months old. It's time for them to be updated.

With Nestle now appearing to be holding its own feet to the fire it's time to wipe clean the stigma of past behavior. As Oscar Wilde once said, "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

P.S. As far as Peter Brabeck knows, none of the million dollars pledged to Sharon Stone was ever paid.

Turkey's Evolving Role In Middle East Diplomacy

2009-04-06T09:38:59Z

As President Obama arrives in Ankara, he will find a Turkish government eager to play an influential role in the Middle East. While Turkey has made important contributions to the region in recent years, its activism has been controversial in Washington. When Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stormed out of a contentious panel on the Gaza crisis at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, he injected additional controversy into Turkey's diplomatic foray in the Middle East.

The incident produced a torrent of criticism from some U.S. policymakers, analysts, and journalists who regarded the uproar in Davos as proof positive that Turkey, under Erdogan's Justice and Development Party, which is rooted in Turkey's Islamist movement, had made the turn away from the West in favor of the radicals of the Middle East. Erdogan's behavior at Davos, his seeming embrace of Hamas during Israel's Gaza offensive, and his strong criticism of Israel, which at times veered into classic anti-Semitism, left observers wondering whether Turkey could continue to play a constructive role in the Middle East.

The Prodigal Pasha

Since the Justice and Development Party (known as AKP) came to power in late 2002, Ankara has pursued a conscious strategy of reestablishing Turkey's links with the former Ottoman domains to the south and the east. To be sure, there have long been Turkish diplomatic missions throughout the Middle East, but given Ankara's foreign policy orientation, which placed a premium on relations with the West and the official secularism of the republic, Turkey was a marginal player at best in the Middle East. The AKP governments, first under Prime Minister Abdullah Gul and since early 2003 under Erdogan, embarked on an ambitious foreign policy--concomitant with their equally bold domestic political and reform program--that sought to secure Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union while simultaneously cultivating relationships with Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, Riyadh, and Tehran. Turkey's effort to draw closer to both Europe and the Middle East reflected a belief within the AKP that its foreign policy needed to be normalized. Although Turkey's almost exclusive orientation toward Europe and the United States might have been appropriate during the Cold War, when its membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was a paramount foreign policy fact, Turkey's interests now demanded a multidimensional foreign policy.

The Justice and Development Party's approach was met almost immediately with skepticism in Washington. The often testy negotiations between Washington and Ankara in late 2002 and early 2003 over the use of Turkish territory for the planned invasion of Iraq and the parliament's subsequent inability to pass legislation giving U.S. forces permission to launch the attack from Turkey angered the United States. Yet Iraq was just the first in a series of episodes where Ankara and Washington found themselves on opposite sides in the Middle East. In 2005, for example, as the United States sought to isolate Syria over Damascus's alleged responsibility for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and its central role in funneling jihadis into Iraq, the Turkish government continued a policy of deepening its diplomatic and economic ties with the Syrians. After Hamas won the Palestinian elections in January 2006, then Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul and other Turkish foreign ministry officials hosted Hamas's external leader, Khaled Meshal, at AKP headquarters in Ankara. These developments came against the backdrop of improved relations between Ankara and Tehran and Prime Minister Erdogan's periodic tough rhetoric that Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were tantamount to "state terrorism."

Continue reading...

Harut Sassounian: Turkey's Delay Tactics in Opening the Border with Armenia

2009-03-20T10:27:37Z

While some people are dismissing Pres. Obama's solemn campaign pledge to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, Turkish leaders have taken the president's promise very seriously.

Ankara has dispatched to Washington several high-level delegations, both before and after Obama's inauguration, with the express purpose of lobbying key decision-makers in the White House and Congress on this issue.

The Turkish scheme to induce Pres. Obama not to acknowledge the Genocide, however, was dealt a serious blow after the Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Erdogan harshly criticized Israel's invasion of Gaza and angrily confronted Israeli President Shimon Peres in Davos. Incensed by Erdogan's words, Israeli and American-Jewish leaders told visiting Turkish dignitaries that they would no longer oppose the pending congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide.

As April 24, the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, gets closer, Turkish leaders have accelerated their two-pronged campaign, trying to block the congressional resolution as well as Pres. Obama's anticipated statement on the Armenian issue. Beyond Turkey's persistent efforts in Washington through its Ambassador, lobbying firms, and parliamentary delegations, Turkish leaders also pressured American officials passing through Ankara in recent weeks, such as U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

After returning home from their lobbying junkets, Turkish officials said they were repeatedly told in Washington that unless Turkey opens the border with Armenia promptly, there is a good chance that Pres. Obama would use the term genocide in his April 24 statement. This may be the reason why Turkey's Foreign Minister Ali Babajan admitted last week that there is a "risk" the American President would acknowledge the Armenian Genocide next month.

Why is Turkey then seemingly going against its interests by continuing to keep the border with Armenia closed and risking the U.S. president's acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide?

In my view, highly experienced Turkish diplomats are playing a sophisticated game of delay tactics to gain maximum benefit from the eventual opening of the border with Armenia.

The Turkish game plan is to block or dilute Pres. Obama's April 24 statement, either without opening the border at all or by delaying the opening as much as possible. Turkish officials create the impression that relations between Armenia and Turkey are steadily improving, as demonstrated by "secret" meetings which are then leaked to the press as well as publicized high-level meetings. Such encounters, including "football diplomacy," have scored public relations points for Turkey and given credibility to its claim that relations are indeed improving.

The Turks have several reasons for preferring to give the impression that they are about to open the border, without actually doing so.

First, any conciliatory move towards Armenia would damage Turkey's relations with Azerbaijan. Turkish officials have tried to manage this problem by making the return of Artsakh (Karabagh) to Azerbaijan a pre-condition for opening the border. Since the Armenian side appears to have rejected this proposal, Ankara has been forced to abandon any direct linkage between the border opening and the Artsakh conflict.

Second, by constantly repeating that they are engaged in "delicate negotiations" with Armenia, Turkish officials have sought to prevent other countries, particularly the United States, from acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, even though these two issues are completely unrelated.

Third, Turkish officials realize that opening the border promptly would not be in their best interest. The more they drag the negotiations, the more concessions they hope to secure from Armenia -- a time-honored Turkish diplomatic practice!

Fourth, by delaying the border opening, Turkey also gains more time to negotiate with the Obama administration and reach a favorable understanding on both the congressional resolution and the President's April 24 statement.

Fifth, another important reason why Prime Minister Erdogan and his ruling party are using delaying tactics is that any deal with Armenia before the March 29th crucial local Turkish elections would harm their standing in the polls.

Sixth, Turkish officials would probably wait until the first week of April, when Pres. Obama is expected to visit their country, to discuss directly with him the linkage between the border issue and granting transit rights to U.S. troops leaving Iraq, sending additional Turkish soldiers to Afghanistan, as well as blocking U.S. acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.

Even though Armenian-Americans can neither match Turkey's vast resources nor its powerful clout in Washington, they are naturally very concerned about these Turkish ploys and are hard at work to ensure that Pres. Obama carries out his campaign promise on the Armenian Genocide.

Despite reports from reliable sources that Armenia and Turkey will be signing an agreement when Foreign Minister Ali Babajan visits Yerevan on April 16, one would hope that Armenian officials would delay signing any document with Ankara just before April 24. Otherwise, the Armenian leadership would not only desecrate the memory of the Armenian martyrs, but would also provide the perfect excuse to the Obama administration not to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide in April. After waiting for the opening of the border for 16 years, Armenia could well afford to wait a few more days!

Macha Levinson: Engaging Russia: Energy Could Still Be the Answer

2009-03-02T14:13:58Z

Vice President Biden broke the ice with Russia at the Munich Security Conference. It is time, he said, "to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together" and it seems that Secretary of State Clinton will soon follow up by meeting her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to talk about engaging on "all levels." These are heady words after a period when US Russian relations had reached their lowest point since the fall of the Soviet Union. But where should Washington reengage with Moscow?

It would be nice to find some of the President Obama's "change we need" in the answer. Yet most the areas proposed by the pundits relate to security issues, exactly where East-West relations played out during Cold War days. Thus arms control, especially the resumption of Start negotiations to reduce nuclear arsenals, and non-proliferation which includes thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions, are high up on Clinton's "to do" list. Support for US operations in Afghanistan and cooperation with counter terrorism efforts are also in there.

One unlikely candidate for the list, however, is energy. Russia's abrupt cut-off of gas to East and Central Europe in January, the result of an annual price war with Ukraine, set off alarm bells in the West as it did during a similar crisis in 2006. Although this time Ukraine received its share of the blame, Russia was still routinely vilified for starting "an energy cold war" ostensibly to punish Ukraine for wanting to join NATO. So when it comes to engagement with Russia, energy is not the word that comes to mind.

It is rather the opposite. Europe is strongly advised to bypass Russia; diversify gas sources and find alternative gas transit routes. Thus when Prime Minister Putin came to Davos shortly after the gas crisis, the considerable part of his speech devoted to energy issues, with detailed discussion about oil and gas pipelines, was largely ignored. Senator Richard Lugar made it clear during Clinton's confirmation hearings that energy was a NATO security matter. He recalled his warning in 2006 that a natural gas cut off in mid winter causing deaths and industrial damage was as severe a violation of "NATO's Article 5" (that an attack on one member is an attack on all) as a military invasion. Like a disappointed parent he chided the Europeans for dawdling on alternative pipeline projects, specifically the Nabucco Pipeline backed by the US "to help our NATO partners or our EU partners". and he lamented that "the Europeans have not dealt with it very positively". In Munich Biden reportedly reaffirmed that Europe's energy security means skirting Russia's oil and gas. There is no doubt about the message. When it comes to gas, snub Russia and look for supplies from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and maybe some day, Iran -- all touted as more attractive and more reliable energy partners

But the fact is that. even if these alternative sources and routes turn out to be realistic, Moscow's Gazprom will remain Europe's key gas supplier for the foreseeable future. Rather than running away from the problem the US should recognize that it is stuck with Russia for Europe's gas imports and, lest we forget, for a third of its oil. The Europeans know this, not only the big players in Germany, France and Italy, but also companies in Netherlands and UK where Gazprom is seeking to extend its tentacles. Many have been in the gas business with Russia since Soviet times. Their primary concern is that Russia remain a reliable energy supplier.

That should be Washington's main worry as well. Here is the change that the new US administration can bring: to look again at the potential for energy cooperation between Russia and the United States. In Putin's early years, between 2001 and 2003, a US-Russia Energy Dialogue was set up in the hope that US technology and investment in Russian oil and gas could lead to a productive partnership. Although the project was derailed, its original premise is still correct. Russia needs Western know-how and financing to exploit its vast energy resources. The United States, the world's largest oil consumer, needs new energy suppliers until such time as more progress is made in weaning the country away from foreign oil. The oil industry is eager. The chairmen of Western energy behemoths came to the St Petersburg economic forum in 2007 and in 2008 for private meetings with Vladimir Putin and Dimitri Medvedev. Most recently US Undersecretary of State William Burns expressed interest in a sustained energy dialogue with Russia. Every effort should be made to resume that discussion which could become the linchpin of a renewed US-Russian relationship.

Strength Of Women Can Rebuild Global Economy: Report

2009-02-27T11:47:47Z

Ernst & Young has released a report during the World Economic Forum that highlights the significant and proven contributions women make toward business and economic growth. The report, Groundbreakers: Using the strength of women to rebuild the global economy, builds a powerful case for the advancement of women around the world as an overlooked and untapped way to meet the challenges of our global economy.

As the world works to recover from the current financial crisis, the report is a resource for private sector and government leaders seeking to advance gender equity initiatives around the world.

"At a time when our global economy is facing its greatest challenge in decades, we have to capitalize on the contributions women make as leaders, entrepreneurs, and employees," noted James S. Turley, Chairman and CEO of Ernst & Young. "Many corporations and governments have been making efforts to advance women - now is the time to accelerate those efforts. It's time to place renewed emphasis on women's advancement and women's perspectives as a key tool in moving businesses and economies ahead."

The report analyzes the most compelling research on: 1) the importance of women as an economic force; 2) the wide occupational and wage disparities between women and men; 3) the power of critical mass; and 4) diversity as a mathematical equation for success.

Sources include The World Economic Forum, Goldman Sachs, The White House Project, Catalyst, the United Nations, McKinsey & Company, The European Commission, and many others. It also compiles commentary on key women's issues from leading academics, NGOs, policymakers, and global business leaders.

"It is in everyone's best interest to bring qualified women into leadership positions, especially now when fresh perspectives are needed," noted Ilene H. Lang, President and CEO of Catalyst. "We can no longer afford to set gender boundaries around leadership. The power is in the purse strings: until women are equitably represented in leadership in the private, economic sector, they will be marginalized in every other arena. What's good for women is good for men, business and the global economy."

Go here for the full report.

Julia Moulden: Save The Girls, Save The Economy

2009-02-07T08:49:55Z

The video begins with a provocative statement. "The world is a mess." And asks the viewer to agree or disagree.

How would you respond? (Watch video.)

Well, the word out of the World Economic Forum in Davos is a definitive "agree". And an interesting trio is suggesting that investing in girls in developing countries is a sure-fire way to make sure they don't become victims of the global financial meltdown. In fact, with our help, they will be able to lead the way into the future.

Mark Parker, CEO of Nike, Melinda Gates of the Gates Foundation, and UNICEF's executive director Ann Vaneman believe that investing in girls and women will help them transform their families, their villages, and, ultimately, their countries. It all begins with providing girls with education and economic opportunities so that they can avoid, for instance, becoming commodities in the sex trade. There's more about what these organizations are doing at The Girl Effect.

Of course, it's not just world-famous people who are making a difference in the lives of girls and women in nations around the globe.

In 1980 or so, I read about female genital mutilation, or excision, a practice common in many African countries. I was horrified, and mentioned it to my anthropology professor, eager to discuss why it was encouraged, and what might be done about it. He dismissed it as nonsense, "That doesn't happen."

Today, we know otherwise.

And each year, more people are trying to eliminate the practice. A documentary on CBC Radio last Sunday afternoon told the story of women in the Dogon Hills of Mali who are defying centuries of tradition by saying "No!" to excision.

One is Madame Fifi, who rides around Mali on a motorcycle, educating women about the dangers of the procedure, which more than 85% of the girls in her country endure (and it's being done on younger and younger girls as the older girls begin to resist).

The other is a doctor who once treated the survivors of excision - yes, there are all kinds of physical complications, including infection, massive bleeding, and difficulty giving birth years later. Today, Dr. Joséphine Traoré-Keita is the director of the Malian government's anti-excision agency.

To listen to David Gutnick's report, visit the Sunday Edition site, and choose the February 1, 2009 program.

To read David's in-depth article, click here.

Clearly, New Radicals - ordinary men and women like us who are putting the skills we acquired in our careers to work on the world's greatest challenges - are cropping up everywhere.

Sometimes when I'm delivering a speech about the New Radicals (for more, please see archived articles), I pose a question to the audience that's not unlike the one asked at the beginning of the 'girl effect' video, "Do you think the world is getting better or worse?" Most often, the response is mixed. Once in a while, more hands go up for "better", particularly when I'm speaking to educators. As one teacher put it last year when I remarked on the difference, "We're graduating the future." New Radicals believe that things may be bad, but it's not hopeless, and that each of us can make a difference.

So, can investing in girls in developing countries save their lives and the economy, too? Please share your thoughts by commenting below, or emailing me at julia@wearethenewradicals.com.

• In a related story, have you heard about playwright Eve Ensler's extraordinary efforts to bring the world's attention to the issue of violence against women in the Congo and around the world? Visit her site to learn more, and see if the woman best known for her play, The Vagina Monologues, is going to be in your town as she tours North America with Dr. Denis Mukwege.

Bob Jeffrey: Davos, Twitterville and Me

2009-02-06T18:05:16Z

They say you can't teach old dogs new tricks. But now that this middle-aged CEO has learned how to stop talking about new media and communications styles and start living them, I'd argue the exact opposite.

For years we've talked about the great democratization of information and power, but for a while it was just the sound and fury of theory. It's quickly becoming reality, however, and last month I found myself living this trend as I participated in the World Economic Forum at Davos. It was the second time I attended, but Davos was a very different experience for me this year, in part because I took not just my Blackberry and Airbook but also my team of 10,000 and my hundreds of contacts, thanks to the wonders of virtual social networks.

I've never felt this connected to the rest of the world. It was a game-changing, moving experience, one that left an indelible mark on how I will lead now.

It all started with my embrace of a funny little thing called Twitter. We'd used it to share creative news from last June's Cannes Advertising Festival with our global staff, but I hadn't engaged in it personally. I'm a big fan of text messaging, and I also favor quick, informative conversation--so it makes sense that once I started sending Tweets, I quickly became addicted. I loved the dialogue and the loops of short discussion: 140 characters is perfect for me.

By day two at Davos, I was Tweeting up a storm. I consumed and then shared presentations and discussions on the state of the world, the challenge of the economic reboot, the need for public and private to work collaboratively for change. I took my team to hear what Vladimir Putin had to say, I gave them the lowdown on how Howard Dean sees the state of American party politics, I shared what WPP's Sir Martin Sorrell (my boss and one of the true wizards of Davos) was blogging about on the Financial Times and Telegraph sites.

I got feedback heretofore unimaginable for anyone in my role and for someone at an event like Davos. And I soon felt less like Nick Carroway in the Great Gatsby and more like a CEO and a broadcaster (make that a narrowcaster). Who knew that in my 50s I'd end up with an audience sharing my real-time experiences in brand-new ways?

BobJeffreyJWT: Al Gore said that in White House meetings Obama is the greenest person in the room.

BobJeffreyJWT: Global response to climate change in 09. Freidman chairs talk with Gore, Van der Veer of Shell etc. Streaming now: http://tinyurl.com/brpncm

DEdwardKarp: @BobJeffreyJWT re: Nuclear Volley...France and Iran. Two intransigent nations when it comes to nuclear issues!

BobJeffreyJWT: End of #Davos day 2 - intense and invigorating. Glad to have my family and friends following.

BobJeffreyJWT: CEO of Nike on design (Mark Parker former designer): good design is simple, strong, intuitive.

BobJeffreyJWT: #Davos "What is Good Design?" Brian Collins' presentation on the MOMA-featured prescription bottle and the stories behind storytelling.

reutersgr8db8: RT @venndiagram8: rt @BobJeffreyJWT #Davos Paypal founder Levchin says "Stop the doom and gloom. Great time to start a company. Steal the best talent."

I'm a lifelong student of Marshall McLuhan, but I never expected to experience so many of his forecasts, from the global village to truly hot media. As I engaged and activated thousands of people in my universe--multiplying my audience as my Tweets flowed onto my Facebook page--one of his famous quotations played over and over in my head: "Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity."

Clearly I was not alone. The World Economic Forum reached several million of the world's news junkies through the power of social networks. "@Davos was one of the top 10 trends on Twitter during the past week," the WEF reported. About 3,500 people followed the Forum on Twitter, placing it in the top 1,300 Twitter accounts worldwide.

What an amazing world we're living in. For all the negative news I heard at Davos and have lately consumed on- and off-line, this has been one of the most empowering experiences I've ever had. And it's made me feel better able to lead in these times of unprecedented uncertainty and angst.

Unlike mass e-mails, which I think this is starting to replace, communicating via virtual social networks is about people opting in and truly engaging with one another. What's changed me the most is recognizing the power I have to broadcast my experiences and reactions to my worlds via multiple channels. And realizing the responsibility I have to engage in quality real-time dialogue with my staff about what we're all hearing, learning and pondering so that we can take advantage of these diverse inputs as they happen.

As PayPal founder Max Levchin said during the Forum: "Stop the doom and gloom. It's a great time to start a company." And as McLuhan queried, "Why is it so easy to acquire the solutions of past problems and so difficult to solve current ones?"

My answer after spending this time in Davos and Twitterville: Let's take a short breath, count to 140 and start looking at novel ways to work together. As I Tweeted toward the end of the Davos week: Embrace the change and lead the revolution, with optimism and a recognition that nothing good comes without sacrifice.

BobJeffreyJWT: #Davos Had lunch today w/reps of mobile, tech, VF, MSFT, Google: everyone agreed all of our businesses are going through revolution.

Charles J. Brown: Bailouts: A Hedge we Should be Funding

2009-02-06T15:51:23Z

As the Senate debates how many stimulus angels it can fit on a pin, and corporate executives continue to get caught using bailout money to score hookers and blow give themselves perks, the New York Times shared some incredibly distressing news:

Because of the economic downturn, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is running short of money, global business and health leaders said last week. Pledges to the fund from donor nations are running about $5 billion short of what is needed through 2010, Rajat Gupta, the chairman of the fund's board, said in a conference call with reporters from Davos, Switzerland.

One of the last rounds of support for poor countries' disease-fighting programs was postponed, another was cut by 10 percent and countries making requests were told to expect 25 percent cuts. "I'm hopeful and confident that donors will continue to finance this," Mr. Gupta said, promising to scrutinize expenditures carefully and "tighten our belts.

Just to put this in perspective, the Global Fund does a number of essential things (and does them incredibly well). It distributes HIV/AIDS drugs to those (individuals and countries alike) unable to afford them, working with governments to ensure equitable distribution and follow-up care. It identifies and isolates TB outbreaks. It provides those in malarial zones with millions of mosquito nets. If I'm not mistaken, it also has helped fund the new anti-malaria vaccine that is looking so promising.

Here are a few statistics from the Global Fund's website. As of December 1, the Fund had

provided 2 million people with HIV/AIDS anti-retroviral treatment;

offered 62 million people HIV counseling and testing sessions;

helped 3.2 million [AIDS] orphans, providing them medical services, education and community care;

distributed 70 million bed nets to protect families from transmission of malaria, thus becoming the largest financier of insecticide-treated bed nets in the world;

delivered 74 million malaria drug treatments;

detected and treated 4.6 million cases of infected TB.

But other than all that, well, not so much. I mean gold-plated toilets and Vegas junkets are far more important than any of that. Jeffrey Sachs, who participated in Gupta's conference call, put it better than I can:

The poor are refused $5 billion, he said angrily, while wealthy countries have found $3 trillion for bank bailouts and Wall Street bankers awarded themselves $18 billion in holiday bonuses while accepting those bailouts."This is absolutely in violation of the life and death pledges that the rich world made to the poor," he said. "I would suggest the administration reclaim those bonuses and put the money into the Global Fund immediately."

Because it's a far, far better use of taxpayer money to fly executives to Cabo San Lucas or wherever they're going these days. Henry Paulson, white courtesy phone, please.

I also should note that the slow starvation of the Global Fund is another example of how UN bashers can have it both ways. When the neoconservatives start talking about the failures of the UN (and to be clear, there are plenty), they never mention the Global Fund or other such successful ventures. Instead they focus on the General Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council, and other obviously dysfunctional bodies. But when the money dries up for these initiatives, they self-righteously use them as another example of something that has gone wrong with the UN -- even though it's the member states that are shutting off the spigot.

To be fair, such criticism should not extend to former President Bush, who actually demonstrated leadership on HIV/AIDS through the establishment of PEPFAR, and his Administration's strong financial support for the Global Fund. But it also would be a mistake not to highlight the fact that we're now in this mess because of his extraordinarily incompetent handling of the economy.

The funding crisis now facing the Global Fund needs to be on President Obama and Secretary Clinton's radar screen. But it's going to take more than just U.S. action. A good start would be putting it on the agenda of the London meeting of the G-20. After all, it's hard to promote "stability, growth, and jobs" if an effective agency doesn't have the funds necessary to keep people from dying.

To close, take a look at Bill Gates's talk at the TED conference yesterday (h/t UN Dispatch). He highlights the dangers facing those in malarial zones (go to about 2:52), and seriously freaks out the audience by releasing mosquitos (starts at about 5:12):

Money quote: "There's no reason that only poor people should have the experience" of living with mosquitoes. As he notes, more money goes into baldness drugs (and, I'm guessing, anti-erectile dysfunction drugs) than into malaria eradication. The Global Fund was supposed to help this. But now it doesn't have the funds it needs.

Oh, and guess who the biggest beneficiaries of Propecia and Viagra are? Wealthy bankers and hedge fund managers! Because, hey, if you don't look good, you're gonna have more trouble scoring hookers and blow.

And bailouts.

Globalization Is In Retreat: Adrian Hamilton

2009-02-05T14:43:24Z

One by one the great and good of the land have stepped forward to pronounce on the wave of strikes over foreign workers and to condemn them. "Xenophobia" is the dread threat raised by Lord Mandelson. "Protectionism" and even the British National Party have been the spectres raised by his colleagues.

And quite right too. Protectionism would be the worst fate to befall the world at this time. There is no reason to fear the EU in this context. The figures show that British workers have largely benefited from it. The political class is wise to warn of what could happen if the cause of these strikes were hijacked by the nationalists, the europhobes and the little Englanders.

But listening to the spokesmen of the workers involved I don't get the feeling that the actions do arise from xenophobia or hatred of Europe (although there is precious little love of it in this country). Indeed the leaders seem to be at pains to distance themselves from such causes, partly because the thrust of this dispute appears to come not from the unskilled, who have been most affected by immigrant labour, but from the skilled workers such as pipefitters who know the benefit of an open market.

Continue reading here.

Sandy Tolan: Erdogan, Peres, and the Soufflés of Davos

2009-02-05T13:55:59Z

This piece is crossposted with Truthdig.com, where it was originally published.

DAVOS, Switzerland -- Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey walked off the stage after an angry exchange with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, during a panel discussion on Gaza at the World Economic Forum on Thursday, and vowed never to return to the annual gathering

(The New York Times, January 29)

[Erdogan] was upset because moderator David Ignatius had permitted Peres to speak twice as long as the other participants and then didn't give Erdogan much time to respond. (The panel was already overtime and dinner was waiting). -- Blog of Stephen M. Walt, Foreignpolicy.com

Open Letter [Political satire]
To: Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey
From: The Protocol Desk, World Economic Forum
RE: Last week's unfortunate incident in Davos.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

I write with grave concern over your impertinent remarks to the President of Israel at the World Economic Forum last week, which threatened to delay dinner for hundreds of extremely important global thinkers. I would like to make you aware that these leaders, many of them bankers who had to resort for the first time to flying into Davos by commercial (read public) airliner, had heard quite enough of your spouting off about Gaza.

It was bad enough that Mr. Shimon Peres was forced to respond to the United Nations Secretary General, Mr. Ban-Ki Moon, who spoke of the "unacceptable" bombing to rubble of the United Nations compound there and the deaths of 1,300 Gazans. Making matters worse was your outlandish suggestion that this destruction in Gaza was excessive.

Why, sir, would you delay the arrival of the evening meal -- in these times more than ever, mouthwatering culinary islands in a sea of gloomy economic indicators -- by insisting on going on and on about the unfortunate children in that pris -- I mean, territory, of Gaza? As the moderator, Mr. David Ignatius of the Washington Post, cogently pointed out, "We really do need to get people to dinner." Amen to that! Very Important Stomachs were grumbling!

Moreover, the dinner required precise timing, as I have it on some authority (or at least my own speculation) that soufflés were to be served. Perhaps you are not aware, given the kind of ke-babby food that is served in your country, that timing is everything in matters soufflé. There is a reason that nearly every cookbook worth its truffle oil concludes its soufflé recipes -- be it for Gruyère, smoked salmon, broccoli rabe, Caribbean crab, or for that matter apricot, amaretto with chocolate sauce, blackberry or frozen citrus -- with this urgent admonition: serve immediately. How could it be that you are unaware of this? After all, you of the temerity to apply for membership in the European Union do, by definition, lay claim to the title "European" -- even though only a tiny portion of Istanbul lies in that continent, and the rest of your former "empire" is in the land of the Other.

I digress; back to soufflés. Now, even if those puffy delicacies were not served -- and truth be told, they probably were not -- it is beyond appalling that the leader of such an insignificant country as Turkey should exceed the one minute Mr. Ignatius generously provided you to respond to the courageous speech by Israel's president, who pointed out that there was no siege in Gaza; that "Israel does not want to shoot anybody," and that "the people in Gaza are not our enemies." Indeed, this towering recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize generously offered, "We are in favor of restoring life in Gaza," and even went so far as to reassure you, "We would like to see Gaza flourishing." And yet there you were, insisting on rebutting Mr. Peres's remarks with impolite discussion of the deaths of children.

Furthermore I should like to categorically reject the complaints levied against Mr. Ignatius for trying to quiet you by placing a hand firmly on your shoulder. It may be true that he would have never laid a hand in this manner on Presidents Bush, Obama, or even Sarkozy. But this sore-loser rhetoric is well out of line. The fact is, time was up! Mr. Ignatius, like any moderator of decorum, was being sensitive to the hunger factor in the audience, and wished to stop your rant before your narrative became too detailed. Just imagine the discomfort of the important thinkers in attendance had you pointed out the actual numbers of dead and wounded, or, even more inappropriate given the dinner hour, began citing the details of the November 2008 Red Cross report on the "devastating effects" of the so-called "blockade" in Gaza. (The preferred term is "to put the Palestinians on a diet," as Israeli official Dov Weisglas humorously put it.) How dreary it would have been to listen to such a litany of Red Cross slogans: food insecurity, chronic malnutrition, progressive deterioration -- etc. etc., ad infinitum, enough already! At least we can be thankful that you stormed off the stage before resorting to such wearisome details.

In conclusion, allow me to emphasize that if your nation wants to join the ranks of the civilized (read: European Union, with Israel as a kind of honorary member), it would be incumbent upon you to observe the rules of engagement in future Davos fora. I realize you have announced your intention to never return, but we understand that such passions of the East are quickly fleeting. You will be back, and when you return, please be advised to listen to the moderator, to keep your comments brief, and above all to remember this when evening approaches: We really do need to get people to dinner.

Niall Ferguson: Beyond the Age of Leverage: Alternative Cures for the Global Financial Crisis

2009-02-04T10:30:03Z

It began as a sub-prime surprise, then became a credit crunch and is now a global financial crisis. At last week's World Economic Forum at Davos there was much retrospective finger-pointing--Russia and China blamed America, everyone blamed the bankers, the bankers blamed everyone--but little in the way of forward-looking ideas. From where I was sitting, the majority of attendees were still stuck in the Great Repression: deeply anxious, but fundamentally in denial about the nature and magnitude of the problem.

There were the people calling the bottom of the recession by the middle of this year. There were the people claiming India and China would be the engines of recovery. There were the people more worried about inflation than deflation. And, above all, there were the people trusting that Keynes would save us. I heard almost no criticism of the $819 billion stimulus package currently making its way through Congress (and mutating as it does so into something more like a pork barrel). The general assumption seemed to be that practically any kind of government expenditure would be beneficial, provided it was financed by a really big deficit.

There is something desperate about the way people on both sides of the Atlantic are clinging to their dog-eared copies of John Maynard Keynes's General Theory. Uneasily aware that their discipline almost entirely failed to anticipate the current crisis, economists seemed to be regressing to macroeconomic childhood, clutching the multiplier like an old teddy bear.

The harsh reality that is being repressed is this: the Western world is suffering a crisis of excessive indebtedness. Many governments are too highly leveraged, as are many corporations. More importantly, households are groaning under unprecedented debt burdens. Average household sector debt has reached 141 per cent of disposable income in the United States and 177 per cent in the United Kingdom. Worst of all are the banks. Some of the best-known names in American and European finance have balance sheets forty, sixty or even a hundred times the size of their capital. Average U.S. investment bank leverage was above 25 to 1 at the end of 2008. Eurozone bank leverage was more than 30 to 1. British bank balance sheets are equal to a staggering 440 per cent of gross domestic product

The delusion that a crisis of excess debt can be solved by creating more debt is at the heart of the Great Repression. Yet that is precisely what most governments currently propose to do.

The United States could end up running a deficit of more than 10 per cent of GDP this year (adding the cost of the stimulus package to the Congressional Budget's optimistic 8.3 per cent forecast). Nor is that all. Even before Barack Obama entered the White House, his predecessor's administration had already committed $7.8 trillion in the form of loans, investments and guarantees. Now the talk is of a new "Bad Bank" to buy the toxic assets from the banks which, despite the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Programme, are still in deep trouble. No one seems to have noticed that there is already a Bad Bank. It is called the Federal Reserve System, and its balance sheet has grown by 150 per cent--from just over $900 billion to more than $2 trillion--since this crisis began, partly as a result of purchases of undisclosed assets from banks.

Just how much more toxic waste is out there? Nouriel Roubini puts U.S. banks' projected losses at $1.8 trillion. Even if that estimate is 40 per cent too high, the banks' capital will still be wiped out. A Bad Bank could therefore represent another hole in U.S. public finances more than twice the size of the TARP. And all this is before any account is taken of the unfunded liabilities of the Medicare and Social Security systems, the net present value of which is estimated at around $60-70 trillion. With the economy contracting at a rate (excluding inventory accumulation) of minus 5 per cent, we are on the eve of a public debt explosion which the CBO's forecast--$4 trillion over the next ten years, but peaking at just 54 per cent of GDP--surely understates. The fact that so many other countries are adopting comparable measures means that a flood of new issuance is about to hit national and international bond markets.

The born-again Keynesians seem to have forgotten that their prescription stood the best chance of working in a more or less closed economy. But this is a globalized world, where uncoordinated profligacy by national governments is more likely to generate bond market and currency market volatility than a return to growth. After all, a rising proportion of U.S. public and private borrowing since 2000 has been financed from foreign sources, as a result of negligible domestic saving. The dramatic contraction of world trade means the end of the process of Asian and Middle Eastern reserve accumulation that previously funded American deficits. Already foreign investors are net sellers of long-term U.S. securities. Soon it is going to become painfully clear that new debt is not the solution, but could in fact make matters worse by driving up long-term rates, or pushing down the dollar to the point that Europe and Japan can justly accuse the Americans of "currency manipulation."

There is a better way to go, but is in the opposite direction. The aim must be not to increase debt, but to reduce it. In past debt crises--which usually affected emerging market sovereign debt--this tended to happen in one of two ways. If, say, Argentina had an excessively large domestic debt, denominated in Argentine currency, it could be inflated away. If it was an external debt, then the government simply defaulted on payments and forced the creditors to accept a rescheduling of debt and principal payments.

Today, Argentina is us. Former investment banks and German universal banks are Argentina. American households are Argentina. But it will not be so easy for us to inflate away our debts. The deflationary pressures unleashed by the financial crisis are too strong (consumer prices in the U.S. have now been falling for three consecutive months; the annualized rate of decline for the last quarter of 2008 was minus 12.7 per cent.)

Nor is default quite the same for banks and households as it is for governments. Bankruptcy can be a complicated business. Understandably, monetary authorities are anxious to avoid mass bankruptcies of banks and households, not least because of the knock-on effects on asset prices of distressed sales of assets.

The solution to the debt crisis is not more debt but less debt. Two things must happen. First, banks that are de facto insolvent need to be restructured--a word that is preferable to the old-fashioned "nationalization." Existing shareholders will have face that they have lost their money. Too bad; they should have kept a more vigilant eye on the people running their banks. Government will take control in return for a substantial recapitalization after losses have meaningfully been written down. Bondholders may have to accept either a debt-for-equity swap or a 20 per cent "haircut"--a disappointment, no doubt, but nothing compared with the losses suffered when Lehman Brothers went under.

There are precedents for such drastic action, notably the response to the Swedish banking crisis of the early 1990s. The critical point is to avoid the nightmare of a state-dominated financial sector. The last thing America needs is to have all its banks run like Amtrak or, worse, the Internal Revenue Service. State life-support for moribund dinosaur banks is an expedient designed to avert the disaster of a generalized banking extinction, not a belated victory for socialism in North America. It should not and must not impede the formation of new banks by the private sector. Financial history is, after all, an evolutionary process. When old banks die, new banks swiftly take their place. It is therefore vital that state control does not give the old banks an unfair advantage. So recapitalization must be a once-only event, with no enduring government guarantees or subsidies. And there should be a clear timetable for "re-privatization" within, say, ten years.

The second step we need to take is a generalized conversion of American mortgages to lower-interest rates and longer maturities. Currently around 2.3 million U.S. households face foreclosure. That number is certain to rise. For example, $97 billion of $200 billion of option adjustable-rate mortgages will reset in the next two years. The average monthly payment will increase by more than 60 per cent. As a result, up to 8 million households could be driven into foreclosure, driving down home prices even further. Few of those affected have any realistic prospect of refinancing at more affordable rates. So, once again, what is needed is state intervention.

The idea of modifying mortgages appalls legal purists as a violation of the sanctity of contract. But, as with the principle of eminent domain, there are times when the public interest requires us to honor the rule of law in the breach. Repeatedly in the course of the nineteenth century, governments changed the terms of bonds that they issued through a process known as "conversion." A bond with a five per cent coupon would simply be exchanged for one with a three per cent coupon, to take account of falling market rates and prices. Such procedures were seldom stigmatized as default. Today, in the same way, we need an orderly conversion of adjustable rate mortgages to take account of the fundamentally altered financial environment.

Another objection to such a procedure is that it would reward the imprudent. But moral hazard only really matters if bad behaviour is likely to be repeated. I do not foresee anyone asking for or being given an option adjustable-rate mortgage for many, many years. The issue, then, is simply one of fairness. One solution would be for the government-controlled mortgage lenders and guarantors, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to offer all borrowers--including those on fixed rates--the same deal. Permanently lower monthly payments for a majority of U.S. households would almost certainly do more to stimulate consumer confidence than all the provisions of the stimulus package, including the tax cuts.

Ever since the New Deal, American politicians have proclaimed their faith in the "property-owning democracy" and the "American dream of home-ownership." For years they have actively encouraged the expansion of the sub-prime market. But the result has been an American nightmare. With housing prices still falling precipitously--the latest Case-Shiller index put the annual rate of decline at minus 18 per cent--there is an urgent need for action.

No doubt those who lose by such measures will not suffer in silence. But the benefits of macroeconomic stabilization will surely outweigh the costs to bank shareholders, bank bondholders and the owners of mortgage-backed securities.

Americans, Churchill once remarked, will always do the right thing--after they have exhausted all the other alternatives. But if we are still waiting for Keynes to save us when Davos comes around next year, it may well be too late. Only a Great Restructuring can end the Great Repression. It needs to happen soon.

Rick Smith: What would TED Do?

2009-02-03T18:07:57Z

And so begins my favorite week of the year. The TED conference, this year being held in Long Beach, California.

TED is an assembly of big thinkers. It was started 25 years ago just as the world's of Technology, Entertainment and Media were converging. The original idea was to bring together some of the brightest, most influential thinkers in each of these areas to collaborate (or hey, at least get to know each other).

Today, TED has grown into one of the most influential gatherings in the world, frequently mentioned in the same breath with Davos (world economic forum). I was invited to attend TED five years ago, and have anxiously returned ever since.

The format is unusual. There are nearly 50 presenters, each given a strictly timed 20 minute presentation slot. There is no Q&A. Rather, nearly all of the presenters stay for the entire conference and engage directly in conversation. The beauty of TED lies in the powerful exchange that takes place in the halls, over cocktails and at the dinners.

The guest list could not be more eclectic. These days, there are more celebrities (actors, musicians, politicians), but at the heart of this group of attendees are people you likely have never heard of. These are the scientists what have found a cure, the photographer who has won the awards, the professor who is on the verge of a life changing breakthrough, the artist who has invented a new form of expression, and the young entrepreneur who stumbled upon an idea that has captivated the world.

Together, they create a fascinating potpourri of conversation and inspiration. A very casual setting, what first strikes you is just how normal everyone appears. That is until you ask the question, "What do you do?" You find yourself humbled by almost everyone you meet. It's not only that they each seem to have done more than you. They have also done it so differently.

Over time, it is natural for anyone to sink deep into his or her own cocoon of daily work. We socialize with coworkers, go to conferences with peers, and reach out to colleagues from within our industry. The result of this career myopia is that we fail to see that there are literally thousands of different ways to succeed in the world. Thousands of different ways to have an impact, and to achieve something noble with your life. This is the first lesson of TED.

But the more powerful lesson is not what we can achieve as individuals, but the enormity of what we can achieve together. Each year I come to TED excited. I participate with humility. And I leave with the feeling that propelled by a diverse community, any one of us has the potential to spark an idea that will change the world. The excitement of TED fills the week, but the sense of opportunity and obligation to take the gifts you have been given and have an impact lasts the entire year.

It is this gift of empowerment that has forever changed the way I react to situations. How natural, when confronted with major problems in the world, to simply turn the other way. Now in these situations, I stop and ask myself, "what would TED do?" TED would not turn away, for TED knows that there is a solution to almost any problem, and it is our obligation to act. Right here. Right now.

Through TED.com, the ideas and insights revealed at the TED conference are now being shared around the world. It is my hope that millions more will embrace TED's larger meaning. When faced with difficulty, there is always hope. When frustrated with obstacles, there is always creativity. And when exposed to the world's most daunting challenges, rather than turn away, you must stop, and ask yourself;

What would TED do?

Read more: Ted, TED Conference, Davos, Business News

Maria Eitel: Girls' Session Steals the Show at Davos

2009-02-03T15:41:50Z

"The Girl Effect on Development" ranked fourth in session sign-ups among all panels at this year's World Economic Forum. In a meeting where people were tripping over each other to hear ideas about how to move beyond this economic crisis, CEOs and heads of state wanted to learn what girls have to do with it.

And let me say, the session was incredible. The house was packed and the energy was extraordinary. So much so, that when a gentleman from the audience asked a question toward the end of the session, "how can we affirm our commitment to the girl effect [during this crisis]?", it wasn't a panelist, but another audience member who raised her hand to answer. That audience member happened to be Cherie Blair, head of the Cherie Blair Women's Foundation and spouse of the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

She said, "We're talking about the strongest people in their society. They're people used to dealing with a crisis...yet somehow managing to still make a difference. We should have absolute confidence in these girls. It makes absolute sense to invest in these girls... they're not asking us for our pity. They're just asking for us to enable them to do what they're already doing, but they could do so much better with our help."

It seems others in the audience were equally inspired.

Edie Lederer of the Associated Press filed a story within hours after the event. BBC's Tim Weber tweeted about it during the session. And Don Tapscott from BusinessWeek just posted a blog.

The session began with a video of Anita, a girl in India who learned to run a business as a beekeeper and used her income to attend school, fix her family's house and pay for her relative's medical expenses. You can see Anita's video on YouTube. You can also check out the YouTube channel of panelists and others responding to Anita's message.

Throughout the session the same theme emerged over and over: The intergenerational cycle of poverty can be broken if you focus on adolescent girls.

Another theme was the concept of actually counting girls. In a world where millions of girls have no birth certificates and programs are not evaluated by gender and age, this is critical. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Managing Director of the World Bank, remarked that it took decades of research and data to even get a session like this on the Forum's agenda. Melinda Gates, Co-Chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spoke of the importance of building girls into programs from the very beginning and actually tracking the results as they relate to girls specifically. Mark Parker, Nike's CEO, also underscored the importance of establishing metrics.

These are experts. Altogether, they represent the leaders of a government ministry, the World Bank, a Fortune 500 company, a major foundation, a global NGO, and a UN agency. What's missing? A Nobel Prize winner? Nope, one of those was there too.

For those who want to dig a bit deeper, I've given highlights of the session below. You can also view the complete session online at the World Economic Forum's multimedia site.

Ok, so here goes...

Dr. Helene Gayle, the President and CEO of CARE, was the moderator. A week of panel sessions makes clear just how important the moderator's job is. You can have an impressive group of panelists and a compelling new topic like the girl effect, but it's really the moderator who brings things to life. Helene catalyzed a powerful discussion. She kicked off by setting the context that even in an organization like CARE that has made its central focus girls and women, it's important to focus specifically on girls because of their unique needs, challenges and opportunities.

Professor Yunus said Grameen ultimately realized that investing in women involved investing in their children, and that meant investing in girls. He pointed out however that his organization had to incorporate very specific policies, procedures and explicit bias to ensure girls had opportunities to participate. He used the example of Grameen Shakti, a company that sells solar energy at the village level. The Grameen team focused on recruiting girls to become "Grameen Engineers" to maintain the system in each village. The title alone affords girls newfound respect in their communities. The program creates high-demand jobs and offers an environmentally sustainable approach. It's interesting to note that this business is one of the largest growing renewable energy companies in the developing world. Taking a chance on girls worked all round.

No wonder Tim Weber tweeted that "Muhammad Yunus is inspiring."

Melinda French Gates had just returned from Tanzania and Ethiopia. She spoke of the rural populations of pregnant girls (that's girls, not women) who can't reach clinics to give birth. She noted that a teenager is five times more likely to die from pregnancy and childbirth than a woman in her twenties. If they do survive, the consequences on the next generation are still dire: low birth weight, poor cognitive development, maternal health complications, etc. During her trip, Melinda asked mothers what they hoped for their daughters around family planning. Their suggestion? Start educating girls by age 10 or 12 about family planning. After that, it's too late.

When asked why the world hasn't been investing in girls, Melinda said "the issue wasn't brought to the forefront before, so when NGOs or foundations or civil society were developing their programs, they just weren't thinking that way. If you don't think about this particular issue, you don't build it into the program from the get-go... Part of it's just a mind shift so that we all are tracking it because I can tell you right now... as a foundation, we weren't tracking the statistics before on this particular segment. I could tell you in HIV, or in one specific area, but I think just an awareness so we're all going in the same direction is going to be a big help."

Melinda also mentioned that women invest 90 percent of their income back into their families, whereas men are likely to invest only 30-40 percent. That's a statistic that demonstrates what the girl effect is all about.

Mark Parker was asked why girls are a business priority. He spoke of Nike's very practical need to find the best investment opportunity to make the biggest difference. "We have limited resources and unlimited opportunities, so from a practical perspective we were very motivated to find a very focused and targeted investment that would deliver greatest impact." As he described it, "We found that the most neglected, at risk, and unsupported part of the world's population, also happened to be the part of the world's population that could make the biggest impact if supported with economic opportunities."

Mark also got the question "What about boys?," which is something we hear quite a bit. He argued that investing in girls actually helps everybody. It helps girls, boys and their families, and it helps those who aren't even here yet -- the next generation. In short, by investing in girls, we are investing in boys. He called on the crowd to redirect existing resources to a place where they have a higher impact: adolescent girls.

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala talked about the Bank's Adolescent Girls Initiative, which connects girls in developing countries to job opportunities linked to labor market demand. She summed it up nicely, "Investing in women is smart economics...Investing in girls is even smarter economics because we believe that investing in girls is at the center of development."

Ngozi also talked about incentives - for example, for parents in developing countries. The fact is, families in poverty need to understand that girls can contribute economically. That's where economic empowerment comes in and it's amazing - almost miraculous - to see how quickly attitudes shift.

Ann Veneman, the Executive Director of UNICEF, surprised a lot of people in the audience by talking about how UNICEF realized the importance of going beyond young children generally and focusing on adolescent girls. As far as UNICEF's mandate goes, she made clear that the health issues affecting adolescent girls are strongly linked to everything from water and sanitation to maternal mortality and child mortality. In particular, she emphasized the issues of sexual violence and the related HIV/AIDS prevalence, which in many places is significantly higher for girls than boys.

Mari Pangestu, Indonesia's Minister of Trade, used the example of her own childhood to demonstrate what happens when girls have an opportunity to participate. Her mother told her to not "be so smart" or at least to not show it because she'd never get a husband. Her father, on the other hand, said "you have to do well in school because you have to be financially independent no matter what. Even if you get married, it doesn't mean you're going to be financially secure." Ultimately, she became the first woman in Indonesia to hold a Ph.D. in Economics. She pointed out that she could do it, because she had the chance. (The audience laughed when she mentioned that she's also happily married with two children. It turns out her mother really was wrong.)

"I've been talking about trade crises, financial crises these past few days. And yet, we keep on talking about how crisis is opportunity, here's an opportunity. In our managing the crisis and the policies that we are undertaking, here's a chance to address the adolescent girls issue...When we are designing our stimulus programs, we have to think about this."

At the close of the session, Ngozi did something interesting. Now, anyone who knows her, knows she is all about action and putting people on the spot so they get things done. Just as time was winding down, Ngozi asked Helene if she could ask the audience a question. "Raise your hand," she said, "if you now understand and believe in why we must invest in girls."

Everyone raised their hand.

I loved that, but I also know it's just one panel at one conference (albeit a pretty big one). Don't put the onus entirely on the bigwigs who attended. Instead, remember this: the girl effect cannot be fully realized without you. Whoever you are, invest in it, talk about it, learn about it. We all have a part to play.

Here are a few places to start:

1. Learn more about adolescent girls. Check out organizations like CARE, the UN Foundation, Plan International online and find out what's going on. You can also find out more at girleffect.org or by reading "Girls Count: A Global Investment & Action Agenda.

2. Tell people you know why the world must invest in girls.

3. Download the action kit Your Move, which describes how to invest in girls and paints a picture for the significant cost to the world of not investing.

4. Take the first step yourself. When you hear about a development program that doesn't sound like it's targeting girls directly, write to the organization and ask about it. Explain why girls should be at the center of every development effort.

Whatever you do, do something!

Matthew Bishop: Philanthrocapitalism: Yes We Can

2009-02-02T16:06:57Z

What cause, what movement brings together Tony Blair and Jet Li, Bill Clinton and Bill Gates, Muhammad Yunus and Sir Richard Branson? In a word (albeit a hard-to-pronounce word), it is philanthrocapitalism.

Philanthrocapitalism is about combining the head and the heart, by bringing a businesslike approach to solving society's problems, which now seem more daunting than at any time in a generation. The great and good gathered these past few days in Davos for the World Economic Forum were in danger of talking themselves (and the rest of us) into a depression. The panel itself, hosted by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, was gloomily entitled "From Philanthrocapitalism to Philanthrocrisis?" Yet the six famous global leaders spoke optimistically about how philanthrocapitalism can lead the world out of its current mess. Their enthusiasm could not have been more timely.

Their message had three main components.

First, leaders need to demonstrate their personal commitment to give back. Gates is leading by example, increasing the annual giving of his foundation by over 10% this year, to a record $3.8 billion, even though the foundation's assets have fallen by 20% in the past year. He called on other wealthy people to give more, especially the large number who now give nothing at all. Whilst some people who have given a lot in recent years have been so badly hit by the financial crisis that they have to scale back, if the non-givers and small-givers dig a bit deeper, their new money can more than fill the giving gap, he said.

Jet Li, the Chinese movie star, said much the same thing -- highlighting how the philanthrocapitalism movement that has been most vibrant in America is now spreading throughout the world. Jet Li's organization, One, has already signed up 1 million Chinese to give money and time to good causes. He told me that he turned down two $20 million movie deals in 2008 because he wanted to concentrate on his giving -- a role model for leaders worthy of the star of Hero. What a tragedy it would be if growing protectionism and China-bashing increases, and alienates the world, just as American ideas are catching on in places that used to be hostile.

Second, philanthrocapitalism is about innovation and risk taking in the name of social progress. Both Clinton and Blair pointed out that government tends to be hopeless at innovation, unlike the private sector, both for-profit and non-profit. If there is to be change we can believe in, government must embrace these changemakers in new partnerships, especially social entrepreneurs. Yunus is the poster-child of social entrepreneurship, having won the Nobel peace prize for his role in developing microfinance (financial services for the poor).

That said, much of the non-profit sector performs far below its potential. The economic crisis may be the catalyst that sorts out the best non-profits from the also-rans, leading to a sharp increase in the overall effectiveness of the sector. At another well-attended event at Davos, about "Philanthrocapitalism in Action", serial social entrepreneur Nancy Lublin described one innovative way to improve the efficiency of the non-profit sector by describing her recent "initial public offering" of shares in the non-profit she runs, DoSomething.org.

Third, philanthrocapitalism is about doing well by doing good. Both Yunus and Branson enthused about how businesses should embrace social causes as a profit-making strategy, because the money earned by harnessing the profit motive can help achieve change faster, and more sustainably than old-fashioned charity alone.

Encouragingly, many of the business leaders in Davos seemed to be getting the message. Nike, for example, which has learned the hard way that business needs to be on the side of good, announced that it will freely share all the intellectual property it has developed through its environmental strategy to a new "green exchange". In a closing plenary discussion on what business can do to reduce the risk of a social backlash, there was general agreement that companies urgently needed to adopt "values-based leadership".

The trouble is, although business thinking has a huge amount to offer the world at this time of crisis, thanks to the crisis its credibility has never been lower. A survey by Edelman, the public relations firm, found that of 4,500 upper income, highly educated people in 20 countries, nearly two-thirds (62 per cent) say they trust corporations less today than they did a year ago. In the US, the survey recorded the most dramatic plunge: only 38 per cent say they trust business to do what is right (a 20 per cent drop from last year) and just 17 per cent say they trust the information they get from a company's CEO.

That is why I made a modest proposal at Davos: that the chief executives of the world's 500 biggest firms demonstrate their contrition for their role in the crisis, and their commitment to help society recover, by each giving $2m (or, better still, one year's base salary) to a new fund to support social entrepreneurs. This sort of billion-dollar collective sacrificial leadership could transform public attitudes towards business and business-thinking, and get the age of philanthrocapitalism off to a great start.

Old-fashioned capitalism is dead. Long live philanthrocapitalism?

Matthew Bishop is New York Bureau Chief of The Economist and co-author with Michael Green of Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World . They blog regularly about philanthrocapitalism at www.philanthrocapitalism.net.

Eric Ehrmann: Global Retailers Battle for Big Box Brazil

2009-02-01T21:32:51Z

The World Economic Forum checked out of snowy Davos divided on helping the US and Europe. In tropical Brazil meanwhile, millions of citizens are shucking the pathology of underdevelopment. Central bank statistics indicate the world's 10th largest economy posted 5.6% growth last year, creating 1.9 million new jobs. Big box giants trust Brazil's economy and are spending billions to woo new customers.

Wal-Mart offers perks in key markets that include free delivery, cut-to-order meats and fresh organic produce associated with brie and chablis chains like Gelson's in Pacific Palisades and Dean and DeLuca in Manhattan. Reuters reported Wal-Mart's 300 plus stores in Brazil are growing twice as fast as the company's US operation.

Big box shopping, with its aircraft carrier size array of food, consumer electronics, clothing and home furnishings has become a national social phenomenon in Brazil, rivaling futebol and samba... one reason why more households in Brazil purchased PCs than TVs last year.

The battle is also a test of how global business cultures listen to and interact with emerging markets. Top dog Pao de Acucar and second place french-owned Carrefour focus mainly on reinforcing their traditional middle class base. Wal-Mart at number three is growing with a hometown proud marketing strategy that empowers low income Brazilians.

Why Brazil's economy can take it to the hoop during hard times remains an enigma to stateside analysts who continue to associate the concepts of central planning and coordination with "evil empire" scenarios fostered by "Reagan revolution" propagandists. Brazil has remained relatively stable thanks to a modicum of central strategy packaged in a neoconservative wrapper. While government and business often operate as partners, a technocratic state superstructure monitors free marketeers so they don't run unbridled over the economy like they just did in the United States.

Brazil learned the perils of cowboy capitalism the hard way during the 1980s debt crisis. Under Ronald Reagan's watch US banks earned huge commissions loaning recycled petrodollars to Brazil and other cash strapped Latin nations transitioning from military dictatorships to democracy. When the easy money ran out inflation, unemployment and political instability set in. Brazil and its neighbors went through hard times a lot tougher than what the US faces today.

When Wal-Mart put a billion dollars on the table last August in an expansion move creating 9,000 jobs their Americas chief Craig Herkert met directly with president Inacio Luis "Lula" da Silva to review the deal. Brazil also has a strategic planning minister, Roberto Unger, who monitors the dashboard of national life and recommends adjustments when necessary. A Harvard professor who went home to serve his native Brazil, Unger might have a friend in Washington... a former student named president Barack Obama.

The gamebreaker that could slingshot Wal-Mart to the top is their ability to link brand and work force with a commitment to sustainability in Brazil. Employees wear t-shirts with messages about recycling and the environment. Inexpensive cotton tote bags emblazoned with green slogans are offered at check out counters as an alternative to plastic. And while the big box giants use all use Brazil's strong internet backbone to reach out to customers, Wal-Mart's experience building customer relationships with interactive, easy-to-use websites are more attractive to GenXers and Millennials who are the future of the nation's consumer base.

While most analysts agree that spillover from the northern crisis will dampen growth, increased trade with China, India and Russia should help Brazil's economy expand about 2.5 percent this year. To cover their bets, big boxes are expanding into the highly profitable consumer credit sector, aggressively cross-marketing with banks. No credit, no problem. In-store reps can sign you up or increase your line on-the-spot.

Unlike the United States, where the full price on big ticket items is displayed in large numbers the focus in Brazil is on how much the consumer pays each month. As the big box battle heats up Brazilians need to ask themselves how much longer always the low price will offer always the high interest rate.