Make globalisation more inclusive or suffer the consequences

Danny Leipziger

08 December 2016

Despite lifting millions out of poverty, globalisation is facing growing political opposition. This column surveys the successes and failures of globalisation, and some of the critical policy implications. Globalisation has reached a stage where its benefits have been captured but its costs have been largely ignored. Going forward, governments need to address inequality and social inclusion, boost global investment, and restore confidence.

With globalisation, we have seen the traditional barriers to trade and finance progressively lowered, and in this process, many have gained. Indeed, globalisation has been responsible for large increases in world trade, fluid flows of capital seeking higher returns, imports of final products at lower cost to consumers, jobs and escapes out of poverty for hundreds of millions, and profits for the business community in both advanced and emerging market economies. In this clamour for greater connectivity, issues of the distribution of the gains from globalisation were largely ignored, except in the work of some, like Joseph Stiglitz, largely because gains were large and benefitted many on both sides of the transaction.

Yet, the benefits incurred costs as well. Although it is difficult to do a thorough net cost-benefit analysis of globalisation, it clearly enabled many in the developing world to increase their incomes, and many in the advanced economies to consume more at lower prices. Accompanying the process of globalisation was a process of technological advancement. New technology has enabled many to increase access to seemingly free information and to connect to the new and expanding global digital economy, while for others it has meant job losses and retrenchment. While the net gains still prevail from both phenomena, the process for compensating losers has been inadequate, and in some contexts largely foregone (see Estache and Leipziger 2009 for an early warning).

This discontent has turned progressively into frustration and anger, and we now hear loud complaints about the course of globalisation. Some, like Dani Rodrik (2011), have argued that there is an inconsistency among hyper-globalisation, national economic interests, and democracy, and recent political developments on both sides of the Atlantic support this view. My aim in this policy brief is to examine what went wrong, what was swept under the rug, and where governments have failed in dealing with globalisation. I believe that inclusive economic growth is currently at risk in many countries. Why is this a problem? First, it encourages a backlash against globalisation that can actually make most worse off (viz. a poor Pareto outcome). Second, it can inhibit the positive contributions of what is being dubbed the Fourth Industrial Revolution – that is, gains in technology which have the potential for enhancing global welfare. And third, a failure to deal with worsening inequality threatens to undermine the socio-political fabric of countries, affecting the governability of nations.

What went wrong?

In hindsight, it is easy to say that warning signals were missed, that we suffered from collective amnesia, that we were seduced by the efficiency gains of better-integrated markets, or that powerful interests prevailed while those of the median worker were largely ignored. It is a valid observation, however, that some countries (advanced economies) did better than others in protecting their citizens from declines in real or relative living standards. It is also true that among those countries gaining the most (emerging economies), there were differences with respect to the value placed on distributional aspects of income gains. The process of disentangling the dynamics of relative incomes is complicated by a number of factors. Among them are the rapidity with which capital can move compared to labour, the degree to which skill requirements can change over the course of a citizen’s working life, the nature of winner-take-all markets and the size of rents earned in certain markets, and the powerlessness of workers when confronted with cross-border competition. All of these factors have been magnified by the weaknesses of the global economy post Great Recession. Or, put differently, many of the problems that were decades in the making were easily obscured by the abnormal period of expansion in the period preceding the global collapse.

The nature of this massive underlying political and social failure can be seen through different lenses. One lens highlights impediments to the amelioration of losses. These impediments include inadequate and/or ineffective active labour market policies; weak regulation of the world’s financial sectors, which allowed the socialisation of losses and the concentration of gains; corruption in some countries, and the use of political influence in others; and the inability of parts of society to effectively voice their discontents. In some countries, like the US, physical mobility has fallen, skills have not kept pace, and wage earners have lost purchasing power. This has led to calls for protectionism and a withdrawal of support for an open world economic order.

Another lens through which to see globalisation is abuse of the system. Abuse can take the form of global arbitrage when it comes to the parking of profits, locating headquarters so as to gain tax advantages, or transfer pricing, all aimed at gaining at the expense of national economic authorities. These abusive practices, which some may call hyper-globalisation, limit the ability of national governments, even if they were so inclined, to manage the downsides of globalisation and invest more in safety nets, re-skilling, relocation, and the like. Firms that engage in these practices, either to gain supposed shareholder value or to feather their corporate nests, have done globalisation a large disservice. Governments that ignored warning signals or were lobbied to allow abusive practices are also at fault; and, of course, those firms that curried favour and attracted illicit profits are even more at fault.

A third lens through which to examine where globalisation has failed is state capitalism – that is, the combination of participation in global markets without any of the possible checks and balances of the market. Weak regulation of markets can yield similar outcomes; however, when unfair practices are employed by state actors, there are neither domestic remedies to force adherence to market principles nor global accountability. Forced joint ventures with state-owned enterprises, for example, have led to technology thefts, and state financing has allowed for non-market-based strategic acquisitions. To be fair, variants of state capitalism have produced tremendous national gains in terms of poverty reduction and global convergence of incomes to the global citizen. Following the work of Branko Milanovic (2016), we see that the large gains registered by those in emerging market economies have come at the expense of those in the middle class of advanced economies (viz. the so-called Elephant Curve). There has been insufficient recognition of globalisation’s losers, who suffer either directly through job losses or indirectly through financial misdealings that rob national coffers. Moreover, no global compensation system exists to manage the distortions emanating from state capitalism.

Possible solutions and implications for the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Solutions can be found at the individual, local, national, and international levels. At the individual level, the globalisation narrative needs to include the household benefits of globalisation and access to objective and accurate information from reliable sources. Education and skills acquisition need to be both encouraged and subsidised, since without them opportunities are limited. This is all the more important given the disruptive nature of technology going forward and the speed with which it may occur. At the local level, depressed areas and lagging regions require effective transfers and investment. National policies can learn from successful experiences in seeking effective solutions. Government spending on innovation (e.g. R&D/GDP) compared with spending on economic adjustment (e.g. active labour market spending/GDP) may be a useful indicative indicator of relative effort placed on creating new industries versus managing the impact of declining ones.

Adequate income redistribution ex post depends on public policy, including effective taxation and collection on firms and individuals and its efficient use. This is where globalisation has largely failed, as many highly successful corporations have avoided paying their fair share. Beyond redistribution, however, it is fair to say that because there are both monetary and non-pecuniary rewards to work, governments, at various levels, need to be in a position to create new jobs. This does not necessarily imply the need for an industrial policy. But like the WPA after the Great Depression in the US, jobs programmes would have been useful following the Great Recession, perhaps linked to deficiencies in national infrastructure. It can be argued that effective labour market programs need to be found going forward to deal with future dislocations due to disruptive technology. This can be seen as part of preparedness for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Effective cross-border regulation has come too little too late. Many countries turn a blind eye to existing tax havens. Stashing of illicit funds is commonplace and efforts to curb them lag. Many aspects of hyper-globalisation can be seen as antithetical to effective national policy, while national economic policies themselves can be justly criticised for not dealing with the excluded, the marginalised, and the under-skilled. Inequality beyond a certain point becomes poisonous because economic opportunity becomes skewed and limited. In the same way that economic prospects should not be determined at birth by gender or race, there must be the prospect of economic advancement.

Concluding remarks

The goals of more equitable economic growth and of social inclusion can either be facilitated or hindered by the shape of globalisation. If globalisation moves, as it has, with few effective limits on bad behaviour, and if national economic policies are either captured by vested interests or are simply powerless to stop the excesses of globalisation, then a wholesale retrenchment is inevitable. This would be a global loss in economic efficiency and would also condemn the poor regions of the globe to persistent poverty. Making globalisation work for a greater number of people in the advanced countries is indispensable to help fight poverty in developing countries. Furthermore, the way in which inequality is dealt with in the advanced economies is a useful guide to middle-income countries facing diminishing growth prospects and rising inequality.

Put positively, we find ourselves in a low growth situation at present and also in a poor place with respect to economic and social inclusion. The set of available policy choices can be improved by recognition that globalisation has reached a stage where its benefits have been captured but its costs have been ignored. This is bad for economic growth – both directly from the demand side, but also from the supply side, since human endeavours are thwarted and productivity is low. Most critically, rising inequality is socially uncomfortable and the persistence of exclusion creates political forces that are detrimental to growing the pie and benefitting from technology’s potential. While rising incomes is not the only goal, stagnant or declining incomes limit the abilities of governments to effectively redistribute.

Finally, there is evidence that globalisation is slowing down when viewed from the vantage point of international trade and global value chains. The IMF’s World Economic Outlook (2016) examines the factors behind this slowdown; Constantinescu et al. (2016) look even more deeply into shifting import propensities and changes to global supply chains. These trends, probably in train for a while, have been exacerbated by poor global economic conditions and a lack of confidence. If we add to this outlook the new pressures to de-globalise that emanate from the distributional impact on some productive sectors in advanced economies, the political constellation becomes worrying. Breaking this cycle requires that governments address inequality and social inclusion, boost global investment and restore confidence. Moreover, governments must deal with the abuses of the system by checking those who have extracted too much and contributed too little.

What responsive leadership really means

A few months ago I was producing a talk radio show on one of the most listened to mid-morning radio shows in Gauteng, South Africa. The first hour of the show is an open line, where listeners can reflect on some of the stories that have made headlines in the previous day and share with us what they think are solutions to our country’s pressing challenges. An old man, Mandla, called into the show and wanted to share his story with our listeners. What followed was the epitome of what responsive leadership means to me and a testimony that leadership isn’t exclusively for people in positions of power, but applies to every one of us, regardless of age, profession and title.

Mandla went on air and shared with our listeners that he is disabled, uses an old wheelchair that needs to be serviced; that he lives in a shack and doesn’t have access to running water and electricity. He added that he doesn’t have anyone to take care of him and often goes for weeks without bathing. He started weeping, as he shared his heartbreaking story on air.

Image: Zamantungwa Khumalo

As he was on air, the Member of the Executive Committee (MEC) of Housing in Gauteng called into the show saying he was concerned about this and wanted to provide assistance, where his office can. In addition to this, the MEC agreed to an exclusive media walkout of the area that Mandla lived in, to inspect the community’s living conditions and arrange for the necessary upgrade where needed.

A few moments later, the local Councilor in the area where Mandla lives called in and said they would provide groceries for him and have them delivered to his shack. While that was happening on air, one of our regular listeners called in and also wanted to assist. He committed to hiring and paying for a nurse to take care of Mandla. He mentioned that he’s not rich or in a position of power, but has the means to assist by paying for the nurse - that it was the least he can do. A week later, I followed up with the different parties to check if they had delivered on what they committed on.

Responsive leadership has no title, no age group and has very little to do with whether or not you are an elected official or CEO of a company. Responsive leadership is our ability to take action and actively play our part in our communities. This includes the caller, who is touched by what someone in his community is going through and commits to assisting, to the elected councilor, stepping up, taking responsibility of where he and his office may have erred or failed someone in need. Responsive leadership, in many respects, is us recognizing that leadership is a verb and not exclusive to people in power.

We can create a more inclusive society, by firstly dismantling this idea that only people in power, or people of a certain age, or worse, a certain gender are leaders. We’re often taught from a young age that ‘leadership’ is a male trait. This disempowers young girls, who grow up to be women, who don’t take ownership of their leadership potential, and often seldom live up to them.

I’ve already started shaping the world I live in, that puts responsible and responsive leadership at the forefront. I’ve co-founded the Thabo Mbeki Foundation Youth Hub, a leadership organization that’s a vehicle for young people who are, or want to be involved in leaving a positive legacy in Africa. I continuously push the boundaries of what a woman is expected or not expected to do, often sharing my leadership story and some of the challenges I had living up to my leadership potential.

Responsive leadership for me means taking responsibility for my role in building the society I want to live in and mostly importantly, it’s recognizing that more can be done, if we work together as a collective, as opposed to alone.

Today, Mandla has the support he didn’t have a few months ago. That happened because we all played our collective part in making it happen, something that can be done at a township level, right up to a global level. That’s what it means to be a responsive leader.

About this article: Zamantungwa Khumalo is a World Economic Forum Global Shaper. Her article is the winning entry in the 2016 Global Shaper essay competition on the theme of responsive and responsible leadership.

THE BIGGEST LIES OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM

In the second of a three-part series on the Precariat class, a growing social demographic with no occupational identity and little economic stability, Guy Standing debunks the cornerstones of free-market capitalism. Read the first article here.

Languishing at the lower end of the global labour system is the Precariat, a social class whose condition of economic precariousness has been ascribed to the rise of neo-liberal capitalism around the world.

The Precariat can be divided into three further groups – Atavists, who look back to a lost past; Nostalgics, who look forlornly for a present, a home; and Progressives, who look for a lost future. The last consist largely of those who go through university only to emerge with large debts and little hope of a career or personal development.

It is the first group, the Atavists, who have been on the political rampage, supporting Brexit, the triumph of Donald Trump, the Northern League in Italy, Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France – and other nationalist populists elsewhere in Europe. Everywhere the populist right seems to be winning politically, basically.

But the Progressives have also revolted, standing shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Podemos in Spain, Bernie Sanders in the US, Jeremy Corbyn in Britain, the Alternativet in Denmark and new left-wing movements in Germany, Portugal and Scandinavia.

Meanwhile, the minorities, migrants and refugees who make up the Nostalgics are smouldering, and surely cannot go on much longer without hope.

The age of anger

There is clearly a lot of anger out there, a seething discontent over perceived establishments and elites that is fuelling considerable political energy. All three groups of the Precariat are reacting in their different ways to the growth of inequality and economic insecurity over the past three decades; all have seen the dismantling of the 20th-century income distribution system that linked incomes and benefits to jobs.

In the interests of competitiveness in a globalizing world economy, governments of all complexions introduced labour-market reforms that promoted flexibility, but accentuated the Precariat’s insecurities. They weakened regulations for banks and financial companies, enabling financiers to gain more income while pushing the Precariat into greater debt. They strengthened property rights of all kinds – physical, financial and intellectual – that gave an increasing share of income and wealth to asset holders at the expense of everyone else. And they granted tax cuts for the rich and generous subsidies for corporations, while demanding reductions in public spending to balance budgets, cutting benefits for the Precariat and lowering relative and absolute incomes.

In each case, the argument was that the measures would boost economic growth, expanding the pie for all to share. Instead, almost all the gains have gone to a small global elite – who have, not surprisingly, pushed for ever more of the same. There has been no quid pro quo.

And the longer this fraudulent prospectus is presented, the angrier all parts of the Precariat will become. The ugly political consequences should by now be clear to everybody.

It is not too late for liberal democracies to introduce transformative reforms that would respond to the woes of the Precariat while promoting sustainable economic growth and development. But so far only lip service has been paid to the need to do so. Liberal elites must make real concessions or find the values they claim to cherish – tolerance, freedom, economic security and cultural diversity – at grave risk, particularly when it comes to the wrath of the Atavists.

The first thing to do is confront today’s system of rentier capitalism. This is where a growing share of wealth goes to already privileged owners of assets (rentiers), while income from most jobs dwindles in value. John Maynard Keynes predicted in 1936 that the development of capitalism during the 20th century would result in “the euthanasia of the rentier”, as rent-seeking became harder. The reality has been the reverse. Corporations and financiers have used their growing influence to induce governments and international organizations to construct a global framework of institutions and regulations that enable elites to maximize their rental income.

Modern capitalism is based on five falsehoods:

1. The first lie is the claim that global capitalism is based on free markets.Without hyperbole, it can be said that what has been constructed is the most unfree market system ever. Thus, intellectual property has become a prime source of rental income, through market power created by the spread of trademarks (crucial for branding), copyright, design rights, geographical indications, trade secrets and, above all, patents.

Knowledge and technology-intensive industries, which now account for over 30% of global output, are gaining as much or more in rental income from intellectual property rights as from the production of goods or services. This represents a political choice by governments around the world to grant monopolies on knowledge to private interests, allowing them to restrict public access to knowledge and to raise the price of obtaining it, or of the products and services embodying it. Not for nothing did Thomas Jefferson say that ideas should not be the subject of property.

2. The second lie is that strong intellectual property rights are required to encourage and reward the risks of investment in research and development. Yet it is the public, ordinary taxpayers, who bear the cost of much of that investment. A lot of corporate cash cows derive from publicly funded research, in public universities or institutions, or through subsidies and tax breaks. Moreover, most innovations that yield large returns in rental income to companies or individuals are the result of a series of ideas and experiments attributable to many individuals or groups who go unrewarded. And many patents are filed to block competition or head off lawsuits, and are not intended to be exploited for production.

3. The third lie is that strengthening property rights is good for growth. On the contrary, by increasing inequality and distorting consumption patterns, it has hindered growth and made the growth that has occurred less sustainable. Slow and unstable growth builds up economic frustration for millions, not to mention the political risks that come with it.

4. The fourth is that rising profits reflect managerial efficiency and a return to risk-taking. In reality, the increased profit share has gone mainly to those receiving rental income, much of it linked to financial assets.

5. “Work is the best route out of poverty.” This is the fifth and politically most important lie. For millions of people in the Precariat, it's a sick joke.

A war on wages

This is the key. The income distribution system has broken down. Across the OECD, real wages have been stagnating for three decades. The share of income going to capital has been rising and is much higher than it used to be. And high-income earners are taking a greater share of the income going to labour, further hurting the Precariat.

Three economic relationships illustrate what is happening to wages. First, it used to be the case that when productivity grew, wages grew in parallel; now, in the US and elsewhere, wages do not budge. Second, it used to be that when profits rose, wages rose; now, wages do not budge. Third, it used to be that when employment rose, average wages did so too; now, average wages can even fall, because the new jobs pay less.

However hard those in the Precariat work, they face slim prospects of escaping from a life of economic insecurity. And the longer that remains the inconvenient truth, the greater the danger that they will listen to post-truth authoritarian populists offering to turn back history. The only way to escape this “politics of inferno” is to build a new income distribution system suited to the 21st century.

This will be the subject of the third article, leading up to what should be a serious debate on the Precariat in Davos, at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in January. Along with climate change and the impact of the fourth industrial revolution, there is no more urgent matter than that.

Battle of the Old Soul

by Dennis Klinger,
Guest writer, In5D.com

The pyramid is an example of what we are.  It is the shape of what we are. It is the lesson that must be seen and understood.  It is the wisdom of the ages passed down for us to hold.  So when did we forget this wisdom and why are there so many without it?

Take and examine the number of souls on this planet.  If you look at 50 years ago, you would see far fewer souls, as a matter of fact, only half.  If you look 200 years ago, you would again see far less souls, as only one quarter of those here now were sharing this Earth.  But if you chart the long history of human population since the end of the last ice age, the number of returning souls and the adding of new souls would have a very consistent and uneventful accumulation for the first 11,500 years of modern history (post ice-age) and we would see that the old souls returning would outnumber the entering new souls by a wide margin. This should have made it easy to live as the opportunity for wisdom was in abundance.

As the population grew ever so slowly, there were always many old souls within the population and for the longest time they outnumbered the entering new souls greatly. So this must have produced a time of great wisdom and learning.

Modern day does not reflect the days of old when the old souls outnumbered the new souls.  One would be surprised, and find difficult to digest the image of what the population explosion has done for the new soul to old soul ratios.  What was once in ancient (and somewhat recent times) a ratio largely in favor of the old soul, has flipped and now old souls are greatly and dangerously out numbered.

During the first 3,000 years since the end of the last ice age (10,000-7,000 BC) the same 5-10 million souls were long time returns and so for these many years, the number only doubled making the number of new souls in each generation few and far between.  This must have been a time of great learning and understanding as the old souls accrue wisdom and experience to share.

In the next 2,000 years (7,000-5,000 BC) the population doubled again to 20 million.  And again, each generation carries the slightest of burdens by the entering new souls and they should easily be able to maintain a stable environment for learning.

And then, the following 1,500 years (5,000-3,500 BC) saw the next doubling of our population to 40 million.  The numbers are still clearly in favor of the old souls as each generation would only see ½ million new souls.  This would mean 20 old souls were here for every new one being added.

It was not until another 1,500 years (3,500-2,000 BC) had gone by until the population doubled again to 80 million, but continuing a favorable ratio of old souls to the new being added.  And for thousands of years, the new souls were delicately and moderately peppered into the population.

So finally we reach the Greek philosophers at 500 BC and another doubling has occurred to 160 million and over a 1,500 year period again, a slighter number of souls are being added to a comparatively strong base of older souls.

Then at the time of Christ, in the first century AD, the population just 500 years later stood at 250 million.  Even still, the number of old souls remains strong relative to our current age.

Once again, 1,500 years later during the time of Martin Luther (1,500 AD), the population again doubled to 500 million. The adding of souls has been steady for nearly 12,000 years.  Less than 1 in 10 of the souls today is from before the time of Luther.  But during this time (in 1,500 AD), 1 in 10 souls were over 6,000 years old and 1 in 3 was a soul from the time of Pythagoras.

But then, only 300 years later, we saw yet again another doubling to 1 billion souls at the beginning of the 19^th century.   This is about 1 ½ million souls per year in a population of more than 500 million.  You would think this a good situation but remember, in the past the old souls were indeed older souls and the brand new souls may be few in percentage, but they are amongst a fast growing population of newer souls as the older of the old soulsbecome exponentially less in number and ratio.

Just more than 100 years later we see another doubling of the population to 2 billion souls around the crash of the stock market in 1929.  This is 10 million new souls per year amongst the younger souls barely older then they are.  The situation is becoming quite reversed at this time and the old souls are beginning to encounter a number problem.

It was only 50 years later when we saw the number of souls double again from 1925-1975 and adds 40 million new souls per year when half the number of souls have only been around for 100 years.  This is not a number problem it is a number catastrophe.  We are well on our way of doubling again in the 50 years up to the year 2025.

What was once as nice even ramp up of souls to add and cultivate has turned into a battle for the old soul to keep ancient wisdom alive during this age of technology and ignorance.  Today in 2016, only 1 in 10 souls have been here more than 500 years.  Only 1 in 5 souls has been around since before the American Revolution.  The table has turned on the old soul so much that only 1 in 28 souls has been around since the time of Christ.  Finally, of those from the first half of our 12,000 years since the end of the ice age (the first 20 million living the first 6,000 years) there is only 1 for every 350 souls on this Earth today.

I do not know who the new or who the old soul is, but I do know if one subscribes to the reincarnation theory, what should not be lost on them is the monumental task of keeping the wisdom of the ancients alive in our world.  It is truly a time when such knowledge can be lost to an explosive like growth of new souls without the wisdom and compassion yet to be learned.  It is the burden of the old soul to be here for the new.  It is the opportunity for both to have purpose and life, such is the universe.

About the author: Dennis Klinger considers himself a Metaphysics Theorist and Philosopher.  He has a Mechanical Engineering and music background along with self taught Electromagnetic study. He likes to share his ideas on his website simplertheriddle.com and has written “Creating Time” (Nothingness Expanding and Worlds Dividing) and a fictional book titled “American Bride”.  In the book “Creating Time” many unconventional paths are taken to explain the physical world we see and break it down into acceptable axioms that paint an intriguing reality for contemplation.

The Art of the Deal

                 By Bayo Ogunmupe
       The Art of the Deal is the title of Donald John Trump's best selling book which catapulted him to become one of 50 greatest prosperity thinkers in the world. It was published in 1987, a symbol of capitalism in New York City, the United States. Owing to his self promotion, extravagant lifestyle and big business deals, Trump was already famous by the time The Art was published.
       The book's timing was lucky, coming out just ahead of the troubles that beset Trump in the late 1980s. Much to his enemies' chagrin, Trump sorted himself out, coming back bigger than ever. Whoever said  there are no second chances in business did not count on the power of a brand, a large part of Trump's fortune comes down to his name. When in 2003 television producers approached him to be the focus of a new reality television series based on entrepreneurship, a subject that he is an expert in, The Apprentice, he seized the opportunity to cement his fame with a new generation.
       Despite the array of books Trump had published to capitalize on the success of his show, The Art is still the best insight into the man and his philosophy of prosperity for all and life more abundant. Now 29 years on, it contains Trump's essential philosophies, practices and ways of working that have sustained his success for more than forty years. the only difference is that , then he was a brash upstart willing to take on anything and anyone, and now he is a wise, if still very showy, business and managerial guru.
       The scale of Trump's operations may have quadrupled, but the Trump of the eighties is largely the same one that dramatically pulled off a stunning election upset in 2016. Here we look at some of his deals, beliefs and strategies that have seen him thrive and prosper even in the face of malice and denigration.  In a nutshell, in The Art, Trump recommends: To succeed in business, balance boldness and promotion with patience, caution and flexibility.
       Trump's father was a developer of rent controlled housing in New York. Despite it being a low margin and unglamorous real estate business, his tenacity ensured  his success. Though Donald spent much of his boyhood following his dad around sites, he always dreams of creating landmark projects that made statements in Manhattan. Trump's first project was the Commodore, a huge hotel in a low rent Manhattan district. At the time he notes: "I was only twenty-sevenn years old and had never slept in a hotel." But he embarked on building a 1,400-room monster which remained the biggest in New York for 25 years.
       It is a myth Trump observes, that location is everything in real estate. It is important, but to make the most of any property, what you need to create is a sense of worth or mystique that will make people want to buy. He says: "People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole  never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular."
       To get your project noticed, you must be different, even outrageous and being so increases your chances of becoming a story in the media. He does not court publicity for publicity's sake; in fact, he claims to be a very private person. However, he notes that a small article in New York Times will be worth many times more than a full page advertisement costing $100,000, even if its slant is negative.
       Despite his flashy image, a major element in the Trump success is being prepared to wait. For example, for years he prized the Bonwit Teller site that would eventually become Trump Tower; repeatedly writing to its owners to state his interest. He kept up his interest, he notes: "because much more often than you'd think, sheer persistence is the difference between success  and failure."  When the site fell into the hands of new owners who were in a poor  financial situation, it was to Trump they turned to sell.
       Many of his successes came from offering to buy assets before they were on the market. You need leverage, find out what the seller needs , give them this in  addition to the purchase price. One of his trademarks is his hubristic confidence amplified by facts about his article of purchase. Other things we learn about Trump is that while in College, he preferred reading listings of property rather than reading comic or sports. In his biography of Trump: No Such Thing as Over Exposure, Robert Slater said Donald is more forgiving and generous than his image suggest. Indeed, it was the beneficiaries of his munificence who urged him to contest for president.
        Trump was born in Queens, New York in 1946, the fourth of five children of Mary, a Scottish immigrant and his father, the son of German immigrants originally named Drumpf who ran a hotel in British Columbia. At 13, Donald went to New York Military Academy; later he studied economics at Fordham University. Lastly he went to University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Finance, America's foremost school of entrepreneurship, graduating in 1968. He briefly worked  for his father before venturing out on his own. Trump has five children from three women. The Forbes Rich List if 2006 estimated Trump's fortune at $2.9 billion; making him America's 94th richest person. Donald J Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the USA in January 2017.

Leadership isn't position

                 By Bayo Ogunmupe
       Many see leaders as those with position and power. Such people assume that leaders are the few people at the head of an organization. Nothing could be further from the truth. Peter Drucker a notable authority on leadership and management said: "All the effective leaders I have encountered, those I have worked with and those I merely watched knew few things; a leader is someone who has followed some principles. Popularity is not leadership. Leadership is not rank, titles or money; leadership is responsibility."
       Position, title and authority are often confused with leadership. That you are the president of a country or the chief executive of a company does not make you a leader. All a title does is just make you an executive. Whilst position and authority provide you with potentials, they do not make you a leader. You just don't suddenly become a leader just because you have a fancy new title.
       In fact you cannot lead in such circumstances, because leadership happens when people allow you to influence them. It is only when your influence causes people to work for a shared vision that you become a leader. Leadership is more of influence , trust and relationship than it is about control and governance. An American human rights champion, Ralph Nader defined leadership thus: "The function of leadership is to produce more leaders not more followers." 
       The danger of leadership as authority and position is  that it leads to dictatorship. Such leaders think that because of their elevated position they can do whatever they like. Titular leaders encourage the use of control to get things done. Such style of leadership results in the following negative outcomes. One, leading from such positions undermines meaningful change. Two, Such leaders crush the human spirit. Three, leading from position frustrates creativity. Four, leading from position erodes trust. Five, leading from position fosters mediocrity. Lastly, leading from position destroys empathy for others. Those who lead from position do not invest time needed on shared vision that inspires others.
       Leadership is not the exercise of control over others. Leadership is the empowerment of oneself and others towards  the execution of a shared objective. Which is why leadership is influence. It often comes as a surprise to new titular leaders that a large portion of their job involves influencing others outside of their control. The reality of governance is that you cannot control anyone- except yourself. That is why leading by control is the lowest form of leadership. Control is an illusion.
       Great leaders don't lead from position. That is why Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jnr, Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi still bestrode the world as colossuses. These leaders had no titles before they attained greatness; yet they molded the history of their time. Their leadership was defined by the impact they made in their time. Leadership then is about what you do, not what you are served. The hallmark of effective leadership is the influence you have on the lives of others. The greater your influence the greater your leadership.

How the Yoruba Lost the Biafra War

                 By Bayo Ogunmupe

       How and why The Yoruba fought and lost The Biafra-Nigeria Civil War is an interpretative book on the Nigerian Civil War. Built on facts of history, the book espouses a new epistemological system of analytical reasoning and cognition. It is an introspective objection to nigerian history as we know it.

       The author, Jimanze Ego-Alowes gives a chronology of the war as he believes it. First there was the Chukwuma Nzeogwu coup and the killing of non Igbo people. Second, the counter coup and the genocide instigated against the Igbo by the Yakubu Gowon regime. Third, there was a suspension of barbarism. Fourth, the Aburi Accord was instituted. Fifth, every party to the accord agreed to live together in a civilized manner. Sixth, Gowon regime reneged  on the Aburi accord, tearing up the agreement unilaterally. As a result, Gowon levied a genocidal war  against the Igbo.

       Thus, Ego-Alowes believes it was Gowon"s perfidy that plunged Nigeria into the civil war. So, that was how Gowon and the North chose to give up on civilized conduct. The author even cited instances where if it were Europeans or Americans they could never renege as Gowon did. But nigeria isn't the only country facing disintegration. Britain is not more secure. The difference is that instead of the use of force, dialogue and remedy are provided for community grievances.

       The United Nations principle of self determination applies all over the world contrary to the bogey of sanctity of national borders with which Britain terrorized Nigerians. When Britain was threatened with disintegration, Westminster responded, even if in panic with a grant of substantial political autonomy to Wales and Scotland.

       According to Ego-Alowes,it is, he insists the greatest good that befell Nigeria when Nzeogwu failed; and the greatest evil that blighted Nigeria  was that Gowon succeeded. Accordingly, all the evils that befell Nigeria today from Boko Haram, insurgency, Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) and Niger Delta Avengers are traceable to Gowon's repudiation of the Aburi accord. It is however noteworthy that the Yoruba showed superhuman tolerance over the killing of their brothers in the Nzeogwu coup. He said that their tolerance was a supreme act of stateliness that one must salute and emulate.

       But instead of the path of peace, Gowon, prodded by Britain declared war on Biafra. During the war, a list of Yoruba actors was full of enthusiasm, as if the war was their pet project. The author asserts that Obafemi Awolowo and Colonel Benjamin Adekunle were so anti- Igbo that their speeches were filled with bile and ethnic hatred. While it may have been the sole purpose of Gowon to ethnically cleanse nigeria of the Igbo; it fell on Awolowo to give voice to it.

       After the war, the Yoruba gave the impression that it was for the sake of national unity that they joined the north to fight Biafra so as to bring the Igbo back to the fold. The truth according to Ego-Alowes is that the Igbo never opted to leave Nigeria. They only agreed to a new living arrengement promised by the Aburi accord.

       To bolster  Jimanze’s hostility theory, he related how Olusegun Obasanjo told the former governor of  Abia state, Dr Orji Uzor kalu, an Igbo that  Obasanjo told him that the Igbo should be grateful if they produced  a president of Nigeria a hundred years after the civil war. Apparently, Jimanze said, Obasanjo was mixing up  with his poorly informed interpretation of  of American presidential history.

        However, an aspect of Ego-Alowes’ averment is intriguing. He said president Muhammadu Buhari released appointments the same day The Punch newspaper published an editorial condemning Buhari’s parochial appointments. Furthermore, he said when Yoruba muslims are allowed to lead prayers in northern mosques, that is when we will know that true change has come. When Christians are no longer murdered in cold blood in the north, simply for exercising their religious freedom whilst the government turns a blind eye; that is when we will know that true change has come.

The events marking the break up of the Yoruba and Fulani alliance was heralded by the golden jubilee remembrance ceremony of Colonel Adekunle Fajuyi, which was organized  by the Yoruba Think Tank. Some of its members include the literary giant, Prof Niyi Osundare, Pastor Tunde Bakare, General Alani Akinrinade, Prof Bolaji Akinyemi and the Ondo State Governor, olusegun Mimiko. They spoke with one voice in calling for the practice of true federalism in Nigeria as the pathway to prosperity for the country and her citizens.
       The inference from the recommendations of the Yoruba Think Tank is that in a country they jointly own and preserved from destruction by a fratricidal civil war; they are being deceived and swindled. But to be sure, the Yoruba was inattentive and suffered loss of focus. And when we add Prof Akinyemi's : the north is the defender of the status quo, and his earlier confession  in the Sun newspaper that the north cheated and exploited others with coups; then one can  understand how grim the Yoruba fugue and humiliation is.
       What was implied here was that the north single-handedly structured Nigeria after its own desires and self serving images. But the point is that the north did not have such powers before 1966, after which Yoruba went into coalition with the north. So, by default, Yorubas defeated themselves and handed the north its unearned super power status in Nigeria.
       According to Ego-Alowes, the humanistic openness  of Athenian Pericles is the heritage which made America the greatest nation on earth today. It is the absence of such openness that has rendered Nigeria impotent and backward, according to Ego-Alowes. Contrast this with what Bishop Hassan Kukah revealed and you imagine the viciousness the north are capable of. According to Kukah, tampering with the British arrangement caused the destruction of Nigeria.
       Moreover, the creation of states and local governments from Gowon, Murtala Muhammed, through Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha was a planned weakening of the tribes, making them subservient to the Fulani controlled federal authority. According to Prof Akinyemi, the present system of states and federal constituencies is an imposition  from a sectional elite that exploited its temporary grant of power to create an arrangement that is advantageous to it. So the current electoral architecture  of Nigeria by northerners was purposed to enslave others.
       All of that was perpetrated by the north under the nose of Yorubas, the co-winners of the Biafran war. How and why the Yoruba fought and lost The Biafra- Nigeria Civil War has 228 pages, three sections, 29 chapters, the Afterword and five pages of reference. It is in paperback;published this year 2016 by the Stone Press Limited, Lagos, Nigeria.