One of my favorite thought leaders (Nobel Prize winner), Paul Krugman, explains how he thinks about the current China syndrome, and why he believes that most of the responses that he hears from fans are missing the point.
He focuses on three questions:
The macroeconomics of Chinese currency intervention, the fallacies of elasticity pessimism, and the political economy issue of how to deal with Chinese intransigence.
An interesting state of the economics piece by economist Paul Krugman (pictured), "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?"
A snippet from it here:
When it comes to the all-too-human problem of recessions and depressions, economists need to abandon the neat but wrong solution of assuming that everyone is rational and markets work perfectly. The vision that emerges as the profession rethinks its foundations may not be all that clear; it certainly won’t be neat; but we can hope that it will have the virtue of being at least partly right.A few notes about it here.
It looks as if more adventurous young Americans are arriving in China to ward off unemployment in the states and to be a part of either regular employment or an entrepreneurial boom.
Read more about it here:
Shut Out at Home, Americans Seek Opportunity in China.
Have any readers done this? If so, please contact me at ldelaney(at)globetrade.com. and I'll interview you. We'll share your story with readers.
What was he thinking when Tom Adams, CEO (37), chose to take Rosetta Stone public in April during the worst downturn in recent memory?
Since 2003, the company has grown from a small, family-owned business with $10 million in annual revenue and 90 full-time employees into a 1,200-employee operation with first-quarter revenue this year of $50.3 million.
Rosetta Stone’s shares have recently traded above $27 (shares went out initially above the estimated range of $15 to $17 and raising $112.5 million). The wildly successful offering sent a message of good news worldwide for privately owned companies.
We need to innovate our way to a new business model, at least that's what The New York Times, Sunday, February 1, 2009 article, "Disruptive Innovation, Applied to Health Care," states regarding health care.
Using innovation management models previously applied to other industries, Clayton M. Christensen, a Harvard Business School professor, argues in “The Innovator’s Prescription” that the concepts behind “disruptive innovation” can reinvent health care. The term “disruptive innovation,” which he introduced in 2003, refers to an unexpected new offering that through price or quality improvements turns a market on its head.This falls right in line with our Trend No. 1 in Top 10 Global Trends for Small Businesses for 2009 (published January 21, 2009):
Disruptive innovators in health care aim to shape a new system that provides a continuum of care focused on each individual patient’s needs, instead of focusing on crises. Mr. Christensen and his co-authors argue that by putting the financial interests of hospitals and doctors at the center, the current system gives routine illnesses with proven therapies the same intensive and costly specialized care that more complicated cases require.
“At the same time, this is a great moment to innovate: shrinking budgets and diminishing revenues from existing offerings normally bring out the best and most creative in business professionals.”
Economist Joseph Schumpeter popularized a similar concept called “creative destruction” in 1942 in his book, “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy,” that describes the process of transformation that accompanies radical innovation. Look for more of this type of disruptive innovation in 2009.
