CORPORATE names count for a lot, es-pecially in today’s overcrowded marketing space.
Household brands like Coca-Cola, Budweiser and Marlboro have proved priceless for their corporate parents, and their reputations are being zealously guarded by their trademark owners, like the golden treasures of Fort Knox.
For updates from around the country, follow Sun.Star on Twitter
And quite rightly so.
Who would, for example, not recognize the name Coca-Cola? From the hinterlands of the Amazon to the foothills of the Himalayas, it would probably be difficult to find somebody who would not be able to identify the unmistakably curvy bottle that embodies the brand.
And then there is the new Coke – Microsoft. It would not be a stretch to imagine that not a soul in the whole wide world would be oblivious to the name. Just in our own country, the ubiquitous Internet café is everywhere, and even street urchins are now savvy enough to create their own Friendster and Facebook accounts on Microsoft-operated PCs.
With the age of globalization, of course, comes the age of the global brands. Spread by the increasing reach of mass media and, of course, the all-conquering worldwide web, the powerful advertising messages of these global brands have become almost impossible for anyone to escape.
The other trend that has fuelled the rise of brand empires is the advent of mega sports franchises like Manchester United and Real Madrid. With an audience estimated in the billions, and a passionate following circling the world many times over, the brands that the shirts of these teams carry is guaranteed instant name recognition.
This is what AIG experienced when in 2007, it sponsored the Manchester United name, and had its brand emblazoned across the chest of sporting gods like Cristiano Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney and Rio Ferdinand. Almost instantly, the heretofore almost anonymous AIG name became synonymous with the Red Devils, and fans all overwere mouthing the brand like a mantra, from the pubs of Manchester to the beer gardens of Bangkok.
The AIG name worked like a charm for United, too. In 2007, the team won its first Premier League title in many years, and in the next year retained the title, along with winning the Champions League for only the second time in almost a decade.
Then came September 2008, and the world changed for AIG. From a name synonymous with victory, it suddenly became an object of ridicule and loathing–exemplars of the greed that people had now come to associate with corporate America, and the genesis of the global financial crisis.
Today, the name that AIG has built so painstakingly with its business success over so many years, as well as the added Manchester United boost, is about to be consigned to history.
Its component companies —including our very own Philamlife—are scrambling to rid themselves of the AIG tag, and reinventing their images behind new brands, preferably as far away from the AIG association as possible.
And little wonder that they are. Corporate brand names may be global franchises, and they may reap golden rewards for their owners when used properly. But once tarnished, they become like lead weights that only drag their companies down, if not abandoned in time.
(http://asbb-foreignexchange.blogspot.com)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on July 25, 2009.
Saturday, 25 July 2009
Saturday, 18 July 2009
What is in a name?
WHAT'S in a name?
Apparently, a lot!
In the United Kingdom today, for example, the IN thing to have is what is called a double-barrelled name, or the hyphenated (or sometimes non-hyphenated) combination of one’s maiden and married names (or for males, their maternal and parental surnames or even grandmaternal and grandpaternal surnames, if the name has extended to more than one generation).
Thus, you have people like Anthony Worral-Thompson, Tara Palmer-Tomkinson, Sascha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter standing out from the rest of their crowds, their names adding cachet to their already celebrity standing.
For updates from around the country, follow Sun.Star on Twitter
Names count for a lot, too, even in the Philippines.
In my generation, it was American names for babies that were fashionable. Thus, many of my contemporaries have names like Randy, Leslie, Joy and Florence.
In my grandfather’s generation, their names tended to be Spanish-sounding ones, such as Juanito, Fernando, Vidala and Elena. Today, in the generation after us, Spanish names have become fashionable once more, usually given as combinations like Juan-Emmanuel. Likewise, “old-sounding”
English names have come back into vogue, like Jacob Anthony or Joshua Thomas.
Corporates, too, have their own favorites as far as names are concerned.
In the early part of the last century, the IN thing to have was long and rather formal sounding corporate names, just like the double-barrelled English surnames in our example. Jardine Davies, The Imperial Chemical Company, Patons & Baldwins, Procter & Gamble—these were just some of the organizations that were famous during that era, with some surviving and being even more famous today.
Organizations established in more contemporary times had shorter, and in some instances, “weirder” names than those founded before them. Sprint, Verizon, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Oracle are probably good examples of these.
And yet for all the generational nuances, once established, names are likely to be kept for a long time by the organizations that have them. Today, for example, the turn-of-the-century Jardine organizations and Procter & Gamble stand shoulder to shoulder with more recently established ones, like Amazon and Google. Different generations with different norms on the form and structure of their company names. And yet, all of them are powerful brands, with name recognition very high among their target customers.
What this seems to show, then, is that it is not the names as such, but the positive associations that come with the name. Be they the long versions of a hundred years ago, or the abbreviated ones from the turn of the millennium, so long as the names themselves have earned the credibility and respect from their customers, the name is a winner.
But what happens to those with long-established corporate identities, that now suddenly find themselves out of favor in the name recall game?
The global financial crisis has forced this question into the open, with erstwhile “famous” names like Citicorp (Citibank), Merrill Lynch, The Royal Bank of Scotland, AIG and many others having had theirs tarnished—and some would even argue—beyond repair.
What is to be done with them?
More next week.
(http://asbb-foreignexchange. blogspot.com & http://twitter. com/asbbatuhan)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on July 18, 2009.
Apparently, a lot!
In the United Kingdom today, for example, the IN thing to have is what is called a double-barrelled name, or the hyphenated (or sometimes non-hyphenated) combination of one’s maiden and married names (or for males, their maternal and parental surnames or even grandmaternal and grandpaternal surnames, if the name has extended to more than one generation).
Thus, you have people like Anthony Worral-Thompson, Tara Palmer-Tomkinson, Sascha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter standing out from the rest of their crowds, their names adding cachet to their already celebrity standing.
For updates from around the country, follow Sun.Star on Twitter
Names count for a lot, too, even in the Philippines.
In my generation, it was American names for babies that were fashionable. Thus, many of my contemporaries have names like Randy, Leslie, Joy and Florence.
In my grandfather’s generation, their names tended to be Spanish-sounding ones, such as Juanito, Fernando, Vidala and Elena. Today, in the generation after us, Spanish names have become fashionable once more, usually given as combinations like Juan-Emmanuel. Likewise, “old-sounding”
English names have come back into vogue, like Jacob Anthony or Joshua Thomas.
Corporates, too, have their own favorites as far as names are concerned.
In the early part of the last century, the IN thing to have was long and rather formal sounding corporate names, just like the double-barrelled English surnames in our example. Jardine Davies, The Imperial Chemical Company, Patons & Baldwins, Procter & Gamble—these were just some of the organizations that were famous during that era, with some surviving and being even more famous today.
Organizations established in more contemporary times had shorter, and in some instances, “weirder” names than those founded before them. Sprint, Verizon, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Oracle are probably good examples of these.
And yet for all the generational nuances, once established, names are likely to be kept for a long time by the organizations that have them. Today, for example, the turn-of-the-century Jardine organizations and Procter & Gamble stand shoulder to shoulder with more recently established ones, like Amazon and Google. Different generations with different norms on the form and structure of their company names. And yet, all of them are powerful brands, with name recognition very high among their target customers.
What this seems to show, then, is that it is not the names as such, but the positive associations that come with the name. Be they the long versions of a hundred years ago, or the abbreviated ones from the turn of the millennium, so long as the names themselves have earned the credibility and respect from their customers, the name is a winner.
But what happens to those with long-established corporate identities, that now suddenly find themselves out of favor in the name recall game?
The global financial crisis has forced this question into the open, with erstwhile “famous” names like Citicorp (Citibank), Merrill Lynch, The Royal Bank of Scotland, AIG and many others having had theirs tarnished—and some would even argue—beyond repair.
What is to be done with them?
More next week.
(http://asbb-foreignexchange. blogspot.com & http://twitter. com/asbbatuhan)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on July 18, 2009.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
A sleeping giant awakens
IN the era of the truly global economy, few players stand out from the rest. These are the giant multinational corporations, whose reach transcends borders, and whose activities dwarf many of even the world’s biggest economies.
And among those business organizations that can be considered truly global in scope and reach, perhaps none could claim to have such a profound influence on the world’s economy than the American International Group (AIG).
Post your prayers and condolences for Cory Aquino's family
Prior to the meltdown of the world’s financial markets last year, AIG was a behemoth among giants, casting its influence in all corners of the world, and having a stake in all sectors of the financial services industry, from retail to corporate banking, to corporate finance and investment banking, and to securities underwriting and insurance.
So huge was its business expanse that if we were to borrow an old phrase from the English colonialists, we could say that “the sun never sets on AIG’s business.”
Of course, fate has a way of dealing with even the most mighty, and it did deal AIG an almost fatal blow on the occasion of the global financial meltdown.
As it turns out, one of the reasons for the organization’s dominance in the international scene was its large-scale participation in the burgeoning business of assetsecuritization—the now infamous sub-prime mortgage saga, which brought down in its wake a number of well-respected financial institutions, including Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and many others.
When the American housing market started to turn sour, the assets underlying the securities that AIG and the other market makers were issuing shrunk in value, forcing the issuers to ante up collateral to guarantee them with the subsequent buyers. The resulting need for huge amounts of cash collateral forced many into bankruptcy, consolidation and even liquidation.
As the old adage goes, “owe the bank a few thousand dollars, and the bank owns you; owe the bank a few million dollars, and you own the bank.” Fortunately for AIG, the sheer size of its exposure into the global debt markets made it impossible to allow its collapse. If it were to happen, the knock-on impact would be unimaginable. So to stave off a complete financial Armageddon, the Federal government stepped in and rescued the financial giant, propping it up with billions of dollars in federallyguaranteed loans.
While many had written off the financial giant to eventual collapse, slowly but surely AIG rebuilt itself from the ashes of its former self. Many of AIG’s core businesses remained strong, with dominant positions in the major global markets.
For example, Philamlife remains the Philippines’ largest insurer, with a franchise envied by all of its competitors.
A significant part of AIG’s resurgence is the contribution of its current chief executive, Edward Liddy.
A respected investment banker and insurance executive, Liddy brought with him to AIG a credible reputation, which allowed AIG to have an effective dialogue with the Federal government, its current backer and guarantor. It also gave the insurance company a better image in the financial markets.
Today, after a successful stint at stabilizing the wounded giant, Liddy steps down and gives way to an equally respected executive in Robert Benmosche, former MetLife CEO.
Where AIG will go from here on is still a big question mark.
But as Admiral Yamamoto once said after bombing Pearl Harbor, the sleeping giant might just be reawakening.
(http://asbb-foreignexchange.blogspot.com)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on August 15, 2009.
And among those business organizations that can be considered truly global in scope and reach, perhaps none could claim to have such a profound influence on the world’s economy than the American International Group (AIG).
Post your prayers and condolences for Cory Aquino's family
Prior to the meltdown of the world’s financial markets last year, AIG was a behemoth among giants, casting its influence in all corners of the world, and having a stake in all sectors of the financial services industry, from retail to corporate banking, to corporate finance and investment banking, and to securities underwriting and insurance.
So huge was its business expanse that if we were to borrow an old phrase from the English colonialists, we could say that “the sun never sets on AIG’s business.”
Of course, fate has a way of dealing with even the most mighty, and it did deal AIG an almost fatal blow on the occasion of the global financial meltdown.
As it turns out, one of the reasons for the organization’s dominance in the international scene was its large-scale participation in the burgeoning business of assetsecuritization—the now infamous sub-prime mortgage saga, which brought down in its wake a number of well-respected financial institutions, including Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and many others.
When the American housing market started to turn sour, the assets underlying the securities that AIG and the other market makers were issuing shrunk in value, forcing the issuers to ante up collateral to guarantee them with the subsequent buyers. The resulting need for huge amounts of cash collateral forced many into bankruptcy, consolidation and even liquidation.
As the old adage goes, “owe the bank a few thousand dollars, and the bank owns you; owe the bank a few million dollars, and you own the bank.” Fortunately for AIG, the sheer size of its exposure into the global debt markets made it impossible to allow its collapse. If it were to happen, the knock-on impact would be unimaginable. So to stave off a complete financial Armageddon, the Federal government stepped in and rescued the financial giant, propping it up with billions of dollars in federallyguaranteed loans.
While many had written off the financial giant to eventual collapse, slowly but surely AIG rebuilt itself from the ashes of its former self. Many of AIG’s core businesses remained strong, with dominant positions in the major global markets.
For example, Philamlife remains the Philippines’ largest insurer, with a franchise envied by all of its competitors.
A significant part of AIG’s resurgence is the contribution of its current chief executive, Edward Liddy.
A respected investment banker and insurance executive, Liddy brought with him to AIG a credible reputation, which allowed AIG to have an effective dialogue with the Federal government, its current backer and guarantor. It also gave the insurance company a better image in the financial markets.
Today, after a successful stint at stabilizing the wounded giant, Liddy steps down and gives way to an equally respected executive in Robert Benmosche, former MetLife CEO.
Where AIG will go from here on is still a big question mark.
But as Admiral Yamamoto once said after bombing Pearl Harbor, the sleeping giant might just be reawakening.
(http://asbb-foreignexchange.blogspot.com)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on August 15, 2009.
Monday, 9 February 2009
Are you ready for this?
NO, it’s not an excerpt from the Queen song.
I am referring to the path-breaking choice that Americans may have to make in the presidential elections in November.
Never has the world’s most powerful democratic nation been confronted with as unprecedented a choice — in fact two choices — at least concerning one half of the electoral process.
Would they elect a white woman or a black man to the presidency of the most influential nation on earth?
Never before have the gender and color barrier ever been breached in the contest for the American presidency. The Rev. Jesse Jackson tried and failed to secure his party’s nomination for the presidency, and Geraldine Ferraro, although managing to gain her party’s confidence, was only running for the post of vice president.
But a woman or a black man for the highest elected post in perhaps all of the world? Is America ready for this? Is the world even ready for this?
All the way from George Washington to George W. Bush — 43 presidents and 212 years later — there has never been a person of color of any gender or a female person of any color who has managed to occupy the highest office of the land. And even that exclusive club is limited still.
White Anglo Saxon Protestants (WASPs), with the exception only of a few with Irish-Catholic roots, have tended to keep the office of the presidency as a virtual monopoly for themselves.
Only the Americans themselves can really say if they are ready. As a shining beacon of hope, democracy and liberty to the rest of the world, is the nation finally at a stage where it can actually practice what it has preached for so long?
Oh yes, indeed. We forget that among America’s nation-students, many have already breached the gender or color barriers long ago. Even a conservative male-dominated Moslem country has had Benazir Bhutto as prime minister, and an ethnically more homogenous Peru has elected a Japanese-Peruvian, Alberto Fujimori, as its president.
But in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where women and persons of color have enjoyed success in almost any field of endeavor, the long line of almost exclusively WASPs has remained unbroken — that is until this year’s election rolls along.
The Democratic Party will certainly break the mould first, for the first time nominating a candidate belonging to either category as its standard bearer for the electoral contest. Because apart from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, everyone else in the party has put away his or her presidential ambitions on hold, at least for another four years.
But the bigger question remains — can America go all the way and break the mould as a nation, by choosing whoever it is that the Democrats put up for the public vote?
It all remains to be seen, of course, because America today is saddled with a host of serious problems that have neither to do with race nor gender. Its economy is badly in need of rejuvenation, and issues of security continue to haunt its collective consciousness — both problems which Democrats have not been known to be very good at solving, apart perhaps from the Clinton years being economically prosperous times for the nation.
But the implications for America will be significant if it does go ahead and break new ground. For it will give the rest of the world the unequivocal message that all of us — black or white, male or female — are truly equal as people on this earth.
(asbb.mbm91@aimalumni.org)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on February 9, 2009.
I am referring to the path-breaking choice that Americans may have to make in the presidential elections in November.
Never has the world’s most powerful democratic nation been confronted with as unprecedented a choice — in fact two choices — at least concerning one half of the electoral process.
Would they elect a white woman or a black man to the presidency of the most influential nation on earth?
Never before have the gender and color barrier ever been breached in the contest for the American presidency. The Rev. Jesse Jackson tried and failed to secure his party’s nomination for the presidency, and Geraldine Ferraro, although managing to gain her party’s confidence, was only running for the post of vice president.
But a woman or a black man for the highest elected post in perhaps all of the world? Is America ready for this? Is the world even ready for this?
All the way from George Washington to George W. Bush — 43 presidents and 212 years later — there has never been a person of color of any gender or a female person of any color who has managed to occupy the highest office of the land. And even that exclusive club is limited still.
White Anglo Saxon Protestants (WASPs), with the exception only of a few with Irish-Catholic roots, have tended to keep the office of the presidency as a virtual monopoly for themselves.
Only the Americans themselves can really say if they are ready. As a shining beacon of hope, democracy and liberty to the rest of the world, is the nation finally at a stage where it can actually practice what it has preached for so long?
Oh yes, indeed. We forget that among America’s nation-students, many have already breached the gender or color barriers long ago. Even a conservative male-dominated Moslem country has had Benazir Bhutto as prime minister, and an ethnically more homogenous Peru has elected a Japanese-Peruvian, Alberto Fujimori, as its president.
But in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where women and persons of color have enjoyed success in almost any field of endeavor, the long line of almost exclusively WASPs has remained unbroken — that is until this year’s election rolls along.
The Democratic Party will certainly break the mould first, for the first time nominating a candidate belonging to either category as its standard bearer for the electoral contest. Because apart from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, everyone else in the party has put away his or her presidential ambitions on hold, at least for another four years.
But the bigger question remains — can America go all the way and break the mould as a nation, by choosing whoever it is that the Democrats put up for the public vote?
It all remains to be seen, of course, because America today is saddled with a host of serious problems that have neither to do with race nor gender. Its economy is badly in need of rejuvenation, and issues of security continue to haunt its collective consciousness — both problems which Democrats have not been known to be very good at solving, apart perhaps from the Clinton years being economically prosperous times for the nation.
But the implications for America will be significant if it does go ahead and break new ground. For it will give the rest of the world the unequivocal message that all of us — black or white, male or female — are truly equal as people on this earth.
(asbb.mbm91@aimalumni.org)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on February 9, 2009.
Friday, 5 December 2008
In the eye of the storm (Conclusion)
WE have seen the enemy, and it is us.
As far as the American consumers and the current financial crisis are concerned, the above phrase could not be any more appropriate. The biggest share of the collective blame lies squarely with them, and the way the United States lives today.
Many of us have friends and family in the United States. A good number will have been there ourselves.
Therefore, when I make a statement like this, it should come as a surprise to no one. How many of our friends and acquaintances Stateside own large SUVs? How many live in nice homes, with all the furniture and furnishings obtained through easy credit? How many generally live a lifestyle that seems to be beyond their reach, and act as if money is always there when they need it?
The truth is, watching the crisis unfold has been like witnessing a runaway train in slow motion.
We all knew the accident was bound to happen at some point, but everyone was powerless to stop it.
All the fingers are now pointed at the banks, the financial institutions and the car companies, for all having acted irresponsibly and caused the world to fall down. But if we really stepped back a bit from the burning rubble and tried to sift for evidence, we would probably conclude that the fire had its origins somewhere else.
Take the car companies, who are now being accused of making the “wrong” cars and not being “sensitive” enough to the needs of their consumers.
Well just a year ago—and probably even more recently than that, what their consumers wanted were large gas-guzzling SUVs. Back in the days when petrol was more affordable, did anyone, apart from Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, ever consider being seen in a hybrid car? I don’t believe so. So really they were not being irresponsible, they were just being market savvy.
And what of the savings banks which were all rushing to grant more outrageously priced mortgages, the investment banks tripping all over themselves to package the loans and sell them off as investment-grade Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), and the insurance companies like AIG thinking they could benefit from the whole situation by insuring the CDOs by means of Credit Default Swaps?
If we are really being very honest about it, they were just acting according to their roles in a free market. They saw a demand, and went ahead and tried to fill it. This is, after all, the mantra of capitalist economics—give the consumer what he or she wants, and your business succeeds.
The consumers want cheap loans, give it to them. They like to ride in large SUVs, make some for them.
We cannot, and most especially the Americans, cannot have their cake and eat it too. The capitalist world (and today this means all the world) has made a choice, and it is a simple one. It wants free markets to work without state intervention. It resents overregulation, and prefers only minimum oversight to ensure the compliance to laws and regulations, but not a sense check of their “greater good” to society.
In such a society, where the free hand of the market governs, the premise is that the ultimate responsibility lies with the consumer. This is the whole premise of a capitalist society—that no matter what happens, we believe that we should be free to make our own choices, and to create our own opportunities.
Unfortunately, this choice has a flipside, too. We should also be responsible for our actions, and accountable for the consequences of our excesses.
This crisis is simply a reminder to all of us consumers, and to the American consumer in particular, that the buck stops right here.
(http://asbb-foreignexchange. blogspot.com)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on December 05, 2008.
As far as the American consumers and the current financial crisis are concerned, the above phrase could not be any more appropriate. The biggest share of the collective blame lies squarely with them, and the way the United States lives today.
Many of us have friends and family in the United States. A good number will have been there ourselves.
Therefore, when I make a statement like this, it should come as a surprise to no one. How many of our friends and acquaintances Stateside own large SUVs? How many live in nice homes, with all the furniture and furnishings obtained through easy credit? How many generally live a lifestyle that seems to be beyond their reach, and act as if money is always there when they need it?
The truth is, watching the crisis unfold has been like witnessing a runaway train in slow motion.
We all knew the accident was bound to happen at some point, but everyone was powerless to stop it.
All the fingers are now pointed at the banks, the financial institutions and the car companies, for all having acted irresponsibly and caused the world to fall down. But if we really stepped back a bit from the burning rubble and tried to sift for evidence, we would probably conclude that the fire had its origins somewhere else.
Take the car companies, who are now being accused of making the “wrong” cars and not being “sensitive” enough to the needs of their consumers.
Well just a year ago—and probably even more recently than that, what their consumers wanted were large gas-guzzling SUVs. Back in the days when petrol was more affordable, did anyone, apart from Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, ever consider being seen in a hybrid car? I don’t believe so. So really they were not being irresponsible, they were just being market savvy.
And what of the savings banks which were all rushing to grant more outrageously priced mortgages, the investment banks tripping all over themselves to package the loans and sell them off as investment-grade Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), and the insurance companies like AIG thinking they could benefit from the whole situation by insuring the CDOs by means of Credit Default Swaps?
If we are really being very honest about it, they were just acting according to their roles in a free market. They saw a demand, and went ahead and tried to fill it. This is, after all, the mantra of capitalist economics—give the consumer what he or she wants, and your business succeeds.
The consumers want cheap loans, give it to them. They like to ride in large SUVs, make some for them.
We cannot, and most especially the Americans, cannot have their cake and eat it too. The capitalist world (and today this means all the world) has made a choice, and it is a simple one. It wants free markets to work without state intervention. It resents overregulation, and prefers only minimum oversight to ensure the compliance to laws and regulations, but not a sense check of their “greater good” to society.
In such a society, where the free hand of the market governs, the premise is that the ultimate responsibility lies with the consumer. This is the whole premise of a capitalist society—that no matter what happens, we believe that we should be free to make our own choices, and to create our own opportunities.
Unfortunately, this choice has a flipside, too. We should also be responsible for our actions, and accountable for the consequences of our excesses.
This crisis is simply a reminder to all of us consumers, and to the American consumer in particular, that the buck stops right here.
(http://asbb-foreignexchange. blogspot.com)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on December 05, 2008.
Saturday, 26 July 2008
The modern business of slavery
IT is a well-know fact, even to basketball-crazy Filipinos, that football—for most parts of the world - has become the equivalent of religion.
In Manchester, for example, Church of England Sunday services are now rarely attended, especially by younger parishioners. In contrast, Old Trafford, home of the world-famous Manchester United team, draws tens of thousands to its Sunday matches.
It is, thus, a surprise when one hears a word that is probably not always equated with successful phenomena of this magnitude. That word is slavery.
Yes, slavery. A word with connotations of squalor and poverty. One that denotes bondage and oppression, and so far-removed from the success and opulence that those in the game now enjoy.
Sepp Blatter, president of football’s governing body FIFA, made the allusion recently in describing the situation facing Manchester United’s Cristiano Ronaldo—arguably one of the game’s best players today—and who is reportedly linked with a move to Spanish giants Real Madrid.
The move makes good commercial sense for both parties.
Ronaldo has recently won the Champions league with United —an accomplishment seen as second only to winning the World Cup. Real Madrid, on the other hand, although considered “Kings of Europe” for having won the tournament the most number of times, has not done so in recent years. For them, having a player of this caliber just might propel them to their former heights of glory.
For Ronaldo, on the other hand, winning it with another team will prove that he did not achieve victory the first time around simply by riding on the coattails of a great team like United. It will recognize him as a truly one of a kind player that wins tournaments for teams, and not just with them.
Just one hitch stands in the way of this dream partnership, however. Ronaldo is still contracted to United for a few years to come yet—until the Olympics come around to England in 2012, to be exact.
This is where Sepp Blatter steps in and pronounces the player’s situation as “slavery.” He further advises United to respect his wishes, and to let him go to Real Madrid, should it be his desire to do so.
FIFA has never had good relations with English football for a variety of reasons, and Blatter and Alex Ferguson, United’s fiery Scottish manager, have never gotten along particularly well over the years. But this perceived interference by Blatter in the club’s affairs did not exactly qualify as diplomacy on Blatter’s part.
Today’s players of Ronaldo’s caliber are simply no slaves, in whatever terms we may describe slavery to be. They earn in a day far in excess of what even top executives in the Philippines can hope to make in a year. They and their dependents are set for life, and this through doing the thing they love the most – playing football.
How many of us can claim to enjoy such privilege?
The business of slavery is alive and well in the modern world.
Young girls from Eastern Europe and Asia are trafficked against their wishes to brothels in the West, where criminal gangs make huge amounts of money from exploiting them.
Modern sportswear manufacturers realize huge amounts of profit by sub-contracting their goods with sweatshops in China and India, employing child labor at ridiculously low wages. And back home, syndicates employ street children to beg and steal for their benefit.
Yes, slavery is still a thriving business in the modern world. But it would do Sepp Blatter well next time to think twice before comparing Ronaldo’s dilemma, to the real slavery that confronts us every day in our part of the world.
(http://asbb-foreignexchange.blogspot.com)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on July 26, 2008.
In Manchester, for example, Church of England Sunday services are now rarely attended, especially by younger parishioners. In contrast, Old Trafford, home of the world-famous Manchester United team, draws tens of thousands to its Sunday matches.
It is, thus, a surprise when one hears a word that is probably not always equated with successful phenomena of this magnitude. That word is slavery.
Yes, slavery. A word with connotations of squalor and poverty. One that denotes bondage and oppression, and so far-removed from the success and opulence that those in the game now enjoy.
Sepp Blatter, president of football’s governing body FIFA, made the allusion recently in describing the situation facing Manchester United’s Cristiano Ronaldo—arguably one of the game’s best players today—and who is reportedly linked with a move to Spanish giants Real Madrid.
The move makes good commercial sense for both parties.
Ronaldo has recently won the Champions league with United —an accomplishment seen as second only to winning the World Cup. Real Madrid, on the other hand, although considered “Kings of Europe” for having won the tournament the most number of times, has not done so in recent years. For them, having a player of this caliber just might propel them to their former heights of glory.
For Ronaldo, on the other hand, winning it with another team will prove that he did not achieve victory the first time around simply by riding on the coattails of a great team like United. It will recognize him as a truly one of a kind player that wins tournaments for teams, and not just with them.
Just one hitch stands in the way of this dream partnership, however. Ronaldo is still contracted to United for a few years to come yet—until the Olympics come around to England in 2012, to be exact.
This is where Sepp Blatter steps in and pronounces the player’s situation as “slavery.” He further advises United to respect his wishes, and to let him go to Real Madrid, should it be his desire to do so.
FIFA has never had good relations with English football for a variety of reasons, and Blatter and Alex Ferguson, United’s fiery Scottish manager, have never gotten along particularly well over the years. But this perceived interference by Blatter in the club’s affairs did not exactly qualify as diplomacy on Blatter’s part.
Today’s players of Ronaldo’s caliber are simply no slaves, in whatever terms we may describe slavery to be. They earn in a day far in excess of what even top executives in the Philippines can hope to make in a year. They and their dependents are set for life, and this through doing the thing they love the most – playing football.
How many of us can claim to enjoy such privilege?
The business of slavery is alive and well in the modern world.
Young girls from Eastern Europe and Asia are trafficked against their wishes to brothels in the West, where criminal gangs make huge amounts of money from exploiting them.
Modern sportswear manufacturers realize huge amounts of profit by sub-contracting their goods with sweatshops in China and India, employing child labor at ridiculously low wages. And back home, syndicates employ street children to beg and steal for their benefit.
Yes, slavery is still a thriving business in the modern world. But it would do Sepp Blatter well next time to think twice before comparing Ronaldo’s dilemma, to the real slavery that confronts us every day in our part of the world.
(http://asbb-foreignexchange.blogspot.com)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on July 26, 2008.
Saturday, 12 April 2008
Counting the Cost of Iraq (2)
Is it, or is it not? This seems to be the question on everyone’s minds, but as yet, it seems that economists are divided over the answer.
Whether or not America is already in recession is something that people may still be debating about, but really purely on semantics. In reality, the slowdown is already very much upon the economy, and signs of it are everywhere.
Whoever has not heard of the sub-prime mortgage market before has surely been well educated about it by now. Already claiming a number of iconic American financial institutions like Bear Stearns, it has also caused the downfall of Northern Rock, one of the United Kingdom’s most trusted names in mortgage lending.
Of course, weakness in the financial system is never good, at least not for an economy that relies on borrowed money (and time) to finance itself. America -- as is all too familiar to most of us who have lived or visited there -- does not dwell in the present, as far as financing its consumer spending goes. Not in the least do consumers think about how much they earn before succumbing to that temptation to spend, but only about how much their credit limit can afford. Thus it is not uncommon for someone who subsists on survival wages to own expensive goods, all financed by plastic, and paid monthly in instalments so insignificant that in reality, it will take the borrower’s entire lifetime to ever repay.
As long as things stay on the up and up, living dangerously – in the financial sense – seems to be sustainable. Since the Clinton years, Americans have enjoyed an unprecedented period of economic prosperity that has made their economy the envy of those in the rest of the world. Set against the backdrop of economic confusion in the European Union, the stagnation of the Japanese economy, and fiscal mismanagement just about everywhere else, it seems the United States could do no wrong.
Clearly, with such a buoyant mood comes a certain sense of invincibility, and inevitably, recklessness. It is probably unwise to blame the financial community for causing the problem in its entirety, but it is not totally without basis to say that not-so-prudent instruments such as risky sub-prime mortgages and questionable asset-backed securities saw their heyday during the boom years.
Enter the “shock and awe” of George Bush’s Iraq adventure.
Without question, the decision to invade the Middle Eastern country was also spurred on by the same sense of American dominance that prevailed in the economic arena. After all, prosperity is power, and America certainly was feeling pretty powerful in those days.
Those days, unfortunately, are now long gone.
However little you remember of your economics classes all those many years ago, this you must not forget – psychology and economics are inseparable twins. The failure of the U.S. to impose its will on Iraq, the seeming hopelessness of the American occupation forces in the face of their enemies’ hit and run tactics, and the uncertainty of global oil supplies as a consequence of the protracted conflict, have all but depressed the American consumer into thinking that all cannot be well for the future. And as we already said, whatever the mind thinks, the economy mirrors. The result is an impending economic slowdown that now threatens to derail the global economy.
George W. Bush may have been motivated by dreams of historical immortality when he invaded Iraq – to be remembered like the war-time presidents who are forever worshipped in America's collective memory. But all he has managed so far is to awaken the nation’s most harrowing nightmare – that of an economy waking up to the fact that all along, it has been living on borrowed time – and the payback is drawing nigh.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, April 12, 2008
Whether or not America is already in recession is something that people may still be debating about, but really purely on semantics. In reality, the slowdown is already very much upon the economy, and signs of it are everywhere.
Whoever has not heard of the sub-prime mortgage market before has surely been well educated about it by now. Already claiming a number of iconic American financial institutions like Bear Stearns, it has also caused the downfall of Northern Rock, one of the United Kingdom’s most trusted names in mortgage lending.
Of course, weakness in the financial system is never good, at least not for an economy that relies on borrowed money (and time) to finance itself. America -- as is all too familiar to most of us who have lived or visited there -- does not dwell in the present, as far as financing its consumer spending goes. Not in the least do consumers think about how much they earn before succumbing to that temptation to spend, but only about how much their credit limit can afford. Thus it is not uncommon for someone who subsists on survival wages to own expensive goods, all financed by plastic, and paid monthly in instalments so insignificant that in reality, it will take the borrower’s entire lifetime to ever repay.
As long as things stay on the up and up, living dangerously – in the financial sense – seems to be sustainable. Since the Clinton years, Americans have enjoyed an unprecedented period of economic prosperity that has made their economy the envy of those in the rest of the world. Set against the backdrop of economic confusion in the European Union, the stagnation of the Japanese economy, and fiscal mismanagement just about everywhere else, it seems the United States could do no wrong.
Clearly, with such a buoyant mood comes a certain sense of invincibility, and inevitably, recklessness. It is probably unwise to blame the financial community for causing the problem in its entirety, but it is not totally without basis to say that not-so-prudent instruments such as risky sub-prime mortgages and questionable asset-backed securities saw their heyday during the boom years.
Enter the “shock and awe” of George Bush’s Iraq adventure.
Without question, the decision to invade the Middle Eastern country was also spurred on by the same sense of American dominance that prevailed in the economic arena. After all, prosperity is power, and America certainly was feeling pretty powerful in those days.
Those days, unfortunately, are now long gone.
However little you remember of your economics classes all those many years ago, this you must not forget – psychology and economics are inseparable twins. The failure of the U.S. to impose its will on Iraq, the seeming hopelessness of the American occupation forces in the face of their enemies’ hit and run tactics, and the uncertainty of global oil supplies as a consequence of the protracted conflict, have all but depressed the American consumer into thinking that all cannot be well for the future. And as we already said, whatever the mind thinks, the economy mirrors. The result is an impending economic slowdown that now threatens to derail the global economy.
George W. Bush may have been motivated by dreams of historical immortality when he invaded Iraq – to be remembered like the war-time presidents who are forever worshipped in America's collective memory. But all he has managed so far is to awaken the nation’s most harrowing nightmare – that of an economy waking up to the fact that all along, it has been living on borrowed time – and the payback is drawing nigh.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, April 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)