Our new Forbes piece shows that by looking at the origins of the Cuban Missile Crisis, one can learn valuable lessons on Risk management. Read it here.
Last week, I again attended VALUEx. If you’re a Value Investor, this is no more interesting use of your time – it is an extraordinary gathering of intelligent, talented and fun people.
Like me, many people at VALUEx avoid investing in technology firms. On the other hand, many participants know that it’s important to follow the evolution of what I call the “3 GRAIN” technologies (3D printing, Genetics, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Information Technology, and Nanotechnology). Each of the 3 GRAIN general purpose technologies will have an increasing impact on the creation of value in the years ahead. Moreover, how they will combine to produce social changes is something that Philippe and I think about a lot.
Read our latest piece on Forbes here. Our previous piece was on how the lack of diversity can cripple your company. Read it here.
For regular updates, why not subscribe to our blog?
A control expert preparing for the eventual collapse.
Today I was reminded of the perils of forecasting while reviewing a Department of Defense document, the Joint Operating Environment 2010.
“JOE 2010” as it’s called, is designed to provide the various branches of the US Armed Forces a joint perspective on likely global trends, possible shocks and their future operating environment. If you’re interested in geopolitics and strategy, I recommend that you take a look.
Apart from its inherent interest, JOE 2010 opens with a defense planning timeline that business and financial strategy practitioners – and anyone who consumes their work – would do well to bear in mind. I have reproduced it verbatim here:
1900 If you are a strategic analyst for the world’s leading power, you are British, looking warily at Britain’s Age-old enemy, France.
1910 You are now allied with France, and the enemy is now Germany.
Posted in Case study, Theory
Tagged black swan, China, Defense Planning, DOD, forecasting, France, Geopolitics, Germany, grand strategy, Internet, JOE 2010, Korea, NATO, non-predictive strategy, prediction, strategic autism, strategic surprise, strategy, UK, USSR, Vietnam
China has long been touted as the next leading power, and for many it seems that the question is no longer if China will overtake the US but when. Recently, however, a number of dissenting opinions have started to be heard. Economists point to the strong imbalances in China’s economy; political analysts observe that the political and social structure is unstable; human right activists warn of increasing censorship and repression, while historians suggest that, like the USSR in the late 80s, China’s communist regime has run its course and is on an unsustainable path. Indeed, “hard landing” stories about China have started to appear, by Roubini or by Gordon Chang.
Like any such debate, or lack of debate (instead, it is a series of proclamations), positions are often taken being selective about facts, based on false analogies, shallow extrapolations, ideology, or just plain ignorance. This is problematic because regardless of what we think about China, the country does matter to us in many ways. What can we do about this, then?