The sort of populism that sells the wrong message

We have a global crisis or 2 on our hands: (1) soaring fuel cost driven by demand and a supply that has peaked; (2) a food price crisis arising from (1) and (3) global warming, probably caused by human activity. Now I'm all for allowing market forces to play out - but there are people being hurt here. We don't need online 'journalists' attempting to sell over-powered, overly-large sedans, especially by playing the 'nationalism' card. It's OK, people of Australia, you are still Australian, or an American for that matter, if you down-size to a smaller, more efficient car. It's OK, it can still be 'sporty'.

Indeed it's OK to ride a bike or catch public transport, or walk. There's a place for over-powered 'sporty' cars, there are enthusiasts aplenty who will pay the bucks required. But it's not somehow quintessentially Australian to drive a fat, fuel guzzling sedan.

What this article demonstrates is the inherent bias in the established media, that lags reality by about a decade: Biffing through a sunburned summer landscape in a big, boofy Australian muscle car is to feel like a native son; a bloke's bloke. The jaundiced might view HSV's Clubsport R8 as quintessentially 'Strayan as seafood at Christmas, inviting a mate along on your honeymoon, or claiming a catch off an Indian batsman's pad. A bit retrograde. A boganmobile. It's not well written, indeed the article is a contradiction in and of itself. But if I were to have a stab at deciphering it, what the writer is really doing here is 'having a go' at what some may call the 'cafe-latte' or 'chardonnay' set and aligning with what they see as a 'populist' view. In that sense the article asserts that it's better to be a 'bogan' and drive a fuel guzzler than to be elitist and down-size. Read the whole article if you want, but it's a tedious repetition of that old line - bigger is better. Oh is it, really?

Fuel Watch spoof

Well it's an easy gag, isn't it?

I share the sentiment that we need to actually do something to shift demand from oil to renewable resources (hey, that's the bleeding obvious) but surely the 2010 carbon trading scheme - if it includes oil, as it must - will do exactly that? In the meantime market forces are doing the job.

So what is GetUp saying? Stop playing politics? Well yes, that would be nice - but our system of government is based on politics... what should an "opposition" do if it doesn't act in opposition? Agree?

Well that would make a change.

Keeping Karma in a changing world

It's right and proper that we all share this planet's resources equitably, but the bitter truth is that some of us - myself included - were simply born in the right place. Whilst others were not so fortunate. It's a gift where we are born, an absolute stroke of luck - good or bad. Some of us are born with fresh water, good food reserves, safe shelter and in amiable climates. And some are born into political, social or racial strife, or in a land that yields resources less easily. Whilst we could be harsh and say that our parents choose where we are born, and thus put the blame somewhere, in fact choice doesn't always enter into the lives of the poor, the uneducated, the neglected or the simply misfortunate. Indeed, misfortune can strike anywhere, even when you seem to have made the best choice possible. Even US citizens can suffer floods and fire, hurricanes and tornadoes.

It's really a case of 'do we see ourselves as part of a global community' or do we simply take advantage of globalisation to ensure our own wealth? If you believe in Karma, even if solely as an ethical construct, you'd want to think carefully here. Increasingly the wealthy western nations are taking advantage of lower labour costs in developing nations to lower the cost of their own consumption. It should follow that this global convenience leads to a global conscience, but it seems not always to be the case. Unless the threat seems personal, or specifically detrimental to western assets or politics, it's ignored. It may be discussed and shown nightly on the TV news, but largely allowed 'to play out' in a political sense. Thus Saddam's Iraq is targeted for 'enforced democratisation' whilst similarly despotic rulers just go about their business until it gets too ugly to ignore. Or so it seems.

That may be the dark side of humanity in 2008. On the other hand by trading fairly with the developing nations we raise their economic opportunities and, perhaps indirectly, improve their lot. It's a significant by-product of globalisation, as is the creation of increased industrial pollution, increased demand for raw materials and the consumption of farming land for urban development. What we in the west have done in 2 or 300 years the people of China and India will do in 20 or 30 years. And that's great, up to a point. Wealth will transfer and some natural balances will occur. Population growth will decline, for example. But demand for food and power will grow, often because wealth changes taste and increases desire.

Which puts up the cost of everything in the west. How ironic that the flood of cheap manufactured goods from the developing world that has allowed our western nations to consume goods and services at almost unimaginable rates, whilst keeping inflation down, will now drive up inflation and dampen down demand in those same western countries. Perhaps there's some Karma in it after all.

Personality tests and job interviews... yawn

Some companies test for "personality", some don't. Some say it works, some have no idea. Some do it just because they can. Fact is, there's no evidence it works at all. Fact is, behavioural interviews work better, but not by a lot. Fact is, nothing really works to predict job performance. We cull out the candidates we don't "think" fit the picture, then we interview to weed out the people we don't like the look of, or to choose (somehow) between close candidates. We interview because we are people and we are hiring people. We judge things quickly, face to face, and back it up with logic later. However we may test for "personality" in order to discriminate in yet another way, and just because we can. Not because it's a better way.

So how come we read this at BNET: "Sweeney claims that his testing methodology is based upon some pretty heavy-duty science. While I’m naturally skeptical of psychological research, I have no particular reason to disbelieve him. So I’m afraid that I think your irritation may be misplaced. In all probability, the company in question has discovered that testing is a better way to recruit successful sales employees than the standard interview process." Sweeney is a marketing guy, BTW.

Yep, interviews tell us little about how someone will perform in a role. But what correlation is there between personality and job role performance? None. So what is this "heavy duty science"? Well who knows, it's not disclosed here and it's not in any literature I've found. I'll keep looking...

But in the meantime... as far as personality testing goes, consider that you can guess what a company wants to see - honesty, integrity, an outgoing nature. You can also guess that overdoing it and appearing 'perfect' would be spotted, so you lie strategically. Lying, or telling falsehoods if you prefer, is smart. It's human. Sure, some people will be diligent in their answers, but even so it comes down to interpretation. Honest people will mark themselves down, some will simply misinterpret the question... in either case the validity will be doubtful. And then you want to somehow correlate personality with job performance? Over what time scale? A year? 3 years? What exactly will you accept as a positive correlation? Because I can assure you if it was that easy we'd all be doing it! In the real world a motivated person with the "wrong" personality may very well run rings around a less motivated person with the "right" personality. For a while, anyway. They will have ups and downs. Work performance is the sum of many parts, and good teams are made up of many different types of people. Selecting for "sameness" is just another way to shoot yourself in the foot. Avoid it.

Sums it up really

It really does: "Do a little experiment for me if you will. The next time you're driving to/from work on any major road or freeway in any metro area, especially in the 'smile' section of America (down the east coast, across the south, and up the west coast), start looking around and see if you can go a minute, one whole minute, without seeing a BMW. I'm betting you won't be able to, as they're absolutely everywhere. In the blink of an eye, they went from being fairly rare, usually driven by enthusiasts with a bit of money, to ubiquitous, driven by everybody with a bit of credit."

I too remember when BMWs were understated sporting prestige saloons that hankered after what Alfa Romeo had: history and cachet. They built sweet, practical and fuel-efficient cars with lusty engines and plenty of oversteer. They buried old 4-cylinder blocks to "mature" them, digging them up later, strapping on a big turbo and letting F1 drivers like Nelson Piquet loose. And then they suddenly started to make underpowered cars, lots of 'em, just to sell more. And luxo-barges because they wanted to be like Daimler-Benz. And then they tapped into a little of their past glories to make coupes, although ugly ones. Finally they joined the herd and made unfortunate if brilliantly devised fat 4WDs. And thus they became, like Subaru Impreza WRXs, as common as muck. Like it seemed anyone could buy one, and they did.

It's called marketing, coupled with strategy, coupled with consumers with too much credit and a longing for materialism over all. Good on BMW for mining this happy vein of wealth, but they lost my respect long ago. So it goes.

Just a sad story I stumbled over

But it's so sad, arbitrary and unnecessary; and possibly typical of young people, especially young men, and our rich Western lives today. I'm so sad that the accident happened at all, for the family involved and the man who died. But also for the other victims: the other drivers, and young passengers, and for the young woman who basically watched her boyfriend kill himself.

Boys have always been boys, sure. They are typically - on average - more reckless, more willing to take (or not see) risks than women of similar age. But that's not all, is it? Today we also live in a cashed-up Western society, where young men can afford not just a cheap second hand motorbike but a powerful one, or a powerful car for that matter. 30 years ago 'performance' cars were rare and took an effort to purchase. Now, with easy credit and good jobs, coupled with cheaper manufactured goods, performance cars are not just easily obtainable but have performance way beyond what we once thought of as 'fast'. Not that it is the deciding factor - the sheer recklessness of speed surely takes that prize, and can happen with an underpowered vehicle as well. Overtaking cars that are stopped or slowing - surely a clue that something was up - was a clear mistake.

I'm sure no words can repair this damage, or the damage done daily by the ready availability of fast machines and a failure to educate young riders and drivers sufficiently in the skills they need to survive. Indeed in our mad Western frenzy to achieve materialist 'heaven', even suggesting that we may have taken the wrong road, by selling cars and bikes that do not fit the roads and traffic conditions of today, will draw cries of hate and loathing. And calls to gag those "killjoys" who dare suggest that we should draw breath and reappraise what really matters in life.