Forbes' World's Most Powerful List: a reflection.

Forbes has produced a list of the world's most powerful people. Now, I suppose there is nothing particularly wrong - or particularly novel - about such a task. However, I took exception to how Forbes defined their effort. Forbes said of its inaugural ranking, that it had narrowed the list to 67 people: "a number based on the conceit that one can reduce the world's 6.7 billion people to the one in every 100 million that matter."

Wow. So, Forbes thinks the rest of us don't matter. They are, rather crassly, defining their list as the only 67 people "who matter". Well, pardon me for a moment, for having an opinion of my own...but I don't think much of what - and whom - Forbes thinks "matters".

According to Forbes, a person matters if they are rich, powerful or both. Power is defined in terms of the ability to influence people or events. That is it. No other ingredients appear to be necessary. They completely omit all qualities of character, mind, personality, intelligence, creativity...apparently, these things just don't "matter".

Let us look at the Top 10 on Forbes' World's Most Powerful List:

1. U.S. President Barack Obama
2. Chinese President Hu Jintao
3. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
4. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
5. Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page
6. Carlos Slim, Chief Executive of Mexico's Telmex
7. Rupert Murdoch, chairman of media group News Corp.
8. Michael T. Duke, Chief executive, Wal-Mart Stores
9. Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz
10. Bill Gates, co-chairman, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

It is a list of people most of whom are familiar, yes. It is also notable that everyone on the list is, by most people's standards, wealthy. Many of them, are billionaires...all of them are, at least, millionaires. That Forbes...a magazine most obsessed with wealth, should compile a list of wealthy people to define those that "matter", should be no surprise. Yet, in my view, only two people on this list actually matter...the rest shall largely be unregarded by history.

Those two people are the founders of Google: Sergey Brin and Larry Page. They matter for a very simple reason: they had an idea. They created something. They contributed something new and useful to the world. Now, Bill Gates also started a company...but I don't really consider him to be a creative person - his software was bought from others, his ideas were all secondhand, observed from others. No: Bill Gates is not a great creator, but he is a great business person. However, in my view, being a great business person does not constitute someone who "matters".

The most important people in the world, the people who really "matter" are not the rich; not the powerful, nor necessarily the influential: the people who matter are those who create something new. Everyone else is dependent on these creative people - everything else is derived from their efforts. Thus, the people above, in that Forbes list are SECONDARY, to others who created that which those people are working with. They are not the key people. They are not the key drivers. They are not, contrary to what the rather shallow thinkers at Forbes "think"...at all people who matter. They are, in fact, people of no real consequence at all.

Think about it: Barack Obama, did not create the United States. He appears to have no real personal creative powers. He brings nothing new to the world. The same applies to all the other world leaders and Kings: Hu Jintao, did not create China; Vladimir Putin did not create Russia; the Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz did not create Saudi Arabia - nor does any of them exhibit much true creativity. They are decision makers, yes...but creators, no.

Then again it should be pointed out that the role that these Presidents and Kings perform exists apart from them. They did not create the role of President or King. Anyone could be President or King...it is only a series of accidents and blessings of fortune (and perhaps in the case of Obama and the like, a personal hunger), that makes them President or King. It could easily have been someone else (though, in the case of a King, it was determined at birth). What they do, would be done anyway, by someone else, by some other blessed person. Their role is not unique, not self-created. It is simply a POSITION that they occupy. They did not create the position. All they are doing is occupying a position. To my mind, that does not mean that they matter. The position is simply a placeholder for a function in society, that any person could be chosen to perform. Being chosen to perform that function does not mean that the person who performs matters in particular...because they did not create the position that they perform. There was no creative step involved, at any stage...nor need there be at any stage of the performance of their duties. Their roles are not creative roles, they are roles of decision and power. They do, however, nothing new. They subsist on worlds created by a host of others. They are not, therefore, themselves of much significance, by this measure of significance. They do not "matter".

Apart from Ben Bernanke, all the others are business people...but like I said, in general, business people do not create that which they do business with and in: they merely sell, promote and package the creative work of others. The business people are not, therefore, in themselves, significant, by this definition of significant.

Forbes' entire list, apart the Google founders, consists of relatively uncreative men. If what matters is defined as those who are creative, then none of these people actually matter at all. They may be immensely rich; they may be immensely powerful; they may be immensely influential - but their entire lives and essence are secondary to the creators on whom they depend. They are, therefore, of no true significance, themselves. The minds they subsist on, are the significant ones. We would have to know whom they base their life work on; who has formed them; who guides them, from whence "their" ideas come. Then we would know who is of true significance.

I realize that there are those who would argue with my view that it is creative people who really matter...but consider this: everything in the human world, was created by a human mind. Most people do not create anything at all, they simply spend their lives manipulating the creations of others. Who are the most significant, who matters most: those who create and contribute something new to the human world - or those who are best at manipulating that which has already been created? To my mind, the ones who create and contribute to the world of human possibilities, are the ones who matter. The others, those so expert at manipulating this world, that they become stupendously rich, immensely powerful or unbelievably influential, do not matter at all, by comparison - for they do not add anything new to the world, all they do is take control of it. Now, as anyone would know, who has ever worked, the one in charge is often not the best person in an organization...they are just the one best suited to seizing power. So, too, is it with this Forbes list: it is a list of people most adept at "working the system", leveraging power and wealth in their own directions...but not necessarily at creating anything new. Thus, in the ultimate scheme of things, they have no true significance. They do not matter - for they did not create that which they control.

The sad thing about all of this, however, is that those who created the elements of the worlds that these men control, are, generally speaking, not known: they are anonymous inventors, unfeted thinkers, whose names have not been so much lost in time, as never known at all. Our world is one that regards those most unworthy of attention, and ignores those who most deserve our respect. We elevate the administrator, above the creator; the man of state, above the man who changes our state of understanding. In this modern world, those who do again, what has always been done, but do it well and do it loudly, are feted - but those who do, for the very first time, what has never been done before, are too often, hounded for it.

Success is easy if you don't dare to be original. However, if you wish to change the world, in any way at all, though it be for the better, the whole world will be against you. Everyone on that Forbes list, took a relatively easy path to success. By this I mean, that, though they have great power, wealth and influence, that pathways exist for people to tread to their positions. What they have achieved was, in almost all cases, something that already existed. It was a position that needed to be filled, or a product that needed to be sold. They did not create it. However, should anyone ever wish to do anything new, they will find that there is no path to success in that endeavour: there is nothing but a blocked road, with no visible way through. The creator must find their own path....indeed, more accurately, they must build their own road, where no road has gone before.

Though the creator's path is so much more difficult to travel than the politician's, or the businessman's, or the administrator's - for none of the elements exist, and all must be created along the way - our society does not regard the creator as often, or as highly, as it does the President, or the King, or the Tycoon. Oddly, we live in a world that cherishes the worthless, and yet belittles the priceless. A President is no match for a poet; a King no match for an artist; a Tycoon, no match for a writer. The merest scientist is worth more than the greatest administrator. The world was built on the bricks called ideas - and it is those that contribute new bricks to this world, who should be most regarded. It is not those who then use the bricks, to build their wealth, their power and their influence, who should be well-regarded - for not a one of the bricks came from them. They did not fashion the ideas with which their empires are forged.

Forbes is in error, to state that its 67 famous names, are the only people who "matter" in this world. Almost none of their chosen names, really matter. Forbes has chosen money men and powerbrokers, over creators. That tells us nothing of real importance about the world - it just informs us, of Forbes' value system, that is all.

A list of people who really matter, would be a list consisting purely of creative thinkers. It would be a list of scientists, writers, artists, poets, musicians, social innovators, mathematicians, musicians and philosophers. It would not contain a single President, King, powerbroker, businessman or administrator - unless that person was also one of the creative categories mentioned.

It is telling of our times, that Forbes thinks its list of the powerful important. They have completely forgotten what the Greeks learnt so, so long ago: it is the thinkers, who matter, to a civilization most. What does it say of our times, that Forbes doesn't know that?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals. If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

The lack of entrepreneurs in Singapore

Today, I saw stark evidence for the lack of entrepreneurialism in Singapore. It may not seem much, but the message of what I witnessed is quite clear.

My wife and I had heard about the "flea market" at the Singapore Art Museum on Saturdays. We had mutual memories of Camden Market in London to inspire us with visions of innumerable idiosyncratic little stalls selling the oddest of things - things that would be a good quirky addition to any home. So, with this preconceived idea of what we might see, we went to the Singapore Art Museum.

What we saw, when we entered the central, open space in the Museum where the flea market was being held, quite astonished us. There was nothing there at all - approximately speaking. Not one of the eight stalls I counted amounted to the word stall. They were thoughtless, haphazard and uninteresting in content and presentation. The staff were listless, already bored with the lack of custom. It was both shocking and pathetic. The typical stall consisted of a few pieces of junk thrown onto a table. It was ludicrous.

We felt embarrassed for Singapore - and for ourselves for being there.

It was instantly clear that something was wrong. I have never seen a country so unable to muster such a simple thing as a flea market. Every other country I have visited (about 20), has a thriving subculture of people willing to set up any shop, anywhere. It is from these corner street acts of entrepreneurship, that great entrepreneurial stories begin. Not so, however, in Singapore. A country of 4.6 million people cannot muster more than 8 sad efforts at stalls, when an event calls upon it to do so. That, to me, means that entrepreneurs are rare in Singapore. The attitude of entrepreneurship is not widespread enough even to support a little bit of free market salesmanship at a flea market.

This is sad for what it says of Singapore's future. Every entrepreneur's biography or life history that I have read tells tales of small ventures begun often in childhood - tiny efforts at entrepreneurialism, such as a market stall, from which great empires spring. It is in these small efforts that people learn the skills and mindset of the entrepreneur. Without such experiences and little trials, few have the experience and courage to try anything on a bigger scale. This first step is missing in Singapore. People, generally speaking, just don't even try the first rungs of entrepreneurship, without which they are not mentally equipped for the higher rungs.

The absence of a lively flea market, today, at Singapore Art Museum is thus symptomatic of a serious problem facing Singapore. Without the young entrepreneurs of today, there are no great companies of tomorrow. Today, I witnessed a dearth of just such young entrepreneurs. Tomorrow, this promises a dearth of great new companies.

What is most telling about this is that I have never witnessed such a lack of entrepreneurial spirit anywhere else. I have travelled fairly widely - but never seen such a lack of the basic drive to build a venture, however small. Perhaps Singaporeans think a market stall is not good enough for them. Perhaps they think that only something grander will do for a start. This shows a failing of understanding of what even a market stall can teach a young person. All the basic skills of salesmanship and marketing are involved. All the basic skills of sourcing a product, pricing them, finding a niche. In fact, all the basic skills that make up the backbone of much larger ventures. Starting a market stall could very well be the beginning of a career that ends up with a Mustapha Centre sized outlet.

Perhaps what I saw today was a national pride against starting small. Yet, most great enterprises started that way. Not starting small, usually means never starting at all.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and five months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and ten months, and Tiarnan, twenty-seven months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind, niño, gênio criança, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

SMRT an unfair taxi fare

This is a post for Singaporeans or those who are to visit Singapore.

Like many who live in Singapore, I not infrequently take a taxi. They are often more convenient than other forms of transport and, because they don't stop at regular intervals throughout a journey, like buses or trains (the MRT), they tend to be quicker. Yet, sometimes they don't seem so good.

A few days ago, I booked a cab. My wife made the call and, seeing that there was just no way on Earth that the cab would arrive before 9.30 am, we thought that we would avoid the penal surcharges that are levied for a booking before 9.30 am. For those who are unaware, the standard starting rate for a taxi in Singapore is $2.50. However, if you book a taxi in the morning, there will be surcharges amounting to another $6.00 making the starting rate $8.50. This comprises a "peak rate" of $2 and a booking fee of $4.00. So, it is more than three times more expensive to take a taxi before 9.30 am, if you book, than if you wait until after 9.30 and don't book. At least the starting rate is that much more expensive.

We got into the cab at 9.39 am - well after the watershed of 9.30 am - and journeyed to our destination. I was rather surprised then, when we arrived, to see the "booking fee" of $4.00 added to my bill.

"Why are you charging me this when your cab didn't arrive until 9.39 am?" I read this time from the receipt.

"Ah, that one is the taxi company: they charge you from the time you book."

He pointed at the time on the booking record: 9.27 am.

Great. So, because my wife picked the phone up at 9.27 am we were charged as if we were travelling at that time.

So, in Singapore it is not the time you travel that determines the charges - it is the time you decide to travel that really counts!

Unless it doesn't bother you to be charged three times as much for the same journey, I would suggest waiting until after 9.30 am to make that call - unless you cannot help it. (Though there is a surcharge for calling after that time, too - though less).

I tried to point out the illogicality of charging a customer a rate for a time not travelled at to "customer service" - but they weren't having anything of it. He mumbled about having to charge that rate "otherwise we have no business...ah".

It is funny really - but the customer service rep justified the charge - and its timing - by saying that his company needed to make money out of the customers. He seemed to be supporting the idea that a company should do what it can to exploit its customers if it gets the chance. I nearly laughed - but instead I put the phone down. It was much more satisfying.

Now, I don't normally complain about poor service or exploitation of the customer, here, simply because there is just so much of it. So I generally "suffer in silence" - it is just that that morning I was so surprised to be charged a surcharge for a time I hadn't actually travelled, that I actually picked up the phone and complained: not, of course, that it did any good.

Yet, it was interesting to learn that, here at least, poor behaviour on the part of a company, is justifiable by its employees because of the desire to make as much money from the customer as possible. I wonder how many other companies around the world, providing a public service, like transportation, would publicly espouse that view?

I had this experience with an SMRT taxi. I don't know if the ruling applies to bookings with Comfort or Citicab or Premiere or any of the smaller firms - but I would not be surprised, since they don't really compete with each other, but tend to move in unison, in the market.

The conclusion from this is that you should not book a taxi in Singapore during the peak period - if you want to travel later than that period - because you will be treated as a peak period traveller, from the point of view of the booking surcharges, no matter what time you subsequently travel.

Happy journeying, all.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and nine months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and two months, and Tiarnan, nineteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)