Link of the week

This week a very interesting link.

You must have, like me, sometimes overlooked a battle and said to yourself that if it were you, you would have done things different and of course win the battle. But when you are really in the sandals of the general that is an entire new ball game.

This video is good for that. It shows four normal guys put in the role of generals and they must fight one of determinant Alexander the Great's battle. Three things gets out of this experiment:

1. The importance of communication. Generals must communicate with their Lieutenants. In the middle of chaos even more. Even if you are just stating the fact that anybody can see. Communicate!
2. Once you adopt a strategy and tactics. Don't second guess! Fight it to the end. You may win or you may lose. But if you change tactics during the fight, you WILL lose.
3. The importance of troop’s morale. Alexander fought in first wave. While Darius flees the battle field. As a result the Macedonians fought harshly while massive amount of Darius troops ran for their lives abandoning the combat field. This played an important part in Alexander victory even when is was outnumbered 3 to 1 for the battle.

Enjoy this video.

Time commander: Battle of Gaugamela - Part 1

Time commander: Battle of Gaugamela - Part 2

Time commander: Battle of Gaugamela - Part 3

I've got you labelled

Clothes may make the man, but it is the label that reallu counts.

Designers of fancy apparel would like their customers to believe that wearing their creations lends an air of wealth, sophistication and high status. And it does- but not, perhaps, for the reasons those designers might like to believe, namely their inherent creative genius. A new piece of research confirms what many, not least in the marketing departments of fashion houses, will long have suspected: that it is not the design itself that counts, but the label.

Rob Nelissen and Marijn Meijers of Tilburg University in the Netherlands examined people's reactions to experimental stooges who were wearing clothes made by Lacoste and Tommy Hilfiger, two well-known brands that sells what they are pleased to refer as designer clothing. As the two researchers show in a paper about the to be published in Evolution and Human Behavior, such clothes do bring the benefits promised: co-operation from others, job recommendations and even the ability to collect more money when soliciting for charity. But they work only when the origin of the clothes in question is obvious.

In the first experiment, volunteers were shown pictures of a man wearing a polo shirt. The polo was digitally altered to include no log, a designer logo (Lacoste or Hilfiger) or a logo generally regarded as non-luxury, Slazenger. When the designer logo appeared, the man in the picture was rated as of higher status (3.5 for Lacoste and 3.47 for Hilfiger, on a five point scale, compared with 2.91 for no logo and 2,84 for Slazenger), and wealthier (3.4 and 3.94 versus 2.78 and 2.8, respectively).

To see if this perception had an effect on actual behaviour, the researchers did a number of other experiments. For instance, one of their female assistant asked people in a shopping mall to stop and answer survey questions. One day she wore a sweather with a designer logo; the next, an identical sweater with no logo. Some 52% of people agreed to take the survey when faced with Tommy Hilfiger label, compared with only 13% who saw no logo.

In another experiment, volunteers watched one of two videos of the same man being interviewed for a job. In one, his shirt had a logo; in the other, it did not. The logo led observers to rate the man as more suitable for the job, and even earned him 9% higher salary recommendation.

Charitable impulses were affected, too. When two of the team's women went collecting for charity on four consecutive evenings, switching between designer and non-designer shirts, they found that wearing shirts with logos brought in nearly twice as much - an average per answered door of 34 euro cents (48 American ones) compared with 19 euro cents when logoless. It seems, then, that labels count. The question is, why?

The answer, Dr Nelissen and Dr Meijers suspect, is the same as why the peacock with the best tail gets all the girls. People react to designer labels as signals of underlying quality. Only the best can afford them. To test that idea, they checked how people responded to a logo they knew had cost the wearer nothing. To do this, they asked their volunteers to play social-dilemma game, in which both sides can benefit from co-operating, but only at the risk of being taken adbantage of.

Each volunteer was given 2$ in 10 cent coins and told he (or she) could transfer as much as desired to an unseen partner, and that any amount transferred would be doubled. If both partners transferred all of their money, each would end up with 4$. But because there was no garantee that the unseen partner would give back any money at all, players tended to hedge their bets, and transfer only some money.

When shown a picture of their purported partner wearing a designer shirt, volunteers transferred 36% more than when the same person was shown with no logo (95 cents, as opposed to 70 cents). But when told that the partner was wearing a shirt given by the experimenters, the logo had no effect on transfers. The shirt no longer represented an honest signal.

This study confirms a wider phenomenon. A work of art's value, for example, can change radically, depending on who is believed to have created it, even though the artwork itself is unchanged. And people will willingly buy counterfeit goods, knowing they are knock-offs, if they bear the right label. What is interesting is that the label is so persuasive. In the case of the peacock, the tail works precisely because it cannot be faked. An unhealthy bird's feathers will never sparkle. But humans often fail to see behond the superficial. For humans, then, the status-assessment mechanism is going wrong.

Presumably what is happening is that a mechanism which evolved to assess biology cannot easily cope with artefacts. If the only thing you have to assess is the quality of a tail, evolution will tend to make you quite good at it. Artefacts, though, are so variable that mental shortcuts are likely to be involved. If everyone agrees something has high status, then it does. But that agreement often transfers the status from the thing to the label. Maybe a further million years or so of evolution will eliminate this failing. In the meantime, marketers can open another bottle of champagne.

... and so can you my fellow strategists. For you can use this at your advantage.

Source: The Economist.

Link of the week

This week only one link. But a very inspiring one. It is not long and I strongly suggest everyone to read it.

You want to atchieve your dreams? Get dealy.

And read this.

Peace of wisdon: The good the bad and the Ugly

"See in this world there is two kinds of people my friend. Those with loaded guns. And those who dig...

... You dig."

Stop being a fuckin joker!

I just read a thread from one of my favorite Blog: SebastianMarshall.com: Strategy, Philosophy, Self-Discipline, Science. Victory.

There come times that you need a slap in the face and a kick in the butt. This post was one for me.

One of the advantage of being kicked in the butt is that it propels you forward. This is a post that I will read again and again. See. I've been a fuckin joker for several years. And now it is time I put my foot on the floor and start atchieving.

It is about time that I unleash myself on to the world.

I will eather find a way or make one. Let the forces of hell be with me!

What stroke me most on the post is when he is asking: "...you're all highly highly skilled, top 1% at your craft. You're all highly intelligent, top 1% of the population. You've all got excellent social skills, top 1% communication skills. And yet, you're middle class. Have you reflected on that? You're the top 1% IN EVERY CATEGORY THAT MATTERS, and yet, you're relatively poor."

This is a slap in the face to remember. Not just a "yes, yes he is so right" and then move back to incipid activities.

Like Hannibal I shall either find a way or make one. And by doing so I will appear as the one who has the Forces of hell on my side.

Thanks Sebastian.

Today shall mark the death of the Joker.

Cry havoc! And let slip the math of war

Warfare seems to obey mathematical rules. Whether soldiers can make use of that fact remains to be seen.

In 1948 Lewis Fry Richardson, a British scientist, published what was probably the first rigorous analysis of the statistics of war. Richardson ahd spent seven years gathering data on the wars waged in the century or so prior to his study. There were almost 300 of them. The list runs from conflicts that claimed a thousand or so lives to the devastation of the two world wars. But when he plotted his results, he found that these diverse events fell into a regular pattern. It wasas if the chaos of war seemed to comply with some hitherto unknown law of nature.

At first glance the pattern seems obsious. Richardson found that wars with low death tolls far outnumber high-fatality conflicts. But that obvious observation conceals a precise mathematical description of the link betweenthe severity and the frequency of conflicts to follow a smooth curve known as a power law. One consequence is that extreme events such as the world wars do not appear to be anomalies. They are simply what should be expected to occur occasionnally, given the frequencywith which conflicts take place.

The results have fascinated mathematicians and military strategists ever since. They have also been replicated many times. But they have not much impact on the conduct of actual wars. As a result, there is a certain "so what" quality to Richardson's results. It is one thing to show that a pattern exists, another to do something useful with it.

In a paper currently under review at Science, however, Neil Johnson of the university of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, and his colleagues hint at what that something useful might be. Dr Johnson's team is one of several groups who, in previous papers, have shown that Richardson's power law also applies to attacks by terrorists and insurgents. They and others have broadened Richardson's scope of inquiry to include the timing of attack, as well as the severity. This prepared the ground for the new paper, which outlines a method for forecasting the evolution of conflicts.

Progress, of a sort

Dr Johnson's proposal rests on a pattern he and his team found in data on insurgent attacks against American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. After the initial attacks in a given province, subsequent fatal incidents become more and more frequent. The intriguing points is that it is possible, using a formula Dr Johnson has derived, to predict the details of this pattern from the interval between the first two attacks.

The formula in question (T_n=T₁n^-b) is one of a familiar type, known as aprogress curve, that describes how productivity improves in a range of human activities from manufacturing to cancer surgery. T_{n is the number of days between the nth attack and its successor. (}T_{1 is therefore the number of days between the first and the second attacks.) The other element of the equation, b, turns out to be directly related to} T_{1. It is calculated from the relationship between the logarithms of the attack number, n, and the attack interval,} T_{n. The upshot is that knowing} T_{1 should be enough to predict the future course of a local insurgency. Conversely, changing b would change both} T_{1 and} T_{n, and thus change that future course.}

_{Though the fit between the data and the prediction is not perfect (an example is illustrated at the beginnng of this post), the match is close enough that Dr Johnson thinks he is onto something. Progress curves are a consequence of people adapting to circumstances and learning to do things better. And warfare is just as capable of productivity improvements as any other activity.}

_{The twist in warfare is that two antagonistic groups of people are doing the adapting. Borrowing a term used by evolutionary biologists (who, in turn, stole it from Lewis Carroll's book, "Through the Looking-Glass"), Dr Johnson likens what is going on to the mad dash made by Alice and the Red Queen, after which they find themselves exactly where they started.}

_{Personal note: I shall explain how to defeat the Red Queen effect in another post.}

_{In biology, the Red Queen hypothesis is that predators and prey (or, more often, parasites and hosts) are in a constant competition that leads to stasis,a s each adaptation by one is countered by an adaptation by the other. In the case of Dr. Johnson is examining the co-evoluation is between the insurgents and the occupiers, each constantly adjusting to each other's tactics. The data come from 23 different provinces, each of which is, in effect, a separate theatre of war. In each case, the gap between fatal attacks shrinks, more or less according to Dr. Johnson's model. Eventually, an equilibrium is reached, and the intervals become fairly regular.}

_{The mathematics do not reveal anything about what the adaptations made by each side actually are, behond the obvious observation that practice makes perfect. Nor do they illuminate what the value of b variesso much from place to place. Dr. Johnson has already ruled out geography, density of displaced people, the identity of local warlords and even poppy production. If he does find the crucial link, though, military strategists will be all over him. But then such knowledge might perhaps be countered by the otherside, in yet another lap of the Red Queen race.}

_{Source: The Economist}

Links of the week

Julius Ceasar - Cretical moments

Excellent documentary by the BBC. I just love Ceasar. When it comes to strategy. He is one of my all time favorite.

Islam: Empire of faith.

See how Islam came to be. And this is one of the culture I am least familiar with. It is good to see where they come from. It gives ideas of where they are heading to.

Suspicious minds

Deceiving others has its advantages. Camouflage in nature is useful to the hunter and the hunted. The smarter the animal, the more likely it is to use (and detect) deception to its benefits. Humans are particularly good at exploiting trickery to get ahead - for more money, more power or a desired mate. Yet deception is difficult, regardless of intelligence. Lying often leaves us nervous and twitchy, and complicated fictions can lead to depression and poor immune function. And then there are the ethical implications.

In "The folly of fools" Robert Trivers, an American evolutionary biologist, explains that the most effectively devious people are often unaware of their deceit. Self-deception makes it easier to manipulate others to get ahead. Particularly intelligent people can be especially good at deceiving themselves.

Mining research in biology, neurophysiology, immunology and psychology, Mr Trivers delivers a swift tour of links between deception and evolutionary progress. Some of it is intuitive. The grey squirrel, for example, cleverly builds false caches to discourage others from raiding its acorns. Placebos are sometimes as effective as medication without the nasty side effects. Other illustrations require more head-scratching. Mr Trivers argues that competition between our maternal and paternal genes can create "split selves", which try to fool each other on a biological level. Human memory often involves an unconscious process of selection and distortion, the better to believe the stories we tell others.

All of this deceit comes at a price. Mr Trivers suggests that the most cunning people (whether conscious fibbers or not) tend to benefit at the expense of everyone else. He highlights the way overconfident Wall Street traders may hurt investors and taxpayers at little personal risk. Then there are politicians who spin stories of national greatness to bolster support for costly wars in which they will not be fighting.

There is certainly no shortage of human folly to concider. Mr Trivers offers some fascinating evidence of our biological cunning, yet the science of self-deception often takes a back seat to his political views and scepticism of the social sciences. This book could probably do without his long disgressions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Iraq war. But by the time readers reach these last few chapters, they will be very wary of taking any story at face value anyay.

Source: The Economist

C

I have found a new Manga serie. It is called C. Watch it for yourself.

Its full name is "C - The money and soul of possibility"

I find it is a very strange serie. But at the same time, if you read between the lines, it is all very accurate.

It is the story of an ordinary boy who wants to live a normal life and is truggling to make ends meet. Then he is introduced to the Financial District. A place where some kind of secret society makes deals and win... or loose money. Every member of Financial District has to make at least one deal a week. Those who go bankrupt are expelled from Financial District. And it is said that bankrupcy brings huge consequences in the real world. Because they say that your future is kept as collateral for the huge amount of money that the Financial District lend you when you get in...

Its a very intricate story. But I can't help to feel that there is something burried in that serie. Some kind of knoledge of how things really works (without the Pokemon type anime of course).

Its interesting...

Have a look. And drop me a line of what you think about it...?

Lets build an empire shall we?

Have you ever wondered what are your limits? How can you know them if you don’t push yourself to the impossible?
I always wondered what it would take to build a multi-billions dollars conglomerate empire? Delusion of grandeur? Maybe. Or maybe it is possible. If you don’t aim for the moon you will never end up in between. What if Alexander the Great was told by Aristotle that he had delusion of grandeur and he’d better concentrate on his teaching… and what if Alexander did comply?

The thing that I found magnificent about the ancient Greeks is that everything was magnificent, grandiose and heroic. We have a lot to learn about that culture. More if, like me, you come from a Christian background in which you learn that you must accept your faith, that everything that happens its because of God’s will (like I have no impact on my life) and that I should be thankful for anything I have. Even if I have nothing, I should thank good not having less…

So I will start a new section on this blog that I will call Conglomerate.
The idea is to start a company. Grow it. And see where it leads. Documenting here all the strategic tasks and movement to get it to the top.

This will be a true business venture. A live one. Its code name of the company will be The Noble House, in order to keep its identity secret. Maybe one day, if it becomes the empire I foresee, will I identify it here. But for now, for strategic purpose, lets stick with the code name.

Liar Game

What would you do with a 100 million?

Imagine you come home and there is a box waiting for you. This letter accompanying the box states that this money is your money. So you can keep it. But there’s a catch. As soon as you open the box, you are playing the game. There is no way around it.

There is someone else in the world that received a box like you. With the same amount. And you have 30 days to get all that person’s money… by any means. If you don’t try, it is this person that will get all you money. And at the end of the 30 days. What ever amount you lost… you owe!

How would you play the game? Follow the rules? Remain legal? Steal? Deceive? Convice? Trade? Who would you ally with? The best trade of the world? The Mafia?

The entire spectrum of the human psyche is there for the player to use. And this would be a very good experiment in human behaviour. Of course it wouldn’t be ethical. But never the less interesting.

If you want to know more about the human psyche, and how to play game with high stakes. Read this amazing Manga that I’ve found: Liar Game.

It is very interesting… on a strategist view point.

We were not taught how to fight

We, for most of us, live in a lawful society. A society in which our rights are preserved and garanteed by law. A society in which our physical integrity is protected by law. Therefore there is no need to fight. You bring your issue to the court. The judge rules and one must follow the judgement. Period. No need to fight. No need to learn how to defend yourself. This is outdated.

But is it?

Who has never encountered a situation in which the sauce could have turned sour from a tramp in the subway? Or from a bully on the street? Most of us have encountered such situations.

There is occasions in which you would need fighting knowledge to defend yourself. And I said to defend yourself. Not to provoque and attack. Because even if your are not looking for shit. Sooner or later, shit comes to you.

I've had my first class of Krav Maga last week. And I loved it! My teacher is a retired soldier who made career in the special ops, them moved on as bodyguard to top politicians. He now have his school of Krav Maga. You would cross him on the street, he looks like a pretty normal guy: good looking, heathly, smiling, cool. But try to fuck with him and he can destroy you in about 10 seconds. I really mean "destroy". I must be honest. I found him intimidating. When he shows us stuff, I can sense so much power within him, its freaking me.

So it made me think. When you are in a society in which most people does not know how to fight. And you do know. You then have a strategic advantage over them. Not to use force against people to get what you want. You'll end up in jail. But imagine going out at night knowing that there is no one on the street that can do any harm to you. You feel safe anywhere, any time. You feel like you are mostly in full control of your environment. Meaning that nothing that surrounds you feels like a menace. In fact, if someone's tries to get funny with you, you're the menace.

Strenght in knowing how to fight gives you a strategic advantage over the rest of society. Especially in a society that doesn't know how to defend itself.

But remember. With any strenght come a responsibility. One should use it wisely and for the good.

Steve Jobs has left us this week

We had a tremendeous loss this week. Steve Jobs has left us.

I sincerelly feel that we live in a little bit lesser world now that he is gone. There is so many people out there who are just alive. They don't really live. They're there, washing their teeths on the morning, hitting the subway, doing their day work, heading back home, cooking dinner, helping the kids with their home works. Hit the shower and go to sleep. That's their lives. And that is how they will live period. I have nothing against them. But they are not the people who will make a difference in the world. They are only the gardians of the status quo.

And then, you have people like Steve Jobs. People with ideas, dreams, wit and will. And wants to change the world to make it a better place. Their mind are on fire. And they cannot help it but change, fix, transform, adapt, shape our surroundings in maners never thought before. Thus making this planet a better world to live in.

Steve Jobs was one of them. Farewell Mr. Jobs. Good job while you were at it. I bow to you in respect.

And now... My little sinical side cannot help it but to ask:"Who will save Apple now?" Steve Jobs was... thanked and replaced by mediocre minds once. They had to beg for him to get back and save them. But now... now what?

What ever you lack to use, you loose

There is a fundamental principle in life that I found can be applied to anything. It goes like this:

"What ever you lack to use, you loose."

For example if you don't nurture your couple. There will come a point at which your significant other will leave. If you stop doing a craft or a sport. You will loose it. Let go of your house or your car. It will decay. Don`t speack a laguage, you will loose most of it.

Anything. This principle applies.

Make sure you take good care of things, people and knowledge that you like, love or that is of some use to you.

Link of the week and Case study: Jerry Garcia

Jerry Garcia was the guitarist of the Greatful Dead... Among other things.

He was a true polymath and marketing genius. He used a strategy for the Greatful Dead that was never seen back then. In an age where people were saying "please let us remind you no pictures and no pirate recording during the show..." Greatful Dead went the total opposite.

Sure bootleg us! Share you recording, sell it among each other. This helps the band getting known. And it helps on the sellings of a miriad of derivative products. So the recording was freely given to whom wanted to make a copy... But the money was made anyway... on the T-shirts, necklaces and other band's products.

This an example of thinking out of the box as a true strategist: do things the way others don't... and win.

Read more on Jerry Garcia by following this link.

The strategy of the Iron Curtain for (doom) couple.

The Iron Curtain concept was developped in the climax of the cold war. The Communist East european countries, lead by the Soviet Union, litterally and physically separated Europe into two parts. The West: the decadent capitalists (so they said). And the East: the brave new world of communists.

Nothing was coming out the communist states. It was hard to know anything. How they live? What they were up to? What’s their thoughs and trends? Etc… We only knew what they allowed to west to know. And then. They were surprising every ones at the Olympics with the quality of their athletes. Or at Universal Expositions, they were stunning the world with their technological, social, education breaktouts…

In short. The Iron Curtain strategy implies that you develop, grow and improve better than your opponent. But you let know nothing of your improvements to your opponents. So while they sleep and think that every thing is good under the sky, you on your side, are deploying massive efforts to eventually overcome your opponent.

A few years ago one of my good friend had a wife (noticed the verb time here?).

She was one of the worst bitch I have ever seen, She took him for granted. She was complaining all the time. Nothing was too good for her or well made enough for her. My friend could not talk to her. Every time he did so, it was turned against him. She took all opportunity she had, even publicly to morally emasculate my friend. Here is a few examples he told me:

He decided once to take boxing class (nothing to do with her). When he happily announced it to his wife, she looked at him scornfully and said something like “you wouldn't be able to strike a mouse…” Every time my friend talked about a project he had, she turned it down. Every time he proposed an idea or a solution to what ever situation in the house, for the kids, etc… it was never good. And she always reproched him his opinions as stupid, unclear, unrealistic, what ever.

So my friend closed himself. For five years that this situation went on before the break up, he took boxing class, got promotted, proposed stuff that were accepted at work or in his cummunity, went to movies with friends without sharing toughts and opinions about it to his wife, he read books that he ketp for himself. He trained his body. She probably had noticed the change but didn’t say a word about it. He even took salsa class and became good at it. Without his wife knowing or caring. And that is where he met his current girlfriend.

All along he never shared a single thought, opinion, suggerstion with his wife. The conversation was to the effect of mundane things: “pass me the milk please… don’t forget to cut the grass… bla bla bla…” No shouting, less complaints and critique from his wife because she had nothing, no ground, no material on which she could critique.

On his side my friend was evolving, learning new things, meeting new people. He improved his finances and managed to make some savings on his side. His self-esteem increased because he was not slaped on the head anymore at every breath he was taking. And at one point he got enough self-esteem, accumulated enough pride and confidence that he left his wife and started a new life with salsa girl.

See what my friend did is to use the Iron Curtain strategy. In the face of total adversity. Some times it is better not to fight up front. There is no use. You will end up depleting your energy and that’s it. Instead, stay quiet. Mind your own business. Do not offer any thought, any opinions, any help that would be scornfully dashed anyway. Evolve the way you want to evolve without sharing it with the source of your… resistance.

You will come to a point in which you will feel more full, more accomplished. And you will feel higher self-esteem because you will have accomplished all that by your own, without help or support (help and support that would have not come anyway). And you will accomplish all that without the critique, complaints, the derision from your “opponent”.

When you start such a strategy. It must be clear in your head that the relationship you have with the “opponent” is seriously severed. Some time to the point of no return. But for some reasons, you cannot quit, leave, let go or break the relationship all together for now. Therefore you rely on the Iron Curtain strategy for the time it serves your purpose.

Poor choice of strategy.

The other day I was tired so I decided to play couch potato and flip the channels on the TV. I got to the season premiere of a show we’ve got here. They place six guys and six girls in a house and the couple that comes out of it with "true love" gets to win a house, furniture and money.

On the season’s premiere the girls gets to pick the guys that are going to be allowed in the house. There is about 12 guys and only 6 will be chosen. But this year they introduced a twist. In the previous season, I’ve been told by a girl friend of mine who watch the show, that the guys presented themselves one after the other and all the girls decided together if they want to keep the guy or not. This year, once a girl decided to keep a guy, she then lost her "vote" to keep any further guys. She then had to rely on the remaining girls’ choice for further candidates. Each girl had to choose one guy and by doing so, loosing their right to choose for now on.

So the first guy comes along, presents himself and then while the girls were deliberating, they passed a little clip of the guy before he met the girls. The guy said "I want to be the first to pass because in the previous seasons the first was always selected". When the guy came back on the stage to get the girls’ result, what I suspected happened.
The girls decided to let go of him and not to choose him.

I knew it! This guy made a very bad choice of strategy. What he did is to ignore the state of the environment. The rules had changed and he played his strategy by the rules of last season… and lost.

See. Since the girls will loose their right of choice as soon as they choose to keep a guy, then they won’t want to waste their right on the first candidate. There is still plenty of men to come therefore the cost of letting go of the first one is minimum for the girls. The guys should have fought to pass somewhere when around 2/3 of the guys were passed. Because by then the girls’ choices would become scarce and would practically take anything that comes that fits their lowest standard, based on their fright of the next candidate being worst than the present one. Know what I mean?
So unless you are a drop dead Calvin Klein model, don’t pass first on those condition.

This set up is the same thing as in life. And several studies had been made on this. See. When women are young, they are picky. They play difficult. But as time past, when they see all their friends getting married and getting kids, while the only thing they can rely on is… they carrier. Then they get less picky. Their clock is ticking and the studies shows that as more the time past, the lower the standards gets.

So you want to get a gorgeous woman on your arm? Look at those single 30 to 40 years old women. There is less competition in that niche and women are more willing to bend their... rules of choice.

To finish with the morale of the story: When playing a game. Any games. A game of love on TV or the game of life. Make sure you understand on which rules you are playing. And to get an advantage over your opponents, understand the others’ responses and behaviour under those rules. By not understanding the rules of his game, our first guy got dismissed and lost.

My 100th post!

This is my 100th post!

I am very proud because starting a blog is fairly easy. Keeping it alive and up to date is an entire ball game.

Consistancy. That is what is required. And my experiences so far has thought my that, in most undertakings, often the winner is not the strongest or the smartest, or the one with the more experience. No. it is the one with the more consistancy.

Patiently but surely...

As per my blog stats. I haven't advertised my blog anywhere. And I did that in purpose. I wanted to know how it would grow by the force of its content uniquely. And I must say I'm impressed and satisfied. But I wonder if I can do more. I am going to do two things.

1. I will make my intervention more... sound. Based on facts and studies. Relevant information.

2. I will ask the pulse of my readers. What do you want to hear and know about strategy?

The ball is in your camp now. The question is out. I'll wait for your responses.

Tribute to 9/11

Today no post.

But a tribute to the victims of the worst terrorist attack of modern times.

A day that will live in infamy. A day that really brought to the world the meaning of terror.

Thoughts... following Quest for fire

I watched an old movie this week-end. One I've seen some 30 years ago: Quest for fire.

If you haven't seen it. I highly recommand it to you. You can watch it by following this link.

Don'worry about the language. There is none all along the movie. It is the story of a cave men clan that is been attacked by a horde of other... cave men or monkeys... And they have been stolen their fire. So they send a party of their best warriors to a journey to find fire (they have not found how to make fire yet).

The movie is very interesting on several levels. But there is one that stroke me. At one point they encounter a clan. You can see that it is a more advanced clan: they know how to make fire. Thus they can allocate their time on other endeavour. For instance, they know how to build huts (while the "hero" ' s clan live in a cave). They dance, they paint. They surrounded their village with an intricate network of quicksand. So they don't get anoided by invaders...

So this accumulation of wealth and power over the other tribes brings them more leasure time. And I wondered. Is this all it is? Wealth and power brings leasure? That's it?

Well it looks like it. When you watch most of the empires that have risen. Wealth and power have brouth more leasure to its population. But then I asked myself. So why is it that a significantly advanced civilizaion always end up declining and desapear?

That is when it struck me. Any empire get destructed by the very thing that wealth and power brings! It gets more powerful and wealthier. This brings more leasure to its population. Then abundant leasure brings boredom, lasiness, idleness and procrastination. And then slowly the empire gets cracked and at one point, it breaks appart. We tend to think that its this horde of civilization A that brought down the empire B. Or the nation of C that overcame empire D. But in fact they were all able to destroy the empire after it was weaken from within.

That is what happened to the Roman empire. That is what happened to the British empire. And that is what we see happeneing to the American empire right now.

I rest my case!

I've talked before on this blog about my philosophy of getting out of the corporate slavery reality. But who I'm I really to have an original idea and original thought about the subject right?

I mean I am a nobody. I didn't write anything of any importance, I never atchieved anything of significant national or human scaled value... so who I'm I to question the status quo?

But at last I am not the only one now. Some people more influential than me are getting the point.

Read this: from Seth Godin' Blog.

Now if you want to be a sheap. Well by all means go ahead and be a sheap. But please do know that you are a sheap. Don't fool yourself and don't live in denial. Accept the fact consciously: " I am a sheap. I have no inclination of being my own boss. I follow orders. That's the way I am. Its my nature".

There is no shame about it. As long as you don't try to fool yourself. You might be able to do so. But you won't fool others.

Do you remember my case study Eric? Eric is my friend and I love him dearly as a friend. But there is one thing that is bothering me with him. As per his job, he lives in total denial.

No later than last week he told me that he had to go to his company's head office with the rest of his team. This was the equivalent of going to the slauther house. They told them that they had to cut half of the staff and that the remaining people will have to swallow a pay cut. Know what he told me when he got back? He said:"you know what, I am greatful. I still have a job in these difficult times".

WHAT!

You lick the hand that just smashed you!? I can`t believe it.

I've explained my corporate philosophy to Eric and he rejected it entirely. He prefers to live in the model that we've learnt at school and from our parents:"go to school, find a good job, and work hard until you die".

Now I don't argue with my friend anymore on that subject. But I can`t help it but feel sad for him. A few weeks ago, before going to the head office, he cancelled going to climb mount Kilimandjaro with me because he said that his job was too uncertain to do such travel and make such expenses. I mean is this just me but how can you let an outside party decide for you what you are going to do or not?

And listen. In one way I am no better than my friend either. I still work for someone else for a living. And loosing that job will be a financial blow to me, I must admit. But at least I consider that I am awake. And that I am deploying energies in order to get rid of my employer. Instead of doing nothing.

But getting back to our main subject, don't be fooled my dear readers. You are a corporate slave until the day you get to the office day and realize that, if you still go in there to work, it is because you like it. Not for financial aid. When you realize that you still go to work because you like it and you like the people, and that if you wanted. Or if you were obligated to leave, this wouldn't affect you financially. THAT is when you`ll know that you are not a slave anymore.

And a good strategy of life is to either maintain this state of being. Or gain it back.

The shock doctrine

Ok I'm back!

The summer vacations are over. Lets resume on the Strategy blog.

I suggest to you a very good book to read on strategy that has ramification in economics, war, espionage and psychology.

It suggest that a massive collective trauma makes people become like kids. And then they are more willing to give up their rational thinking and give in to anyone who would come and lead the way.

Take this simple example. I'm sure it happened to anyone of us. There must be a memory that you have in which you screwed up. And some adult shouted at you something like "There! You see! I told you! Now you will listen to me and do as I say!" And you did comply.

The shock doctrine works on the same principle. "But it cannot be applied to an entire population" You would say. Think again.

On September 12th 2001. And the following days. Did the Bush administration had any problems in passing laws that restrict people's freedom for the benefit of national security? No it did not. In normal time this would have generated a scandal and a wave of protest against the federal government stating that it want to destroy the constitution and enslave the population. What happened instead? People thought that the government took a sound decision and population was reassured.

Lets take another example. In the fall of 2008 after the collapse of the financial market. Did the population scream that their government were turning communist? That the government was trying to put its hand on everything that counts in the economy? No. Everybody took it as a salvation act by the government. But look what has happened this last summer without a massive crisis when it was time to vote a government extension right on borrowing. The entire nation closely came to total stall.

No major crisis, then no easy acceptance of massive measures.

Now I don’t say that those crises were provoked by the government. I don’t say that there was a conspiracy behind that. But was I do say is that some instances in the government are well aware of the shock doctrine. And since we have a crises, lets use it to our advantage to make our way…

Want to make your way? Wait for a major crisis. Be patient, it will come. And then speak loud and clear when it happens. People will follow your footsteps.

I recommend you watch this movie. Its part in French but most parts are in English.

Its very good.

And what did I tell you about languages? First knowing more that one language is giving you a strategic advantage over people who knows only one. And second, Lord Francis Bacon said that the knowledge of the world starts by the knowledge of languages.

The power of NLP – The Jedi secret weapon.

Remember in Star Wars the part where Ben Kenobi and Luke are pulled over by the stormtroopers before getting into the town. At which point Luke thinks that the game is over and they are going to be caught. Then Ben Kenobi strats his little Jedi mind trick on the head trooper.

Ben: This is not the droids you are looking for.
Trooper: This is not the droids we are looking for.
Ben: It’s ok now, go ahead, move away.
Trooper: It’s ok now, go ahead, move away. Come on, move away…

Never underestimate the power of NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming). The uses of words is power. And never underestimate the good use of psychology to get a strategic advantage.

I was with my friend the other day at an attraction park. We wanted to get into a ride but the ride was closing because of the upcoming Fireworks. My friend told the guy at the gate “come on man! There is not enough people to fill the last car, there’s room for us.” The gate keeper used all the little power he olded in the world and denied us access. So while the gatekeeper was turning his back on us, my friend passed under the gate and proceeded to wait in line at the last car. So I followed him. When the gatekeeper turned and saw that, he was really pissed because we emasculanated him before everyone who cared to watch. And we deprived him of the little power he possessed on the Universe. So he came to us and asked us to leave. My friend, with his usual tact and negotiation skills replied “You make me!” So the gatekeeper said “If you don’t leave at once, I will have to call the park’s police”. To which my friend replied “You do that. And by the way ask your manager to come along. I will have a word with him.”

So about five minutes later, (we were further in the line for the next ride), two polices came along. The gatekeeper explained them the situation and the police came to us. “Gentlemen I will have to ask you to leave”. So my friend in order to buy time started to explain our version of the situation. When that didn’t work my friend started shouting at the police, I decided it was time for me to step in. Because see, my friend was playing the police game. The police was a young arrogant fresh out of boot camp not ever his nose wipped yet. He wanted to escalate the situation to then declare us “aggressive” and so permitting him to use force against us. That’s when I stepped in.

I gently pushed my friend asside and got in front of the policeman.

- “Sir, what’s your name?”
- My name is Unwipped Nose. (Getting more personnal, cooling down the situation)
- Nice to meet you Unwipped. My name is Roy. See we mean no harm here. We just want a ride. A ride that was denied to us 5 minutes before the actual close time. And as you can see. We’re to be on the next ride. So if you let us go, this entire situation will be over in about 30 seconds. Then I proceeded to gently, friendly touch the police arm.
- I will have to ask you not to touch me sir.
- Oh I’m sorry officer (use officer to make him think he’s big and powerful and that he holds the situation). But I am a touchy person. It won’t happen again. I promess. So as I was saying, what we are going to do is take the next ride, gently, without any fuss around it and then we’ll leave. How is that officer? (Directive but gentle, telling what to do)
- What you give me orders now? (ok now we were entering a pissing contest. And he wanted to win because its his park and his collegue was just beside him watching so he didn’t want to loose face).
- Absolutly not mister officer (re enforcement). See in life I am in a line of business in which I give orders all the times. So lets call it a professional twist. I mean no disrespect to you officer (making him think that I give way in the pissing contest, to the better player). By then the car was getting to a stop and we were to get in. So he had to either let us go or use massive force to get us out. Force that he was not allowed to use anymore because I gave him no reasons in my behavior for him to justify the aggressive action. So his only option was to let us go now. So he said.
- Ok I’ll let you have your ride. But I want to see you tickets. I will write a first warning on it. At two warnings you are out of the park. Understand?
- Yes officer I understant and its fine with me. Then my friend broke in.
- What do you mean a warning!? Are we in a nusery or what?

I pushed my friend again.

- Don’t listen to him officer. He had a little too much of drink. Here’s our tickets, proceed with the warning.

And then we proceeded to the ride. It was a nice ride just before the Fireworks.

I explained to my friend afterward that we had to accept the warning for two reasons. First, the warning meant nothing because no one asks to see the tickets. So we would have our way anywhere in the park without any trouble. Second, it was a way for the policeman to buy some dignity in the situation. He was loosing on his own ground and had to save face. I recognized that and proceeded to agree for the warning. Therefore his ego was safe. And the warning had absolutly no effect on me and my friend.

See how, with the use of a little NLP and basic psychology you can have your way in situations.

Never loose your temper
Always put yourself in the shoes of your opponent and see what drives him
Then use those drivers against him by using psychology and NLP sentences and words

This is an example of how you can live strategically.

And this situation conforted me in my will to perfect and deepen my skills in NLP.

Links of the week

Your life accounting to the Government

End of liberty

College conspiracy

Even if I don't agree with all there is in those videos. After watching those three you will understand a little more why it is that I have, as a strategy, to start my own company and make my own money without relying on anyone else. And of course getting debt free. For total freedom.

I have no right!

Oh! My! God!

After seeing this inspirational video, I have no excuses anymore! Either I feel tired, sick or what ever. There is no reason for me to prevent training and getting the body of a Greek god that I dream about.

This is the best inspirational video I've seen! A must watch! Make sure you watch it until the end.

Here it is: Wheelchair bodybuilding

Best BJ Strategy

Yes my friends. Your eyes does not deceive you. We are actually going to talk about oral sex.

Sir. You want more of it? Don't push your woman toward the sensitive zone. It won't do any good trying to "force" her. And you are going to get just the opposite result that you are seeking. Get clever about it. Shave the entire area.

When your woman gets to see that the area is all nicely clear and smells good, two things will happen to you. 1. she will tend to go down there more often. 2. She will tend to stay down for a longer period.

Believe me I live to tell. It works.

That is part of being a strategist. Strategy can and is applied to every aspect of your life. Its a commitment. A way of life.

Oh! And what if you woman is not the "type" doing that? Well lets not be a pussy here and lets call a cat a cat. Here I will answer with my cheese cake parable.

Lets say you love cheese cake. But your woman does not like it at all. And she says that as long as you live with her, you will have to avoid cheese cake. You love her. So you comply. You might resist the temptation. You may resist for a week, a month even for years. But sooner or later you will hear the cheese cake calling. And you're going to have to make a very important decision for yourself.

Avoiding the matter won't take it away. You're just borrowing time.

Poker-Faced

A new study argues that poker is a game of skill, not chance.

Is Poker "a gambling game, pure and simple", as a judge in Louisiana called it in a much-cited 1910 judgement? Or is it a game in which skill plays an important role? The answer may help determine whether online poker games should be covered by a law that prohibits Americans from gambling over the web.

So far, judges have tended to agree with the 1910 precedent. Futurerulings will determine the prospect of a $6 billion industry. Yet there has been very little research into this subject, in part because of the paucity of data.

A new study by an economist, Steve Levitt, author of "Freakonomics", and Thomas Miles, his Chicago University colleague, uses data on those who look part in the 2010 World Series of Poker, an annual contest in Las Vegas. Last year it attracted over 32 000 payers and gave out more than $185 millions on prize money. Because the tournament is open to anyone who pays the entry fee, its participants have varying levels of experience and differing records of success or failure.

Messrs Levitt and Miles divided participants into two groups. The first included those who, based on lists of the top players in 2009 and the results of previous tournaments, could be thought of as "high-skilled"; the second was everyone else. If poker were truly a game of luck, then the winnings of the 12% of entrants marked as specially gifted ought not to have differed significantly from those made by the rest.

But the opposite proved to be true. Those who had done well before did well in 2010, too. Whereas ordinary players made a loss of 15.6%, the skilled made a return on investment of 30.5%, suggesting that poker is after all a game of skill. The economists say that similar tests of persistence in returns have also been used to detect whether mutual-fund managers have genuine expertise. In contrast to the case of poker, they point out, those tests have tended to find "little evidence of skill in this domain".

Case Study - Actor Ashton Kutcher

I've been talking for a little while about the strategy of not putting all you eggs in the same nest (talking about work and occupying a day job). That one must diversify one's sources of income because if your employer get rid of you. Then you will at least have another source of income. And you can walk out with you head high, a slight smile on your face and the assurance that your financial life is not doomed.

I am not the inventor of this principle. Far from it. But I find that so few people practice it. The standard model I see in the world is: a married couple, borrowed to their neck to get the house, two cars, two kids, an education and a dog... the American dream. Both work a day job. Both live from pay check to pay check. And both are exposed dramatically if one of them loose their job.

I'm advocating another way of life. One with no debt. But also one with multiple sources of income. And I think we are still too few living like that. But not for actor Ashton Kutcher.

The guy is not only a famous actor through his role on "That '70 Show" and "Dude, Where's my Car?" But he is also on of the most insightful investor according to David Lee, co-founder of a Silicon Valley investment firm. He invest into Silicon Valley start ups. And he takes his investments seriously. He's in there to make money. Which is good.

So the guy is clever enough to know that a job in the acting industry comes and go. And one must not rely on it. And it gets worst when you age... So he decided to... diversify. And that is exactly what I mean when I talk about the multiple revenue income philosophy. But he is not alone. I've seen it quite a few times with actors and comedians. I know one diversified in real-estate. I know another that bought an entire stores chain. One again started a magazine. And I know a singer that started a baby food company with her husband aside of her singing career.

So what is it that artists understood that others didn't in the remaining industries? They understood that work is precarious and one must see to one's self for one's future income needs. But why is it that artists understood that and the rest of us don't? Is it because they are smarter? I don't think so. Its because of the nature of their industry. It goes by the contracts. So you never know what contract will be next or if there will be a contract at all. So you plan ahead. But we, day jobbers, we are paid by the week. A steady weekly salary. So after a while we tend to assume that the regular pay check will continue to come without interuption indefinitivelly. Until the day we come to work and hit a closed door with a statement pinned on it:"OUT OF BUSINESS".

Never get asleep my friends. If you do have a day job, that's good. It is very rare these days with the state of the economy. But be smart. Think farther than that: live below your mean; be frugal; accelerate you debts payments; get at least two other means of income (without killing yourself at work). Never be dependable of anyone. That is the recepe of true freedom.

Beging for a job, that is not freedom. Sending hundreds of resumes and receiving may be two or three refusal letters, this is not freedom. Being selected (by HR), that is not freedom. That's worst. That's below dignity. And asking permission for two weeks vacation, that is not freedom.

Are you proud of the fact that you don't need your parents' allowance to live anymore? Then why are you proud of depending on your company's weekly allowance?

Get clever. Like Ashton Kutcher.

Kaizen Strategy

Kaizen is a japanese word meaning "improvement" or "change for the better".

We all want to become better people. But most lack the method. Or we go randomly about it or based on needs or worst, imperative. We also take a slack approach about it. "This year I will stop smoking". Or "This year I will start to train and put a prime on my health". And next thing you know, we drop out. Again. And we experience a feeling of failure. Again.

Sounds familiar? Don't worry, you're not alone.

So how can one improve, get better and put all the chances on one's side to avoid quitting? Simple. Lets apply the Kaizen process to our own life. The Kaizen process consist in four easy steps:

1. Plan

2. Action

3. Measure

4. Analyse

Its as simple as that. First you plan the change you want to make. Then you must take action. Your actions will bring results that you must record and measure (Which I don't). And finally you analyse the results and correct the action if need be.

But Kaizen also means moving forward step by step. So it is not designed to make big changes happen overnight. It is made to evolve in increment, step by step, day by day. And down the line the change will be huge. But you wouldn't feel it because you lived it by small increment. And this is the mistake I made all my life when I wanted to make a change.

For example, I always say that I want to have the body of a greek god. So I start to train like mad, going to the gym four or five times a week. And then, after six weeks of this regime, I stop all together. Then I have to start all again...

But if I go by increment: I will jog once a week. Then twice. Then mesuring my progress, this will give me joy and push me to jog for a third day. But this time my motivation will be propelled by results. I will WANT to do it, instead of doing it because I HAVE to do it. That's an enormous difference in perspective. And I think that it hold the key to success.

Lets start right now. I know that the part that need most improvement in my body (the part that I know that if I improve it, it will dramatically change the aspect of all the rest) is my belly and my abdominals. But for some reason I just can't seams to start working on that body part.

I have at home the abs part of the P90X training. I just can't seam to start it. But as of tomorrow. I will do one rep of on set of the first exercise on it. And record my results.

I shall apply this strategy to everything I want to undertake and accomplish in my life.

Chubby or top 10? A very interesting dating strategy.

VS

This week-end I witnessed a very interesting conversation.

I went out with two of my friends for a beer and have a little chat. My friends are considered handsome boys and have no problems in dating beautiful women. But they have both a diametrally opposed strategy about it. One of them (Eric) likes small, chubby and not too fuzzy about make-up women, but very cute ones. The other (Joseph) is attracted by tall, long hair, drop-dead beautiful top-model type women.

So came a discussion between them that I witnessed. I was moving my head right to left like I was watching a tennis game.

Eric said that he prefer the short and more... discreed ones because he feels that they are more true, close to their heart and they tend to be more "giving women". They have more consideration on what their partner feels and wants to make sure that he is happy. They are women that puts value on one's innerself and are not attracted solelly by the physical aspect. "And", he says, "as an added bonus, since they are women that are somewhat less popular with men, you get the benefit that your're girl won't be hit on each other minute thus the temptation to jump the fense is less."

"Non sense!" Said Joseph. "I like drop-dead women because they tend to be more sure of themselve, know more what they want and are not affraid to go get it." He continued "when they get out with a guy, you can be sure that the guy is special because there is so many fish in the ocean that they are very careful in the picking. Thus when they end up with a guy, in the girl's head, its the one and for the long term." And he concluded "and the added bonus is that they are hit on so much that they get immuned against it. So I know that when my girl has a girls night out, she's there for the fun, the dance and that's all."

Eric: "Wait a minute. Are you implying that when the chubby kind women goes out, she is more prone to be unfaitful?"

Joseph: "No. What I am saying is that the chubby does not get hit on as much as the model. Therefore when she gets hit on, it affects her much more than the model and thus creates a more dangerous situation for you."

...

And the conversation went on... on sports, women again, politics, women, philosophy and then of course... women.

But what I got from my friends conversation is a very interesting "insssurance policy against cheating" strategy in dating . Lets recap. If you date a more natural woman, you are less likely to be cheated on because since she gets less offers, the risk is less. The downside to this (according to my friends) is that this strategy can backfire if the woman actually gets hit on. Since it is more "rare" (once again according to my friends) for her, the temptation to give in will be higher.

On the other side if you date models, they get immuned against flirts. Therefore you get more chances that she will be fateful if you're THE one for her. The downside of this is that if you are not THE one for her, or if she wants to get even with you for some reason, or she wants to hurt you in some ways, then she just have to go out and roll her hips a little, and you're history in no time.

Which strategy is best? Honestly in this case I don't know. Both have their pros an cons.

But what is interesting is that it gives an interesting hint on the hidden computation part of our brain when it comes to relationships. Because my friends had this conversation very genuinelly without back thoughts. They were not aware that what they were verbalizing, is their internal premisses of odds calculations in a relationship. Odds of being cheated on or not... And in some ways, it affects their choices of potential dates.

Of course one has to realize that this is an over simplification of relationships and women characters. One must not take this to the letter and apply it as is.

But this is nevertheless interesting... for a Strategist.

Links of the week

John Stossel Fox Business: Atlas Shrugged - Part 1

John Stossel Fox Business: Atlas Shrugged - Part 2

John Stossel Fox Business: Atlas Shrugged - Part 3

John Stossel Fox Business: Atlas Shrugged - Part 4

John Stossel Fox Business: Atlas Shrugged - Part 5

John Stossel Fox Business: Atlas Shrugged - Part 6

Hank Rearden state of mind

Just watch this video from Atlas Shrugged.

Hank Rearden comes back from work. He poured the first drop of the new Rearden Metal. A colossal achievement for human kind. And he decides to give a gift to his wife made of the first drop of the first pouring of the Metal. And look at he reaction.

I can't help but to feel lonely has he is. For that's exactly how I feel with my own family and significant other.

Henry Rearden comes home.

Book Review - Killing Giants

Tales about little guys who overcome huge odds to defeat a gigantic person, business or army are as old as time. People love underdogs and want to see an upset, writes branding expert Stephen Denny in the introduction to Killing Giants, which outlines smart and often sneaky strategies small firms can use to tip the odds in their favor when they are competing against an established competitor with deeper pockets.

Small firms are nimble, creative by necessity and often willing to do things that huge corporations can't - or won't - do to capture clients. These can include taking advantage of the marketing and advertising an established firm has done to develop a product and nurture a market for it, by convincing customers at the point of sale that your product will better meet that need than will the giant's.

what makes Killing Giants a useful and entertaining book are its case studies. Each chapter describes a situation, such as lauching a new, but different, product in a highly competitive market (cleaning supplies, candy bars, an airline); conceptualizes a strategy (fighting dirty or polarize on purpose), and gives examples of small companies in that situation and what they did to manoeuvre their way to snatch the giant's customers or successfully carve out their niche.

As Denny notes, not every case will apply to your situation, but some may be dead-on. They'll all get you thinking.

Souce: Laura Ramsay, Financial Post.

Case Study - Cyril Ramaphosa

Born in a black township in 1952, Cyril Ramaphosa rose to become South Africa's leading trade unionist, switching to politics and then to business after the end of apartheid. He became one of the country's richest men, and is still occasionally mentioned as a possible future president. Nowhe is the face of McDonald's in Africa's biggest economy.

Mr Ramaphosa, who once said his favourite meal was a fish with salad, will own and run all the American burger giant's operations in the country, including 132 outlets. He will have a 20-yearfranchise and a mandate to "turbocharge" growth. The price of the deal has not been revealed. Since opening its first restaurant in South Africa in 1995, McDonald's has struggled against fierce home-grown competition. Famous Brands, its main rival, has more than 1100 outlets, operating under such names as Steers, Wimpy and Mugg & Bean.

Mr Ramaphosa, a lawyer by training, founded the National Union Mine-workers, building up to become Sout Africa's most powerful union. He helped bring about apartheid's peaceful end as one of the African National Congress's main negotiators, By the time he was elected to parliament in the country's first fully democratic elections in 1994 he was already being tipped as Nelson Mandela's likely successor, but he lost out to Thabo Mbeki.

He promply resigned his political posts and went into business. With his formidable connections, negotiating skills and charm, he took to it like a duck to water. He was one of the first to benefit from the ANC government's black economic empowerment (BEE) policies, building an empire in mining, energy, property, banking, inssurance and the telecoms. With investments said to be worth 1.55 billion rand ($224m), Mr Ramaphosa had joined the 31-strong club or rand billionaires. His wife is the sister of Patrice Motsepe, another BEE tycoon and the country's firstblack dollar billionaire.

Deals like the McDonald's one seem to fall into Mr Ramaphosa's lap. As well as servingas executive chairman of his own Shanduka group, he has a string of non-executivechairmanships and directorships of some of the country's biggest and best-known companies, including Bidvest, a giant food-service and distribution business. He is also a member of Coca-Cola's international advisory board. both positions should serve him good stead in his new job. Although South Africa's media continue to talk up his presidential prospects, he says he has no interest in returning to politics.

Does South Africa media really need any more fast-food joints? The World Health Organization reckons 62% of the country's men and and 73% of its women are already overweight, making it one of the fattest countries in the world. Almost a quarter of men and two-fifths of women are obese. But then, as President Jacob Zuma has shown with his three large wives and one equally large wife-in-waiting, in South Africa big is beautiful.

Source: The Economist, March 26th 2011