Community Wi-Fi Network

Update

Since I posted this idea I discovered that there are several projects trying to do exactly this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_community_network

[Originally posted on Dec 2010]

Need: 

The other day I thought about this idea of having a community wi-fi network. I am sure it has happened to you as you are traveling or driving somewhere your iPhone (or other device) will ask you if you want to join a random wi-fi. These random wi-fi networks will change as you continue traveling because you start losing some connections and gaining others.
Now, imagine if all these random connection were tied to each other. So you iPhone would jump from one network to the other like cellphone towers. The only thing that you would need is to (1) be able to standardized all network security and connection settings (2) avoid the free-rider.

Description:

The way I thought we could do this is by creating a community wi-fi. You would need to register your own Wi-Fi network to be able to access this community network. This would avoid the free-rider problem. The key problem that I haven't been able to resolve is how to avoid security problems.

Potential:

It can probably be a subscription model but I'm not sure how much people will pay for the service. It would be more probably something that is free or freemium.

Update [10/2011]: I just heard that there is several of these type of networks around the US. Not sure if they work exactly like I described but they are call similarly "community network".

A Great App for Renting a Car

[UPDATE: Oct 10th, 2012]

Since I posted this idea in 2011 I have discovered a startup that is trying to do something similar: SILVERCAR (www.silvercar.com). I believe Silvercar was founded in early 2012 as its website in April 26th, 2012 looked like this: http://web.archive.org/web/20120426215703/http://silvercar.com/. Since then they have raised $11.5M from CrunchFund, Dave Morin and Others (http://techcrunch.com/tag/silvercar/). Silvercar is the airport car rental experience reimagined for you, the connected business traveler. They put the power back in your hands, enabling you to bypass lines, avoid complexity and frustration, and drive away in a world-class car at a great price (http://www.crunchbase.com/company/silvercar). @SilverCar is based in Austin, Texas. I hope they do great and revolutionize the (airport) car rental industry. Finally something new in that boring industry!... I cannot wait to see it at LAX and NYC.

[ORIGINALLY POSTED: April 1, 2011]

NEED: 

Would love to have an app in my iPhone or iPad that would help me choose the car at my rent-a-car. Imagine if you are on the plane (and it has wi-fi) and you can browse the cars available in your iPad before landing. The need is simple, lets make renting a car much simpler than it is right now. You normally need to stop by the counter to get your car assign. You normally need to get whatever the person at the counter wants to assign you. In the best cases when you have some type of status you walk to the car without stopping at the counter but you don't have any saying to which car is assigned to you.

DESCRIPTION: 

What we need is a iPhone/iPad/name-your-device App that would allow you to browse the cars available at your rental car company at that moment in a specific location. Needless to say that the customer wants to see pictures of the actual car in the parking spot so you would need to figure that out. Maybe you start with standard photos (inside and outside pics) and later move to a video camera for the outside view. This would help also with the need to check for availability. We will also need a system similar to the ZipCar system that allows you to use your CARD as the key to any vehicle. You would also need a system that confirms what car is in what parking spot to make sure it is available. This can get complicated in location with a lot of traffic. My take on this is simply have (a) a GPS locator in each car (similar to an iPhone) to guarantee the car hasn’t left the lot and (b) a check-in point that matches each car that enters the lot to a parking spot (this can be done when the person at the rent-a-car is receiving the car).

POTENTIAL: 

This could probably revolutionize the rental car industry. You can play it as unique proposition from one rental car company or you can develop the technology/system and sell it to all rental cars.

Working Remotely

Need: 

As online post-secondary degrees further penetrate the education market, there is a need for graduates of these degrees to find jobs outside their city of residence.  Most of them are not going to be able to afford (or want) to move to another city. There is a need for a solution that would allow these graduates and potential “national” employers to work something out.

Description: 

The big problem here is that the employer needs different types of control. A software package can solve these issues partially but there is a need for something else. Maybe there is an opportunity for very basic office locations that can be rented and monitored by the employer. A LA-based employer with an employee working in Phoenix could rent a cubicle in the Phoenix location and have access not only to the software his/her employee is using but to the monitoring system in that location.

Potential: 

There are currently 2MM people enrolled in online degrees in the United States. This number is expected to grow in the future at a rate of ~10% per year.

.

The New Facebook

Need:

People are being overwhelmed by emails and marketing from different sites and companies about brand-related communications. You have the groupon and gilt-a-likes sending you discount and promotions every day. At the beginning people liked the idea and open and read every email. After a while people started to feel overwhelmed and aggregating sites started to become popular. Nevertheless there is no real solution today for the need of the people to communicate with their favorite brands.

Description: 

The idea here is to create an application or portal that can provide some solution to this need. It could be a facebook app or several facebook apps too. I am more incline that it has to be something different. Something not related to facebook. 

Potential:

The size of this opportunity is relatively large. If successful it can become the sole communication channel for brands, avoiding any other type of new media communication. Everything would be centralized in one location where consumer know they can find what they are looking for. From information, to product and services.

Changing Directions

I have trouble tracking business ideas that I come up with. I forget to write them down or share them with someone. I believe that as you share your ideas with someone they either get better or just discarded. This is a very useful process for any entrepreneur.

For that reason I have decided that I’m going to track my ideas via my blog. From now on, I’m going to transform this blog into a collection of business ideas. Some of them will be really promising; some would be just a basic idea. Given that I’m a consultant I’m going to use a simple framework to organize these ideas.

The framework is as following:

Need: Description of the need that the business idea is trying to satisfy.

Description: How is the business idea satisfying the need?

Potential: A very rough approximation for market potential (customer base, size, or something else)

Let’s see how it goes.

.

U.S. Strains to Stop Arms Flow

American officials say they have been frustrated in their efforts to block Syria, Iran, North Korea and other countries from selling arms to militants.

 

I wonder if American officials are equally frustrated in their efforts to block the Southern U.S. states from selling arms to Mexican Drug cartels and militia.

 

Wouldn’t you think that is equally important?

 

Read More:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/world/07wikileaks-weapons.html?emc=na

 

La Siguiente Revolucion Industrial

Despues de escuchar a Shai Agassi hablar sobre su plan radical para convertir a varios países en libres de petróleo para el 2020, lo único que puedo hacer es compartirlo con ustedes.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/spa/shai_agassi_on_electric_cars.html

Which Countries Would Prefer to Raise Taxes or Cut Spending

Today The Economist published a survey from GlobeScan and PIPA for the BBC World Service that asked over 22,000 people in 22 countries which of these paths they would prefer their governments to take to reduce their country’s deficits: Increasing taxes, Cutting public services, Both, Neither or Other

(see link below for the picture)

In general, most people favored ‘Cutting public services’ more than anything else. More than 75% of people in France, Spain and Brazil really believe that ‘Cutting public services’ is the key to reducing the deficit in their countries. People in other countries like Britain, Mexico, Australia, Canada and Germany divide their opinion between ‘Cutting public services’ and ‘increasing taxes’. One quarter of the people in Russia and Turkey want their government to focus in neither ‘Cutting public services’ nor ‘increasing taxes’.

The interesting question here is what are the current level of ‘government spending’ and ‘effective taxes’. Is this survey just showing a return to the mean? Should we think that Brazil, Spain and France have economies more dependent on government spending? Should we think that Britain has a more balanced economy? What factors are influencing these answers?

Link to The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/node/17140165?story_id=17140165&fsrc=rss

Evolution to Diversity

Since the 70s large and small firms in the US have been trying to become more diverse. The word "diversity" has had different implications with the pass of time. It started with race and gender decades ago. Nowadays it includes sexual orientation, cultural background, religion, among others.

The "business case for diversity", theorizes that in a global marketplace, a company that employs a diverse workforce (both men and women, people of many generations, people from ethnically and racially diverse backgrounds etc.) is better able to understand the demographics of the marketplace it serves and is thus better equipped to thrive in that marketplace than a company that has a more limited range of employee demographics (From Wikipedia)

In the path to diversity I believe there are 3 clear steps that a firm needs to take to become truely globally diverse.

1. Respect Each Other
First step of the process is to have a respectful environment. Starting with the CEO or President, the company need to respect the differences between the members of the firm. Respect is the stepping stone to a better culture. In this step I see firms that have their own diverse organization or affiliated groups. Here is where firms try to build a pipeline of diverse candidates using their current respectful culture to attract them. In certain cases, the firm will try to 'train' that diverse candidate in the ways of the firm.

2. Understand the Differences
When members of the firm are respectful they can start the path of trying to understand their differences. This step is more difficult to accomplish that what it seems. If you believe your firm has accomplish this step you are probably in the first step. Understanding the differences require a change in processes. Your believe that 'your way is the right way' has to change. There is a reason why the world doesn't operate the same way. If you still believe that your part of the world has it all figured out that is probably a sign of not being there yet. Those processes that change are not only related to recruiting, they are probably 75-85% of all your processes including but not limited to recruiting, training, retaining, promotion, and operation.

3. Cherish the Differences
By knowing that there are different and sometime 'better' ways to operate an entity, your firm can take advantage of these differences. Firms that have changed their processes to become more diverse are now empowered to cherish their differences. Firms that have accomplish this step can use their culture to be more adaptive/responsive to/of client's need. Those firms would probably enjoy of more innovative ideas and have a better chance of solving the next generation of problems.

Hedging Sadness

After today's lost of Brazil against Netherlands in the World Cup, I realized that there should be a market to hedge the feeling that a Soccer fan feels when his/her team loses in events of such importance.

I would definitively pay some money to hedge this sadness. I want something more sophisticated than just betting against my team. I want a full sadness coverage. Something that covers me in case my team is eliminated in the first round of the World Cup. Then something else for the second round until de final.

Lo que Necesita Colombia: Estabilidad, certeza jurídica y seriedad para los proyectos de inversión

[Quiero republicar un pedazo de esta entrevista con Michelle Bachelet –ex presidenta chilena— porque me pareció muy interesante. Para ver el texto completo por favor vayan al: http://www.semana.com/noticias-mundo/no-dejamos-trabajo-mercado/139502.aspx]

 

 

SEMANA: Colombia está en proceso de negociar tratados de libre comercio. ¿Qué beneficios le ha traído a Chile tener una economía abierta?

M.B: Chile es un país pequeño. Enfrentados al desafío de abrirnos al mundo, los gobiernos de la Concertación no dudamos que el camino era la apertura, la diversificación de las exportaciones, la promoción del libre comercio y el intercambio comercial con todo el mundo. Para eso implementamos políticas de fomentos de la competitividad que se traducen en el desarrollo de clusters o áreas productivas clave que están en condiciones de pararse de igual a igual con los productos y servicios de economías más grandes y desarrolladas. Hoy tenemos acceso -sin aranceles o con aranceles muy bajos- a un mercado mundial de 3.000 millones de consumidores, y nuestros productos están en Asia, Estados Unidos, Oceanía, China, América Latina, Europa, lo que ha implicado un salto enorme. Ahora estamos ampliando los acuerdos de libre comercio a las áreas de servicios y compras públicas.

SEMANA: Esa apertura suele ser muy buena para algunos sectores, pero no necesariamente para la generalidad. ¿Cómo hicieron para que la prosperidad de los empresarios y los inversionistas elevara el nivel de vida de tantos chilenos? 
 
M.B: Permítame hacerle una precisión. Chile, durante los últimos 20 años, que son los de la Concertación, tuvo una definición estratégica en el empeño por mejorar la calidad de vida de los chilenos y chilenas. Me refiero a la educación, la salud, los salarios, las viviendas y los apoyos gubernamentales en subsidios a las familias. Es decir, no le dejamos el trabajo al mercado, al chorreo como dicen algunos, hubo aquí un rol del Estado con políticas públicas definidas y orientadas hacia el bienestar. Y dicho esto, le agrego que no es posible este bienestar sin el sector privado. Chile ofrece a los inversionistas chilenos y extranjeros estabilidad, certeza jurídica y seriedad para sus proyectos de inversión.

SEMANA: A pesar de su popularidad, usted no intentó cambiar las reglas para quedarse en el poder. ¿Qué piensa de la ola reeleccionista en América Latina?

M.B: Las leyes chilenas no permiten la reelección, y si alguien quiere hacerlo tiene que promover una reforma constitucional. Esta es una pregunta que me hicieron muchas veces. Y le voy a contestar lo que he dicho siempre: En la política hay que ser ético y estético. Y de ninguna manera hacer un traje a la medida del gobernante.

Cognitive vs Non-cognitive Skills

How valuable is to teach our kids to build there confidence before building their intellect. Lately I have been reading some parenting books as I am about to have my first child and thought about my own path to knowledge. I realized that the most valuable skill that I developed as a child and later as a young adult was to constantly build my self confidence to overcome obstacle and failures in life.

For an adult self-confidence is rooted in our self-image (who we are, what we have accomplished, how the world view us, etc). Those adults that have developed greater self-confidence are accustomed to focused on those metrics that put them on top. For example, athletes value stamina, speed or physical strength; bankers value networking and number skills; etc. A confident banker is not going to value "physical strength" above "networking skills" because it would go against it self-image of a successful professional.

For kids having a clear path to building self confidence is a little trickier as they have not yet developed an area of expertise. Kids do not know in what they are good so they do not know in what metrics to focus. Even worst, kids are easily convince that the metrics that matter are those imposed by a minority of kids, reinforced by our stereotypical movies and entertainment shows (e.g. beauty over intelligence). Most of the self-image comes from how parents and friends perceive them.

Here is were we need to change as a society. We need to start putting real effort to building self-confidence in kids by including this objective in the curriculum of schools. Self-confidence is not a substitute of knowledge but a necessary complement.

Unfair Judgement Against Tiger Woods

On December 11, 2009, Woods announced he would take an indefinite leave from professional golf to focus on his marriage after he admitted infidelity. His multiple infidelities were revealed by over a dozen women, through many worldwide media sources.Woods returned to competition for the 2010 Masters on April 8, 2010, after a break lasting 20 weeks (Taken from Wikipedia)

By the time the media had revealed the number of infidelities Tiger Woods have had, the world (or more likely the U.S.) had already started its backlash against the sportsman's principles. The key argument to judge him so harshly was that Tiger Woods is a leading figure not only in golf but in sports in general. The U.S. population wanted Tiger to behave in a way that could set a good example to other people in and out of his field.

The basic conclusion with this reaction is that U.s. Americans believe that their leaders should set a good example for the entire population. This is the same principle that politicians in the U.S. are governed by. If a leader behaves badly or incorrectly, then his/her followers (e.g. the population) would required that leader to surrender its current leadership position and ask for forgiveness. This type of event has happened repeatedly over and over in U.S. history.

The problem arises when this basic argument is taken to the next level. Should the U.S. as the leader (or one of the leaders) of the world be held to the same standards and principles governing its population? Should the U.S. ask for forgiveness when behaving improperly? Should the U.S. government ask its population (and the world) for forgiveness for the mistakes made in the past?

Given that the U.S. government is just an entity representing the country's citizens, the U.S. citizens should be responsible for the U.S. government's actions. Why haven't the U.S. Americans held their government to the same standards they held their leaders?? Is it because U.S. Americans don't view their country as a moral leader in the world? Or is it just because a country should not be regulated by the same principles its population is?

My most logical explanation is that there is a voice in the U.S. that has asked for this type of behavior from its government but it hasn't been strong enough. So basically there are not enough people that care about it to make it a relevant point.

If this is the case, why do we still have this principle for each individual if the majority of the population doesn't care.

Maybe it is just about media coverage. Those leaders (being Tiger Wood or any politician) are held to a different standard not because they are leaders in their field but because they are on the eye of the media. If the media could benefit with judging the U.S. government for its mistake made against the world in the same way they benefit from the infidelities of Tiger Woods, then we could see the U.S. government be held to a different standard as the leader of the world.

Donde Se Originará la Siguiente Crisis Mundial?

Es difícil concebir cual será la próxima crisis. ¿Sera una crisis inflacionaria dada las tasas de interés tan bajas? ¿Sera una crisis fiscal dada los niveles de endeudamiento de los diferentes países? ¿Sera una crisis civil dado un cambio en el nivel de violencia o corrupción?

Desde mi perspectiva las últimas crisis económicas relacionadas con el mercado accionario han comenzado con una percepción errónea de los valores de los activos involucrados. Esta percepción errónea viene de una combinación de factores como: complejidad del proceso de valoración o del instrumento, tamaño del mercado como tal, diferencias entre los jugadores dentro del sistema y falta de una norma clara.

Por ejemplo si pensamos en lo que le paso in el 2000 con las acciones relacionadas con internet. En este no existía una norma clara de cómo valorar estas empresas y los analistas pensaron que el mecanismo de valoración tenía que ser adaptado. Exista cierta complejidad dentro del proceso porque era un segmento nuevo para todos. Para que la burbuja se explote se necesito de otros catalizadores que hicieron despertarse a los inversionistas. Los inversionistas comenzaron a pensar más sobre el valor real de la acción y como estaban generando ellos mismo tanto dinero invirtiendo en este tipo de acciones.

Luego tenemos a Enron y las mismas características se reflejan en esta situación. 1. Complejidad en la estructura de negocios y productos, 2. Tamaño relevante como para llamar la atención un agente que ejecute una diligencia debida (en este caso una periodista y no un equity analyst) y 3. El ente regulador decide que la autoregulacion es la mejor alternativa para la industria.

En el caso de las hipotecas subprime que causo la crisis actual tiene las mismas características. Interesantemente aunque muchas personas sentían que existía una percepción errónea sobre el mercado hipotecario desde el 2005, este sistema no exploto hasta varios años después. La razón fue porque i) los jugadores estaban haciendo mucho dinero, ii) por lo que a nadie le importaba el valor real del activo, iii) no existía un ente regulador que vigilara los supuestos check and balances.

Por eso para poder estimar la siguiente crisis mundial tenemos que buscar un segmento que cumpla con las siguientes tres características:

1. Tiene que ser un segmento difícil de entender; ya sea porque el proceso es complicado, por la cultura, por la geografía, o por algo más. Si es complicado y la gente está haciendo dinero en este segmento, esto quiere decir que la mayoría de inversionistas simplemente está siguiendo la marea

2. Los jugadores en este segmento tienen que tener características y principios diferentes para que exista una desinformación de las diferentes partes. Esta característica va a ser el catalizador de la percepción errónea necesaria.

3. La percepción erronea tiene que ser sobre una parte relevante o grande para el segmento (tipo subprime, internet stocks, oil prices) se vea afectado y para que tenga un efecto domino al resto de la economía.

Mi voto va por China. Yo creo que la próxima gran recesión va a estar relacionado con China. De alguna u otra forma cumple con esos tres requisitos.

La Confianza Como Sistema Regulador

Después de leer el artículo de Michael Lewis (The End of Wall Street) publicado Portfolio en Noviembre 2008 (y republicado en mi blog en el 2009) me quede pensando cómo muy pocas personas en Wall Street realmente saben que causo la gran recesión y se alinearon diferentes circunstancias para afectar la economía de la forma que la afecto. Inclusive me hizo pensar en el proceso de descubrimiento del valor (en inglés, price discovery process) de un activo, una acción o una deuda.

En el mundo de las finanzas existen varios mecanismos e instrumentos que le ayudan al inversionista a valorar un activo (como por el ejemplo el famoso flujo de cada descontado o DCF por sus siglas en ingles). Después de leer este articulo me di cuenta que quizás el proceso es mas subjetivo de lo que pensaba. Yo recordaba de mi época en banca de inversión que al final un DCF está compuesto de un sin número de suposiciones que pueden cambiar el valor del activo. Uno trataba de validar los resultados con otros métodos (como por ejemplo la valoración por múltiplos) por lo que se sentía que el valor final tenia no solamente lógica por el famoso DCF pero también porque era validado por otros analistas. Lo interesante es que al final la valoración está dada por 2 o 3 analistas estrellas que cubren la firma (los demás analistas simplemente son seguidores) y posiblemente si la empresa esta en una industria complicada de todos los analistas que la cubren una minoría realmente entiende que esta pasando.

Por eso en industrias complejas el famoso price discovery process no es tan sencillo como hacer un DCF porque los analistas que proveen la guía no están tan bien informados y la mayoría de jugadores involucrados en el proceso no les interesa encontrar el valor real de la acción sino solo hacer dinero. Estas circunstancias no son destructibles siempre y cuando no estemos hablando de una industria que abarque gran parte del sistema financiero de un país. Por ejemplo, si este problema lo tiene la industria de la educación postsecundaria, no es un problema tan grave. El problema de falta de entendimiento de la industria se reflejara en la volatilidad de los precios de las instituciones educativas que tranzan en el mercado.

El problema se encuentra cuando estas características se ven en una industria gigantesca o una industria que abarque otras industrias. Esto fue lo que sucedió con la crisis de los papeles subprime cuando se juntaron varias características o factores que causaron la gran recesión. Entre estos menciono algunos:

1. La complejidad del negocio (específicamente en el caso de los credit default swaps y demás derivadas de crédito utilizadas para crear liquidez en el mercado)

2. La poca sofisticación de los jugadores (aunque fuesen sofisticados en otros segmentos, este segmento era particularmente difícil de entender)

3. Los jugadores estaban mas preocupados por hacer dinero que por entender exactamente como estaban haciendo el dinero y los riesgos asociados con hacer ese tipo de dinero

4. No existía un ente o ley reguladora que ayudara a balancear los diferentes factores en el mercado y la desinformación de todos los jugadores (no solamente inversionistas pero también las personas que simplemente querían tener vivienda propia).

Esta recesión es claro ejemplo de lo que sucede cuando la confianza es la reguladora del sistema. En EEUU la confianza ha sido gran reguladora de muchos sistemas. Por ejemplo uno puedo devolver mercancía en EEUU porque todos confían que no están abusando del sistema. La confianza puede regular un sistema que no tenga jugadores con diferentes principios. En este caso se necesitaba una ley o un ente regulador. Esta es una de las razones por lo que esta crisis no se origino en otro país sino que se tuvo que generar en EEUU.

En Colombia o en América Latina, ya no existe confianza en que el sistema se autoregule. Se sabe que el jugador va a abusar del contrincante o del sistema de alguna manera posible, y si no existe esa manera se la inventa. Por eso en nuestros países la regulación tiene que venir de una manera clara y contundente para balancear los factores y crear un ambiente justo para todos los jugadores.

Historia de Luis Carlos Sarmiento Angulo

El pasado mes de Noviembre la revista Semana (Colombia) publicó un artículo sobre uno de los hombres más poderosos de Colombia. Luis Carlos Sarmiento Angulo es el hombre más rico de Colombia.


El artículo es interesante porque describe como Luis Carlos Sarmiento Angulo pudo llegar a convertirse en el empresario mas poderoso de Colombia sin grandes recursos, palancas o conexiones.


De las enseñanzas que me deja este articulo tenemos:


1. "Trabajar, trabajar y trabajar"... si quiere hacer dinero le toca arremangarse.
2. Uno consigue los mejores oportunidades donde hay poca competencia. Ya sea hacer un acueducto en Alvarado, o comprar el peor banco del sistema financiero, o comprar con plata en mano accionista por accionista. Entre mas dificil sea el asunto menos competencia hay.
3. Sino sabe jugar ajedrez, comience a aprender. Todo es estrategia y si puedes comenzar a deducir cuales son los posibles movimientos de tu competencia tienes una ventaja competitiva.
4. Todos los negocios comienzan por los numeros pero se vuelven realidad a punta de convicción (obviamente trabajando, trabajando y trabajando).
5. "La clave de delegar es saber supervisar."
6. El bienestar familiar se impone al bienestar económico.




Aqui esta su historia completa...


http://www.semana.com/noticias-nacion/rey-midas/131990.aspx

Pensamientos desde Bolivia (Por Hernan)

La semana pasada fui a ver un edificio que estaba ubicado a una hora de avión de La Paz hacia el norte (Rurrenabaque, Abel Iturralde) cerca de Brasil, y luego cruce un rio en balsa y después 8 horas en camioneta por la selva amazónica hasta llegar al edificio.

Cada día tuve que visitar un lugar distinto, muchas veces con un chofer que hable Aymará y Quechua, ya que en muchos lugares no hablan ¨el¨ castellano. Algunos de estos lugares generan mucha tristeza debido a que la pobreza es aguda. Algunos de estos pueblitos parecerían estar olvidados en la historia y a pesar de que tienen fe, yo creo que acá no llega ni su dios.

Estos viajes me permitieron no solo experimentar un calor y un sol calcínate, una selva del verde mas intenso, sino que también me pude descubrir la cultura de la Bolivia Profunda. Esta es una cultura sumamente amable, supersticiosa, y con todo el respeto, digo sufrida y sumisa. Nuestra cultura es sumamente más dominante y manipuladora.

La diferencia social, económica, cultural y educativa entre la clase campesina (indígena) y la clase alta es abismal. Parecería que es directamente proporcional el nivel educativo y económico a la amabilidad. Cuanto mayor la pobreza, mayor la gentileza.

Algo Hicimos Mal (Por Oscar Arias)

Palabras del presidente Oscar Arias en la Cumbre de las Américas

Trinidad y Tobago (18 de abril del 2009)


Tengo la impresión de que cada vez que los países caribeños y latinoamericanos se reúnen con el presidente de los Estados Unidos de América, es para pedirle cosas o para reclamarle cosas. Casi siempre, es para culpar a Estados Unidos de nuestros males pasados, presentes y futuros. No creo que eso sea del todo justo.


No podemos olvidar que América Latina tuvo universidades antes de que Estados Unidos creara Harvard y William & Mary, que son las primeras universidades de ese país. No podemos olvidar que en este continente, como en el mundo entero, por lo menos hasta 1750 todos los americanos eran más o menos iguales: todos eran pobres.


Cuando aparece la Revolución Industrial en Inglaterra, otros países se montan en ese vagón: Alemania, Francia, Estados Unidos, Canadá, Australia, Nueva Zelanda... y así la Revolución Industrial pasó por América Latina como un cometa, y no nos dimos cuenta. Ciertamente perdimos la oportunidad.


También hay una diferencia muy grande. Leyendo la historia de América Latina, comparada con la historia de Estados Unidos, uno comprende que Latinoamérica no tuvo un John Winthrop español, ni portugués, que viniera con la Biblia en su mano dispuesto a construir "una Ciudad sobre una Colina", una ciudad que brillara, como fue la pretensión de los peregrinos que llegaron a Estados Unidos.


Hace 50 años, México era más rico que Portugal . En 1950, un país como Brasil tenía un ingreso per cápita más elevado que el de Corea del Sur. Hace 60 años, Honduras tenía más riqueza per cápita que Singapur, y hoy Singapur -en cuestión de 35 ó 40 años- es un país con $40.000 de ingreso anual por habitante. Bueno, algo hicimos mal los latinoamericanos.


¿Qué hicimos mal? No puedo enumerar todas las cosas que hemos hecho mal. Para comenzar, tenemos una escolaridad de 7 años. Esa es la escolaridad promedio de América Latina y no es el caso de la mayoría de los países asiáticos. Ciertamente no es el caso de países como Estados Unidos y Canadá, con la mejor educación del mundo, similar a la de los europeos. De cada 10 estudiantes que ingresan a la secundaria en América Latina, en algunos países solo uno termina esa secundaria. Hay países que tienen una mortalidad infantil de 50 niños por cada mil, cuando el promedio en los países asiáticos más avanzados es de 8, 9 ó 10.


Nosotros tenemos países donde la carga tributaria es del 12% del producto interno bruto, y no es responsabilidad de nadie, excepto la nuestra, que no le cobremos dinero a la gente más rica de nuestros países. Nadie tiene la culpa de eso, excepto nosotros mismos.


En 1950, cada ciudadano norteamericano era cuatro veces más rico que un ciudadano latinoamericano. Hoy en día, un ciudadano norteamericano es 10, 15 ó 20 veces más rico que un latinoamericano. Eso no es culpa de Estados Unidos, es culpa nuestra.


En mi intervención de esta mañana, me referí a un hecho que para mí es grotesco, y que lo único que demuestra es que el sistema de valores del siglo XX, que parece ser el que estamos poniendo en práctica también en el siglo XXI, es un sistema de valores equivocado. Porque no puede ser que el mundo rico dedique 100.000 millones de dólares para aliviar la pobreza del 80% de la población del mundo -en un planeta que tiene 2.500 millones de seres humanos con un ingreso de $2 por día- y que gaste 13 veces más ($1.300.000. 000.000) en armas y soldados.


Como lo dije esta mañana, no puede ser que América Latina se gaste $50.000 millones en armas y soldados. Yo me pregunto: ¿quién es el enemigo nuestro? El enemigo nuestro, presidente Correa, de esa desigualdad que usted apunta con mucha razón, es la falta de educación; es el analfabetismo; es que no gastamos en la salud de nuestro pueblo; que no creamos la infraestructura necesaria, los caminos, las carreteras, los puertos, los aeropuertos; que no estamos dedicando los recursos necesarios para detener la degradación del medio ambiente; es la desigualdad que tenemos, que realmente nos avergüenza; es producto, entre muchas cosas, por supuesto, de que no estamos educando a nuestros hijos y a nuestras hijas.


Uno va a una universidad latinoamericana y todavía parece que estamos en los sesenta, setenta u ochenta. Parece que se nos olvidó que el 9 de noviembre de 1989 pasó algo muy importante, al caer el Muro de Berlín, y que el mundo cambió. Tenemos que aceptar que este es un mundo distinto, y en eso francamente pienso que todos los académicos, que toda la gente de pensamiento, que todos los economistas, que todos los historiadores, casi que coinciden en que el siglo XXI es el siglo de los asiáticos, no de los latinoamericanos. Y yo, lamentablemente, coincido con ellos. Porque mientras nosotros seguimos discutiendo sobre ideologías, seguimos discutiendo sobre todos los "ismos" (¿cuál es el mejor? capitalismo, socialismo, comunismo, liberalismo, neoliberalismo, socialcristianismo. ..), los asiáticos encontraron un "ismo" muy realista para el siglo XXI y el final del siglo XX, que es el pragmatismo .


Para solo citar un ejemplo, recordemos que cuando Deng Xiaoping visitó Singapur y Corea del Sur, después de haberse dado cuenta de que sus propios vecinos se estaban enriqueciendo de una manera muy acelerada, regresó a Pekín y dijo a los viejos camaradas maoístas que lo habían acompañado en la Larga Marcha: "Bueno, la verdad, queridos camaradas, es que mí no me importa si el gato es blanco o negro, lo único que me interesa es que cace ratones" . Y si hubiera estado vivo Mao, se hubiera muerto de nuevo cuando dijo que " la verdad es que enriquecerse es glorioso ". Y mientras los chinos hacen esto, y desde el 79 a hoy crecen a un 11%, 12% o 13%, y han sacado a 300 millones de habitantes de la pobreza, nosotros seguimos discutiendo sobre ideologías que tuvimos que haber enterrado hace mucho tiempo atrás.


La buena noticia es que esto lo logró Deng Xioping cuando tenía 74 años. Viendo alrededor, queridos Presidentes, no veo a nadie que esté cerca de los 74 años. Por eso solo les pido que no esperemos a cumplirlos para hacer los cambios que tenemos que hacer.


Muchas gracias.

The End of Philosophy (By David Brooks)

By DAVID BROOKS

Socrates talked. The assumption behind his approach to philosophy, and the approaches of millions of people since, is that moral thinking is mostly a matter of reason and deliberation: Think through moral problems. Find a just principle. Apply it.

One problem with this kind of approach to morality, as Michael Gazzaniga writes in his 2008 book, “Human,” is that “it has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found.”

Today, many psychologists, cognitive scientists and even philosophers embrace a different view of morality. In this view, moral thinking is more like aesthetics. As we look around the world, we are constantly evaluating what we see. Seeing and evaluating are not two separate processes. They are linked and basically simultaneous.

As Steven Quartz of the California Institute of Technology said during a recent discussion of ethics sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, “Our brain is computing value at every fraction of a second. Everything that we look at, we form an implicit preference. Some of those make it into our awareness; some of them remain at the level of our unconscious, but ... what our brain is for, what our brain has evolved for, is to find what is of value in our environment.”

Think of what happens when you put a new food into your mouth. You don’t have to decide if it’s disgusting. You just know. You don’t have to decide if a landscape is beautiful. You just know.

Moral judgments are like that. They are rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain. Most of us make snap moral judgments about what feels fair or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies, before we have language. And even as adults, we often can’t explain to ourselves why something feels wrong.

In other words, reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it. Or as Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia memorably wrote, “The emotions are, in fact, in charge of the temple of morality, and ... moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.”

The question then becomes: What shapes moral emotions in the first place? The answer has long been evolution, but in recent years there’s an increasing appreciation that evolution isn’t just about competition. It’s also about cooperation within groups. Like bees, humans have long lived or died based on their ability to divide labor, help each other and stand together in the face of common threats. Many of our moral emotions and intuitions reflect that history. We don’t just care about our individual rights, or even the rights of other individuals. We also care about loyalty, respect, traditions, religions. We are all the descendents of successful cooperators.

The first nice thing about this evolutionary approach to morality is that it emphasizes the social nature of moral intuition. People are not discrete units coolly formulating moral arguments. They link themselves together into communities and networks of mutual influence.

The second nice thing is that it entails a warmer view of human nature. Evolution is always about competition, but for humans, as Darwin speculated, competition among groups has turned us into pretty cooperative, empathetic and altruistic creatures — at least within our families, groups and sometimes nations.

The third nice thing is that it explains the haphazard way most of us lead our lives without destroying dignity and choice. Moral intuitions have primacy, Haidt argues, but they are not dictators. There are times, often the most important moments in our lives, when in fact we do use reason to override moral intuitions, and often those reasons — along with new intuitions — come from our friends.

The rise and now dominance of this emotional approach to morality is an epochal change. It challenges all sorts of traditions. It challenges the bookish way philosophy is conceived by most people. It challenges the Talmudic tradition, with its hyper-rational scrutiny of texts. It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning.

Finally, it should also challenge the very scientists who study morality. They’re good at explaining how people make judgments about harm and fairness, but they still struggle to explain the feelings of awe, transcendence, patriotism, joy and self-sacrifice, which are not ancillary to most people’s moral experiences, but central. The evolutionary approach also leads many scientists to neglect the concept of individual responsibility and makes it hard for them to appreciate that most people struggle toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself.

How the Internet Got its Rules (By Stephen Crocker)

By STEPHEN D. CROCKER


Bethesda, Md.


TODAY is an important date in the history of the Internet: the 40th anniversary of what is known as the Request for Comments. Outside the technical community, not many people know about the R.F.C.’s, but these humble documents shape the Internet’s inner workings and have played a significant role in its success.


When the R.F.C.’s were born, there wasn’t a World Wide Web. Even by the end of 1969, there was just a rudimentary network linking four computers at four research centers: the University of California, Los Angeles; the Stanford Research Institute; the University of California, Santa Barbara; and the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. The government financed the network and the hundred or fewer computer scientists who used it. It was such a small community that we all got to know one another.


A great deal of deliberation and planning had gone into the network’s underlying technology, but no one had given a lot of thought to what we would actually do with it. So, in August 1968, a handful of graduate students and staff members from the four sites began meeting intermittently, in person, to try to figure it out. (I was lucky enough to be one of the U.C.L.A. students included in these wide-ranging discussions.) It wasn’t until the next spring that we realized we should start writing down our thoughts. We thought maybe we’d put together a few temporary, informal memos on network protocols, the rules by which computers exchange information. I offered to organize our early notes.


What was supposed to be a simple chore turned out to be a nerve-racking project. Our intent was only to encourage others to chime in, but I worried we might sound as though we were making official decisions or asserting authority. In my mind, I was inciting the wrath of some prestigious professor at some phantom East Coast establishment. I was actually losing sleep over the whole thing, and when I finally tackled my first memo, which dealt with basic communication between two computers, it was in the wee hours of the morning. I had to work in a bathroom so as not to disturb the friends I was staying with, who were all asleep.


Still fearful of sounding presumptuous, I labeled the note a “Request for Comments.” R.F.C. 1, written 40 years ago today, left many questions unanswered, and soon became obsolete. But the R.F.C.’s themselves took root and flourished. They became the formal method of publishing Internet protocol standards, and today there are more than 5,000, all readily available online.


But we started writing these notes before we had e-mail, or even before the network was really working, so we wrote our visions for the future on paper and sent them around via the postal service. We’d mail each research group one printout and they’d have to photocopy more themselves.


The early R.F.C.’s ranged from grand visions to mundane details, although the latter quickly became the most common. Less important than the content of those first documents was that they were available free of charge and anyone could write one. Instead of authority-based decision-making, we relied on a process we called “rough consensus and running code.” Everyone was welcome to propose ideas, and if enough people liked it and used it, the design became a standard.


After all, everyone understood there was a practical value in choosing to do the same task in the same way. For example, if we wanted to move a file from one machine to another, and if you were to design the process one way, and I was to design it another, then anyone who wanted to talk to both of us would have to employ two distinct ways of doing the same thing. So there was plenty of natural pressure to avoid such hassles. It probably helped that in those days we avoided patents and other restrictions; without any financial incentive to control the protocols, it was much easier to reach agreement.


This was the ultimate in openness in technical design and that culture of open processes was essential in enabling the Internet to grow and evolve as spectacularly as it has. In fact, we probably wouldn’t have the Web without it. When CERN physicists wanted to publish a lot of information in a way that people could easily get to it and add to it, they simply built and tested their ideas. Because of the groundwork we’d laid in the R.F.C.’s, they did not have to ask permission, or make any changes to the core operations of the Internet. Others soon copied them — hundreds of thousands of computer users, then hundreds of millions, creating and sharing content and technology. That’s the Web.


Put another way, we always tried to design each new protocol to be both useful in its own right and a building block available to others. We did not think of protocols as finished products, and we deliberately exposed the internal architecture to make it easy for others to gain a foothold. This was the antithesis of the attitude of the old telephone networks, which actively discouraged any additions or uses they had not sanctioned.


Of course, the process for both publishing ideas and for choosing standards eventually became more formal. Our loose, unnamed meetings grew larger and semi-organized into what we called the Network Working Group. In the four decades since, that group evolved and transformed a couple of times and is now the Internet Engineering Task Force. It has some hierarchy and formality but not much, and it remains free and accessible to anyone.


The R.F.C.’s have grown up, too. They really aren’t requests for comments anymore because they are published only after a lot of vetting. But the culture that was built up in the beginning has continued to play a strong role in keeping things more open than they might have been. Ideas are accepted and sorted on their merits, with as many ideas rejected by peers as are accepted.


As we rebuild our economy, I do hope we keep in mind the value of openness, especially in industries that have rarely had it. Whether it’s in health care reform or energy innovation, the largest payoffs will come not from what the stimulus package pays for directly, but from the huge vistas we open up for others to explore.


I was reminded of the power and vitality of the R.F.C.’s when I made my first trip to Bangalore, India, 15 years ago. I was invited to give a talk at the Indian Institute of Science, and as part of the visit I was introduced to a student who had built a fairly complex software system. Impressed, I asked where he had learned to do so much. He simply said, “I downloaded the R.F.C.’s and read them.”