Dr. Ngaire Woods is the Founding Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government and Professor of Global Economic Governance at the University of Oxford. She founded and is the Director of the Global Economic Governance Program
Across the world, populists are attracting votes with their promises to protect ordinary people from the harsh realities of globalization. The democratic establishment, they assert, cannot be trusted to fulfill this purpose, as it is too busy protecting the wealthy – a habit that globalization has only intensified.
This article is published in the Social Europe Journal, click on the URL below to read the original posting:
For decades, globalization promised to bring benefits to all. On an international scale, it facilitated the rise of the Asian tigers and the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), produced rapid growth across Africa, and facilitated the boom in developed countries through 2007. It also created new opportunities and augmented growth within countries. But since the 2008 crash, many rich countries have been locked into austerity; the Asian economies have been slowing; the BRICS’ progress has been stalling; and many African countries have fallen back into debt.
Andrew G Haldane, Chief Economist, Bank of England
In a speech to the Trade Union Congress in London, (November 15, 2015), Andy Haldane discusses how developments in technology are likely to affect labour’s share of national income in years to come – and the implications this may have for policymakers.
Andy notes that arguments about “technological unemployment” – the idea that technological advance puts people out of work and bears down on wages – have been raging for centuries. According to Andy, most evidence shows that over the broad sweep of history technological progress has not damaged jobs but rather boosted wages: “Technology has enriched labour, not immiserated it.”
Dr. John Psarouthakis, Founder and former CEO, JPIndusries,Inc., a Fortune 500 industrial corporation. Publisher of www.BusinessThinker.com
This article covers the letter of intent, which should be negotiated and signed prior to the start of formal due diligence and the formal due diligence process itself.
The most extensive and expensive investigation of a company lead takes place during the formal due diligence. Formal due diligence can be viewed as the fourth filter through which company leads pass. Because of its expense, you should probably plan to complete formal due diligence on a company you are fairly certain to buy. Sometimes the process of negotiating the letter of intent itself weeds out some candidates that looked good after preliminary due diligence. Or you may uncover information during the formal due diligence that you were not aware of during the preliminary due diligence phase. It is likely that during the 18 month to two year period that you scrutinize company leads, if about two dozen leads get subjected to a thorough preliminary due diligence, only four or five will actually follow through to formal due diligence. Some will drop out during the preliminary due diligence phase itself. Other company leads might drop out because buyer and seller are unable to agree on terms in the letter of intent.
For the complete article go to e-reports at:
Reference: “How to Acquire the Right Business”
John Psarouthakis & Lorraine Uhlaner
Published by Xlibris, 2009