DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 3807

New Year Resolutions And Why New Years Do Not Change Who You Are Intrinsically

0

The phrase “New Year, New Me” was quite popular some years back, although I suppose the new generation has found new ways to express it. Generally, it would hinge on the idea or list of ideals that one wishes to adopt in the new year or goals to be achieved in the 365 days. But for all the excitement it begins with, it takes a couple of weeks, maybe months for some, before people begin to realize that the New Year does not change who you are intrinsically.

In “The Secrets of Mind Power” by William Walker Atkinson, one can find a lot of helpful principles and techniques on how to apply the mind power to achieve anything. I highly recommend the book, and for the New Year resolutions, I’ll dwell on two of the lessons he shared.

Develop Willpower and Concentration

You will never achieve anything worthwhile until you develop a single-minded ability to focus on one thing and block out distractions. You must consciously train your mind to focus on your goals and overcome distractions. Strengthen your willpower to stay on track in the face of challenges and setbacks.

Sometimes, you will be battling with some unconscious but deeply ingrained habits. For instance, some persons hardly achieve 50% of their daily to-do lists because of tiny (or major) distractions now and then. A statistic says the average person checks his phone once every 10 to 12 minutes. This could translate to almost 100 times a person randomly picks up his phone in a day. If every time such a person picks up his phone, he uses it for about 2 minutes; then we might be looking at about 3+ hours of unaccounted time in the day. Let’s not talk about the times you think about the phone, even when you are not with it.

The mind is not a switch. You can hardly go from thinking about one thing to another just like that. It takes conscientious training and willpower to get the mind to concentrate on a thing and block out other things. And if you can get this right, you can get many other things to fall in line.

Achieve Success through Harmony

True success goes beyond material gains. It covers every aspect of your life and gives that balanced life that incorporates physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being. You cannot single out one area of your life to succeed and decide to ignore the others. Let me give an instance.

If you have decided that 2024 is the year you want to get a higher-paying job role, is it okay to fix your target of sending out as many applications as possible? Maybe not. You can succeed in this direction by seeing how every other aspect can work towards this single goal. A self-development goal, for instance – Do you need to take a new course or skill to improve your chances? Do you need to do a leadership course? Social network goals like – do you need to attend more professional events and meet more people in your industry of choice? Do you need to begin to dress the part?

When you look at it holistically like this, you see that no part of your life is isolated from the others. You need success in some areas to achieve success in other areas, and the sooner you begin to connect the dots, the better for you.

Conclusion

I deliberately choose to leave out things like affirmation, positive thinking, visualization, and self-suggestion because I think a lot is being said about those already. Try these out and see how much difference it makes. Your mindpower can do more for you than you know once you learn to harness and focus it.

In addition, I think your resolutions need not dwell so much on what you want to achieve or gain but on who you want to become. That is how to harmonize all aspects of your life towards the goal.

Happy New Year to you all.

Should Recruiters Provide Feedback To Job Applicants Irrespective of Outcome

0

The job application process can be a nerve-wracking experience, filled with anticipation and uncertainty for applicants. One aspect that often leaves candidates in the dark is the lack of feedback from recruiters regarding their application outcomes. Some recruiters do not even get back to the applicant to tell them they were not selected for the role.

The question arises: should recruiters provide detailed feedback to applicants, explaining the reasons behind their decisions?One applicant posted on Twitter (now X) that it was as bad as proposing to a girl and being told that “if you received no response within two weeks, you should assume that the outcome was negative.” While both situations are far apart, I see the reason behind the analogy and why it could feel that bad for the applicant.

The Case for Feedback:

  1. Professional Growth: Offering constructive feedback can contribute to an applicant’s professional development. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses highlighted during the recruitment process allows candidates to refine their skills and improve future applications.
  2. Transparency: Providing feedback fosters transparency in the hiring process. Applicants invest time and effort in crafting resumes and preparing for interviews. Clear and honest feedback helps them comprehend the factors influencing the decision-making process, building trust in the recruitment system.
  3. Positive Employer Branding: Companies prioritizing providing feedback create a positive reputation in the job market. Word-of-mouth travels fast, and a reputation for constructive communication can attract high-quality candidates who appreciate the transparency and fairness in the hiring process.

The Case Against Feedback:

  1. Legal Concerns: In some cases, providing detailed feedback may raise legal concerns for recruiters. If the feedback includes subjective opinions or potentially discriminatory information, it could lead to legal complications. Many companies choose to err on caution to avoid legal repercussions.
  2. Time Constraints: Recruiters often juggle numerous responsibilities, and providing personalized feedback to every candidate can be time-consuming. Some argue that the time invested in giving detailed feedback to unsuccessful candidates could be better spent on other essential tasks in the recruitment process.
  3. Subjectivity of Decisions: Hiring decisions can be subjective and influenced by various factors. Communicating the intricacies of these decisions might not always be straightforward, and recruiters may worry about misinterpretation or dissatisfaction on the part of the candidates.

Conclusion

Whether recruiters should provide feedback to applicants is complex and multifaceted. While there are clear advantages regarding professional growth, transparency, and positive employer branding, legal issues, time constraints, and the subjectivity of decisions also merit consideration.

I think the feedback could be both ways so that the recruiter gets some feedback about the recruitment process, and the applicant gets some feedback on their performance, too. This is the only way both can grow in their roles. Although I understand that when tens of candidates have been interviewed, it could be herculean, it is worth a shot.

Something as simple as “we decided to go with someone else at this time because we need someone with more… for the role” can suffice.

What do you think?

What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you believe recruiters should provide detailed feedback to unsuccessful candidates, or do you think the current level of communication is sufficient? Share your opinions and experiences on this topic as the conversation around feedback in the recruitment process continues to shape the dynamics of the professional world.

Exploring Marketcap of Tron Blockchain

0

Tron is a blockchain-based platform that aims to create a decentralized internet and a global digital content ecosystem. Tron was founded by Justin Sun, a former chief representative of Ripple in China, and launched its mainnet in June 2018. Tron claims to have over 40 million active users and over 1,800 decentralized applications (DApps) running on its network.

One of the key metrics that investors and traders use to evaluate the value and potential of a cryptocurrency is its market capitalization, or marketcap for short. Marketcap is calculated by multiplying the current price of a coin or token by its total circulating supply. For example, if a coin has a price of $0.1 and a circulating supply of 10 billion, its marketcap is $1 billion.

According to CoinMarketCap, as of December 27, 2023, Tron has a price of $0.045 and a circulating supply of 71.66 billion, which gives it a marketcap of $3.22 billion. This makes Tron the 15th largest cryptocurrency by marketcap, behind Bitcoin, Ethereum, Binance Coin, Cardano, Solana, XRP, Polkadot, Terra, Avalanche, Dogecoin, Shiba Inu, Polygon, Chainlink and Stellar.

Tron’s marketcap has fluctuated significantly over the years, reaching an all-time high of $19.7 billion in January 2018, when Tron was trading at $0.3 per coin. Since then, Tron has experienced several cycles of boom and bust, along with the rest of the crypto market. Tron’s marketcap reached a low of $764 million in March 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic caused a global market crash. However, Tron recovered strongly in the following months, reaching $4.6 billion in May 2021, before dropping again to $2.2 billion in July 2021.

Tron’s marketcap is influenced by various factors, such as the overall sentiment and performance of the crypto market, the development and innovation of the Tron platform and ecosystem, the adoption and usage of Tron’s DApps and services, the competition and collaboration with other blockchain projects, the regulatory and legal environment in different countries and regions, and the marketing and communication strategies of Tron’s team and community.

Tron’s marketcap is also affected by the supply and demand dynamics of its native token, TRX. TRX is used to pay for transactions and smart contracts on the Tron network, as well as to stake and vote for validators who secure the network. TRX can also be exchanged for other cryptocurrencies or fiat currencies on various platforms and exchanges. Additionally, TRX can be used to access various DApps and services built on Tron, such as BitTorrent, WinkLink, JustSwap, JustLend and JustNFT.

The total supply of TRX is capped at 100 billion, with 71.66 billion currently in circulation. The remaining 28.34 billion are held by the Tron Foundation for various purposes, such as development incentives, ecosystem rewards and strategic partnerships. The Tron Foundation has pledged to lock up these tokens until January 1st, 2025, to ensure transparency and accountability.

The demand for TRX depends on the utility and value proposition of the Tron platform and ecosystem, as well as the speculation and expectations of investors and traders. The more users and developers adopt and use Tron’s DApps and services, the more demand there will be for TRX to power them.

The more innovation and improvement that Tron’s team and community deliver, the more confidence and trust there will be in Tron’s future potential. The more exposure and awareness that Tron’s marketing and communication efforts generate, the more interest and attention there will be from new and existing participants in the crypto space.

Tron’s marketcap is a reflection of its current price multiplied by its circulating supply. However, behind this simple calculation lies a complex interplay of various factors that affect both the supply and demand of TRX. Tron’s marketcap is not only a measure of its value and potential as a cryptocurrency project but also an indicator of its progress and performance as a blockchain platform.

Possible Effects of the US Debts on Various Aspects of its Economic and Political System

0

The United States of America is the world’s largest economy and a global superpower. However, it is also the world’s biggest debtor, owing more than $28 trillion to its creditors, both domestic and foreign. What are the implications of such a high level of debt on the USA economy and governance?

We will explore some of the possible effects of the US debt on various aspects of its economic and political system, such as growth, inflation, interest rates, trade, security, and democracy. We will also discuss some of the potential solutions and challenges that the US faces in managing its debt burden.

Growth: The US debt has been growing faster than its gross domestic product (GDP) for several years, reaching 127% of GDP in 2023. This means that the US is spending more than it is producing, and relying on borrowing to finance its deficit. While some level of debt can be beneficial for stimulating economic activity and investment, excessive debt can have negative consequences for long-term growth.

For example, high debt can crowd out private sector borrowing, reduce public investment in infrastructure and education, and limit fiscal space for responding to shocks and crises. Moreover, high debt can erode investor confidence and increase the risk of a debt crisis or default, which could trigger a severe recession.

The US debt is largely denominated in its own currency, the US dollar. This gives the US an advantage over other countries that borrow in foreign currencies, as it can print money to service its debt without facing exchange rate risk.

However, this also creates the possibility of inflation, which is the general rise in the prices of goods and services over time. Inflation reduces the purchasing power of money and erodes the real value of debt.

While inflation has been low and stable in the US for decades, some economists warn that the unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus in response to the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to higher inflation in the future.

Higher inflation could hurt consumers and businesses, especially those with fixed incomes or contracts. It could also force the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to curb inflation, which could slow down economic growth and increase the cost of servicing debt.

The US debt is influenced by the level and direction of interest rates, which are determined by the supply and demand for money in the market. The US government borrows money by issuing bonds, which are promises to pay back a certain amount of money with interest over time.

The interest rate on these bonds reflects the risk and return that investors expect from lending to the US government. The higher the interest rate, the more expensive it is for the US government to borrow money and service its debt.

The lower the interest rate, the cheaper it is for the US government to borrow money and service its debt. Interest rates are affected by various factors, such as inflation expectations, economic growth prospects, monetary policy actions, global market conditions, and investor sentiment.

Generally speaking, higher inflation, lower growth, tighter monetary policy, weaker global demand, and lower confidence tend to push interest rates up. Lower inflation, higher growth, looser monetary policy, stronger global demand, and higher confidence tend to push interest rates down.

The US debt has implications for its trade balance with other countries, which is the difference between its exports and imports of goods and services. The US has been running a trade deficit for decades, meaning that it imports more than it exports.

implies that the US consumes more than it produces, and relies on foreign savings to finance its consumption. The trade deficit is partly financed by issuing debt to foreign investors, who buy US assets such as bonds, stocks, real estate, and businesses.

This increases the US net foreign debt position, which is the difference between its assets and liabilities abroad. The trade deficit also affects the value of the US dollar relative to other currencies, which influences the competitiveness of US goods and services in international markets.

A weaker dollar makes US exports cheaper and imports more expensive, which could reduce the trade deficit and boost domestic production. A stronger dollar makes US exports more expensive and imports cheaper, which could increase the trade deficit and reduce domestic production.

The US debt has implications for its national security and global leadership role, as it affects its ability to fund its military spending and foreign policy objectives.

The US debt has implications for its democratic system and institutions, as it affects its political stability and governance quality. The US debt is partly a reflection of the political polarization and gridlock that have characterized its policymaking process in recent years.

The US has faced difficulties in reaching consensus and compromise on key fiscal issues, such as the budget, the debt ceiling, taxes, spending, and entitlements. This has resulted in frequent fiscal cliffs, government shutdowns, and credit rating downgrades, which have eroded public trust and confidence in the government.

The high level of debt could also exacerbate social and economic inequalities, as different groups may compete for scarce public resources and benefits. Moreover, the high level of debt could increase the vulnerability of the US to external pressures and interference, as foreign creditors may have leverage over its policy decisions and actions.

Solutions and challenges: The US faces a complex and daunting task of managing its debt burden in a sustainable and responsible manner. There is no simple or easy solution to this problem, as it requires a comprehensive and balanced approach that involves both increasing revenues and reducing expenditures, while maintaining economic growth and social welfare. Some of the possible measures that the US could consider include:

Reforming its tax system to make it more efficient, fair, and progressive, by broadening the tax base, eliminating loopholes and deductions, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and introducing new taxes on carbon emissions, financial transactions, or digital services.

Reforming its spending programs to make them more effective, targeted, and affordable, by prioritizing public investment in infrastructure, education, health, and research, streamlining bureaucracy and administration costs, reducing waste and fraud, and adjusting entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to reflect demographic changes and fiscal realities.

Reforming its monetary policy to ensure price stability and financial stability, by maintaining an independent and credible Federal Reserve that can adjust interest rates and money supply according to economic conditions and inflation expectations, while avoiding excessive or prolonged monetary stimulus that could create asset bubbles or inflationary pressures.

Reforming its trade policy to enhance its competitiveness and productivity, by promoting free and fair trade agreements that open up new markets and opportunities for US businesses and workers, while protecting its national interests and values from unfair trade practices or strategic rivals.

However, the US also has many strengths and advantages that could help it overcome these challenges, such as a resilient and dynamic economy, a diverse and innovative, a robust and flexible democratic system, a powerful and respected military force, and a network of allies and friends around the world.

The US debt is not an insurmountable problem,  but it is a serious one that requires urgent attention and action. The US has the capacity and responsibility to manage its debt in a way that preserves its economic prosperity, political stability, national security, and global leadership role for generations to come.

Understanding Conglomerate Tax, Accumulation of Capability and Dangote Group’s EFCC Raids

2

Good People, please do not confuse my construct of Conglomerate Tax with what is happening in Dangote Group as EFCC raids. Sure, I have posited that nations and citizens pay special “taxes” to conglomerates around the world because they typically have the capacities to address upstream challenges which nations want addressed. In other words, while a spare parts seller in Nigeria may not get import duty waivers, Nigeria could decide to waive duties for an automotive company bringing in industrial equipment.

My thesis is that conglomerate tax is part of the global market system, and in my book, I cited many examples. When Amazon wanted to build a second headquarters, many American cities offered it $billions on tax waivers; I am not sure small businesses in Virginia and New York would be that lucky. Boeing until recently was getting $100 million yearly from the state of Washington. Of course, in Nigeria, Dangote Group, Nigeria’s largest conglomerate, gets many goodies.

My position to a large extent is straightforward: “if you have $5bn to invest in Nigeria and you have money to rent my brain, my advisory package will include getting some major concessions from the government for you. I have called that conglomerate tax and it is global (Amazon HQ2 got $billions of waivers from US cities, etc). Dangote’s problem is that he is alone doing production things in Nigeria, and that is why we have the jealousy from many who do not understand how markets work. There is no businessman or woman with $10bn to invest that will not ask for special treatment. Not doing so is stupidity.” 

The piece was written many years ago, and should not be used to justify any alleged issues Dangote Group may have with the government on foreign currency. Dangote Refinery possibly got special treatments on US dollars to bring in machines into Nigeria. Yet, there is going to be an examination where those special treatments could constitute “illegality”  on what is fair for even a big conglomerate. EFCC cannot be raiding Dangote Group because it received special FX treatments, it is possibly evaluating the big picture because indeed Dangote Refinery, for investing $billions, should be expected to get special FX considerations.

So, the BusinessDay piece which quoted me got it a little out of context: my construct of conglomerate tax does not justify illegality.  I have built this construct on my theory of the Accumulation of Capability which notes that as companies accumulate capabilities across different domains, operating at the upstream level, they exert influence on governments, making it possible for them to get concessions and waivers, in ways companies which operate at the downstream level (ordinary, mundane and largely undifferentiated services) cannot. Dangote Refinery met many requirements to exert those taxes on Nigeria! But even as it does, there is always a determination when that privilege could become a poison to the economy.

Companies must develop and accumulate capabilities in order to compete in the marketplace. In this video, I explain how any firm can do that and why accumulating capability is very strategic. From Google to Dangote Group, when companies accumulate capabilities, they see themselves operating in the segments of markets with higher value (usually upstream) compared with where their competitors operate (usually downstream). Dangote Group can deploy massive assets and technical know-how in cement production, making it harder for new entrants and rivals.

Please read my book titled The Dangote System: Techniques for Building Conglomerates to understand my constructs on conglomerate tax and the accumulation of capabilities very well. Yes, they are not blank cheques to disarm economies.

Comment on Feed

One of the reasons I like reading Prof Ndubuusi Ekekwe posts is because he endeavours to speak the ugly truth that most of us don’t like to hear. In 2016 after Dangote unveiled his plan for the 650bpd mega refinery project and approached the CBN, the CBN publicly said it would lend it’s support to assist Dangote with special access to FX to facilitate the laudable project which would save country about $30 billion in FX gains, and provide over 135,000 permanent jobs.

What country on earth wouldn’t give special support in the form of waivers, tax breaks, special discounts etc to such an investor? I laugh when I hear people say Dangote is receiving special favours from government, and that government should level the playing field.? Like prof rightly pointed out, this is a global practice meant to attract and retain major investors.

In Apiril 2023, the world’s largest advanced micro chip maker TSMC requested for $15 billion in support from the US government in the form of tax credit and are expected to ask for another $7 billion in government grants. Why? Because they’re building a chip manufacturing plant in Arizona USA according to Wall Street journal. TSMC a Taiwanese company hopes to use US government money for its project.