http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajzwSd03a7c
Charlie Rose - Tom Friedman 11/20/09
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
How Saint Nick Met a Space Alien
An out of this world story about Santa Claus's bizarre encounter in the sky.
Friday, December 18, 2009
About 360 Cities
in szeged
We're dedicated to:
Promoting geo-referenced, interactive panoramic photography and its best practitioners around the world. Check out our World panorama map and Photographer map
Hosting virtual tours of hotels, restaurants and tourist resorts and enabling members to create new tours from their panoramas. More on Virtual Tours
Instroducing the world high-resolution, immersive imagery to an even wider audience of visitors through our content layers on Google Earth
Providing the best-anywhere platform for publishing panoramic photography for our unique and talented network of the world's best panoramic photographers. Why join 360 Cities?
Taking you to new places in surprising ways. See for yourself.
李安：勇敢面對自己
http://video.cw.com.tw/pages/public/movie/player/tv_player.jspx?id=40288ae71addaf66011ade11b88001f7
李安，台灣人的驕傲。從推手到色戒，李安為什麼始終對自己的電影充滿自信？面對人生的挑戰時，李安用什麼來對抗內心的脆弱？對李安來說，成長是什麼？人生最重要的部份又是什麼？（採訪：蘇育琪）
李安，台灣人的驕傲。從推手到色戒，李安為什麼始終對自己的電影充滿自信？面對人生的挑戰時，李安用什麼來對抗內心的脆弱？對李安來說，成長是什麼？人生最重要的部份又是什麼？（採訪：蘇育琪）
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Talks Rory Bremner's one-man world summit
About this talk
Scottish funnyman Rory Bremner convenes a historic council on the TEDGlobal stage -- as he lampoons Gordon Brown, Barack Obama, George W. Bush and a cast of other world leaders with his hilarious impressions and biting commentary. See if you can catch a few sharp TED in-jokes.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
China phone rental and travel assistance
斯坦福大學國際管理學院斯隆 (Sloan) 項目成員來華期間使用 YOYOOR 智能 GPS 手機
杭州2008年7月17日電 /新華美通/ -- 久負盛名的斯坦福大學國際管理學院斯隆 (Sloan) 項目成員日前來到了中國，開始他們為期兩周的中國內地-越南-香港之行。這些企業管理學員首先到訪了北京和上海，參觀了一些國內重要企業，包括聯想、康明斯和寶鋼總部。在此期間，擔當“陪同”任務的是全新的 YOYOOR 智能 GPS 手機。
對處理斯坦福大學學員們繁忙的行程， YOYOOR 租賃手機 ( http://www.yoyoor.com ) 遊刃有餘 -- 該手機擁有強大的數據信息支持繫統和全面的城市指南，使用者可以便捷地找到關於交通、購物、旅遊、餐飲等各方面的資訊。實惠的本地通話費取代了國際漫遊的高昂成本，大大節省了通話費。而讓學員們感到最安心的是，YOYOOR 呼叫中心為他們提供了中英文雙語的專業客戶服務，使得完全不會中文的他們隨時可以獲得翻譯服務，克服了文化、語言上的障礙，真正做到了“一機在手，溝通暢通無阻”，YOYOOR GPS 定位服務更保障了學員們出行的安全便利。
其中一位學員評價說，“手機很棒，客戶服務尤其出色，下次來中國還會考慮租用。”學員的導遊則發現手機的群組管理很有用，他說，“我在整個行程中一直使用 YOYOOR 手機和成員們保持聯繫，發布重要信息，保證每個人都知道行程中的一些臨時的變化。”
隨著奧運會的日益臨近，YOYOOR 希望能為大量湧入國內的海外遊客提供高質量的、快捷周到的服務，同時也希望能成為國內各會議組織者和外事機構的合作伙伴，提高其客戶滿意度和業界的國際形像。
YOYOOR 公司成立於2007年，總部在美國舊金山，目前在中國各大城市設有分支機構。它專為海外來華人士提供智能移動電話租賃及配套服務，它提供的服務包括：智能手機租賃，用實惠的本地通話費取代高昂的國際漫遊費用，為客戶節約大量話費。YOYOOR 手機上裝有 YOYOOR 自主開發的高科技軟件，能為客戶提供全面的城市指南和 GPS 定位服務，更重要的是它有一個功能強大的呼叫中心，中心的服務人員使用標准的英語全年為客戶提供各種服務，以滿足他們在中國的交通、住宿、旅遊、餐飲、購物，資訊等方面的需求。
Mobile Tourism
In China, the world’s largest mobile-phone market by users, the usefulness of your handset goes far beyond making and receiving calls.
Text the name of a restaurant to a listings magazine and you’ll receive the address. Buy an air ticket and the confirmation number and flight times will be sent to your phone. Don’t speak Chinese? Text the phrase you want to know and services such as Moka.com will reply with a translation.
And the market is diversifying. In March 2008, CIB reported on i-Vision (尚视互动), pioneers of mobile TV in China, and in the October issue on the battle being fought among the developers of mobile phone operating systems (OS), which may well see its most significant action on Chinese soil.
But the incompatibility of networks and OS means many US cell phones don’t work in China, presenting an often unexpected challenge to travelers, while opening up a niche for companies offering mobile phone-based services for foreigners faced with the particularly obstructive language barrier and challenges in everyday communication. The speed of technological advancement, however, means that these firms face a challenge keeping up with the latest equipment, as well as the wants and needs of users.
SMART IDEA
Yoyoor, a Hangzhou-based startup founded in 2007 by Cybernaut (China) Capital (塞伯乐中国投资), is taking full advantage of the incompatibility issue and the language barrier by offering Nokia smartphone rental to visitors. Each handset features a GPS positioning and navigation system, a comprehensive in-phone listings guide covering several cities, a hotline to a 24-hour English-language call center for help and orientation, and international direct dialing. It also doubles as a high-resolution digital camera.
Consulting the locals also becomes a more plausible possibility thanks to the phone’s integrated Chinese phrasebook and dictionary which, though limited, contain useful phrases that appear in Chinese characters and can be played back, avoiding the embarrassment of not being understood at the second or third attempt.
Such services, says Yoyoor’s vice-president of marketing and business development, Ray Zhu, are designed to make traveling in China as painless an experience as possible. “We called the company Yoyoor because the phone is like a yo-yo — you carry it in your hand, it is magic and fun — but it also makes your life easier and safer as a traveler,” he explains.
Certainly, Yoyoor’s services may embolden travelers to pursue a more scenic route not planned in their hotel room the night before, safe in the knowledge that they can consult the GPS or dial the call center if they get lost. Those who have tried to unfold a map on a windy street corner, or who are reluctant to use a guidebook for fear of appearing conspicuously new to a city, will also no doubt prefer the convenience and even the street- credibility of consulting a smartphone.
Not all of its services are as user-friendly as they seem, however. In navigation mode, the phone’s GPS system shows the user’s present location, as well as a list of restaurants, bars, banks and attractions close by. Doing this returns a long list of businesses – performing such a search at a random intersection in Beijing, for example, produced 2,000 listings. Another downside is the lack of insurance. Lose your Yoyoor phone or have it stolen and you are liable to pay for a replacement, which is likely to set you back almost USD 600.
REVENUE STREAMS
As well as phone rental and international calls — Yoyoor offers different packages, from a daily USD 12 rental fee with free outgoing local calls to pay-as-you-go packages — the company’s main revenue source comes from advertising, in the form of messages sent to the user promoting local restaurants or bars, as well as commission on flights booked or restaurant reservations made via the call center.
Strategic partnerships have already been signed with network operator China Mobile (中国移动), which offers Yoyoor lower airtime rates and volume discounts, and Air China (中国国际航空), which has given Yoyoor booths at Beijing Capital Airport. China-bound passengers flying from New York’s JFK, San Francisco and Los Angeles also receive a Yoyoor boarding-pass holder to enhance awareness of the service.
Since its launch in June 2008, Yoyoor has achieved moderate success, and now attracts more than 300 phone rentals a month. However, CEO Joss Shen is keen to broaden the company’s service offering. Its next project is Yofone, “a basic handset that is free to use for local calls but international call will be charged to your [hotel] room,” Shen explains. “Hotels will then decide whether they want to sell advertising to target their clients in the form of SMS, the revenue from which will be shared with Yoyoor.”
The service will be launched in Hangzhou in the coming months and will expand to Shanghai later in the year. In the long-term, Shen hopes to roll it out across China, and eventually overseas, as well as offering a similar service for Chinese travelers abroad.
DOWNLOAD DILEMMA
However, with Chinese networks poised to roll out 3G technology and working on compatibility with US handsets, and with an increasing number of mobile users now owning sophisticated smartphones — sales totaled 36.5 million units worldwide in Q3 2008, an 11.5% year-on-year increase according to IT research and advisory firm Gartner — the market for handset rentals seems set to diminish.
Zhu is aware that the company’s long-term future may well lie in offering its software and services as a downloadable package, rather than forcing users to rent a separate handset while they are in China. “People’s phones are dear to them, they like to use them and hang on to them, so we have to make all of our software compatible with all the different operating systems,” Zhu adds.
WHO YA GONNA CALL?
One firm that has a head-start in terms of offering services to existing phone owners is One2Call, a Dutch-owned company headquartered in Singapore, which offers telephone-based interpretation, personal-assistant and concierge services to foreigners in China.
One2Call owns and maintains a database covering 15 major cities in China and listings for more than 20,000 merchants, from bars and restaurants to shops and airlines. Included in the many details are the longitude and latitude, to allow for detailed proximity-based searches for export to handheld GPS devices, particularly useful for smartphone users.
According to managing director Harm Hindriks, “This is a very exciting time − 2008 was boom-time for us and I think 2009 will be even better.” He adds that the service is aimed not only at visitors, but also at “longer-term expatriates who have been here some time but who, without being disrespectful, have not learned the language sufficiently, like myself. I often use the service in fact.”
At a time of corporate downsizing and expenditure cuts, Hindriks also identifies the cost-saving aspect for companies with foreign staff in China, which are then able to dispense with the services of a full-time interpreter.
The call center is manned by a full-time staff of 34 and 100 part-timers, all of whom undergo three-months’ training before starting work. “You can ask our people absolutely anything and they will be able to help you,” Hindriks claims. “Out of every 100 people we train, only 10 make it through the three-month course. We deal with VIPs who are used to having problems solved and we have to be able to guarantee a high level of service at all times.”
With China likely to become an increasingly important destination for both business and leisure travelers, and with sales of smartphones soaring worldwide, the market for location-based, mobile tourism services appears set to grow. The challenge for contenders such as Yoyoor and One2Call is to find the right business model, both for advertisers and, more importantly, for customers.
杭州2008年7月17日電 /新華美通/ -- 久負盛名的斯坦福大學國際管理學院斯隆 (Sloan) 項目成員日前來到了中國，開始他們為期兩周的中國內地-越南-香港之行。這些企業管理學員首先到訪了北京和上海，參觀了一些國內重要企業，包括聯想、康明斯和寶鋼總部。在此期間，擔當“陪同”任務的是全新的 YOYOOR 智能 GPS 手機。
對處理斯坦福大學學員們繁忙的行程， YOYOOR 租賃手機 ( http://www.yoyoor.com ) 遊刃有餘 -- 該手機擁有強大的數據信息支持繫統和全面的城市指南，使用者可以便捷地找到關於交通、購物、旅遊、餐飲等各方面的資訊。實惠的本地通話費取代了國際漫遊的高昂成本，大大節省了通話費。而讓學員們感到最安心的是，YOYOOR 呼叫中心為他們提供了中英文雙語的專業客戶服務，使得完全不會中文的他們隨時可以獲得翻譯服務，克服了文化、語言上的障礙，真正做到了“一機在手，溝通暢通無阻”，YOYOOR GPS 定位服務更保障了學員們出行的安全便利。
其中一位學員評價說，“手機很棒，客戶服務尤其出色，下次來中國還會考慮租用。”學員的導遊則發現手機的群組管理很有用，他說，“我在整個行程中一直使用 YOYOOR 手機和成員們保持聯繫，發布重要信息，保證每個人都知道行程中的一些臨時的變化。”
隨著奧運會的日益臨近，YOYOOR 希望能為大量湧入國內的海外遊客提供高質量的、快捷周到的服務，同時也希望能成為國內各會議組織者和外事機構的合作伙伴，提高其客戶滿意度和業界的國際形像。
YOYOOR 公司成立於2007年，總部在美國舊金山，目前在中國各大城市設有分支機構。它專為海外來華人士提供智能移動電話租賃及配套服務，它提供的服務包括：智能手機租賃，用實惠的本地通話費取代高昂的國際漫遊費用，為客戶節約大量話費。YOYOOR 手機上裝有 YOYOOR 自主開發的高科技軟件，能為客戶提供全面的城市指南和 GPS 定位服務，更重要的是它有一個功能強大的呼叫中心，中心的服務人員使用標准的英語全年為客戶提供各種服務，以滿足他們在中國的交通、住宿、旅遊、餐飲、購物，資訊等方面的需求。
Mobile Tourism
In China, the world’s largest mobile-phone market by users, the usefulness of your handset goes far beyond making and receiving calls.
Text the name of a restaurant to a listings magazine and you’ll receive the address. Buy an air ticket and the confirmation number and flight times will be sent to your phone. Don’t speak Chinese? Text the phrase you want to know and services such as Moka.com will reply with a translation.
And the market is diversifying. In March 2008, CIB reported on i-Vision (尚视互动), pioneers of mobile TV in China, and in the October issue on the battle being fought among the developers of mobile phone operating systems (OS), which may well see its most significant action on Chinese soil.
But the incompatibility of networks and OS means many US cell phones don’t work in China, presenting an often unexpected challenge to travelers, while opening up a niche for companies offering mobile phone-based services for foreigners faced with the particularly obstructive language barrier and challenges in everyday communication. The speed of technological advancement, however, means that these firms face a challenge keeping up with the latest equipment, as well as the wants and needs of users.
SMART IDEA
Yoyoor, a Hangzhou-based startup founded in 2007 by Cybernaut (China) Capital (塞伯乐中国投资), is taking full advantage of the incompatibility issue and the language barrier by offering Nokia smartphone rental to visitors. Each handset features a GPS positioning and navigation system, a comprehensive in-phone listings guide covering several cities, a hotline to a 24-hour English-language call center for help and orientation, and international direct dialing. It also doubles as a high-resolution digital camera.
Consulting the locals also becomes a more plausible possibility thanks to the phone’s integrated Chinese phrasebook and dictionary which, though limited, contain useful phrases that appear in Chinese characters and can be played back, avoiding the embarrassment of not being understood at the second or third attempt.
Such services, says Yoyoor’s vice-president of marketing and business development, Ray Zhu, are designed to make traveling in China as painless an experience as possible. “We called the company Yoyoor because the phone is like a yo-yo — you carry it in your hand, it is magic and fun — but it also makes your life easier and safer as a traveler,” he explains.
Certainly, Yoyoor’s services may embolden travelers to pursue a more scenic route not planned in their hotel room the night before, safe in the knowledge that they can consult the GPS or dial the call center if they get lost. Those who have tried to unfold a map on a windy street corner, or who are reluctant to use a guidebook for fear of appearing conspicuously new to a city, will also no doubt prefer the convenience and even the street- credibility of consulting a smartphone.
Not all of its services are as user-friendly as they seem, however. In navigation mode, the phone’s GPS system shows the user’s present location, as well as a list of restaurants, bars, banks and attractions close by. Doing this returns a long list of businesses – performing such a search at a random intersection in Beijing, for example, produced 2,000 listings. Another downside is the lack of insurance. Lose your Yoyoor phone or have it stolen and you are liable to pay for a replacement, which is likely to set you back almost USD 600.
REVENUE STREAMS
As well as phone rental and international calls — Yoyoor offers different packages, from a daily USD 12 rental fee with free outgoing local calls to pay-as-you-go packages — the company’s main revenue source comes from advertising, in the form of messages sent to the user promoting local restaurants or bars, as well as commission on flights booked or restaurant reservations made via the call center.
Strategic partnerships have already been signed with network operator China Mobile (中国移动), which offers Yoyoor lower airtime rates and volume discounts, and Air China (中国国际航空), which has given Yoyoor booths at Beijing Capital Airport. China-bound passengers flying from New York’s JFK, San Francisco and Los Angeles also receive a Yoyoor boarding-pass holder to enhance awareness of the service.
Since its launch in June 2008, Yoyoor has achieved moderate success, and now attracts more than 300 phone rentals a month. However, CEO Joss Shen is keen to broaden the company’s service offering. Its next project is Yofone, “a basic handset that is free to use for local calls but international call will be charged to your [hotel] room,” Shen explains. “Hotels will then decide whether they want to sell advertising to target their clients in the form of SMS, the revenue from which will be shared with Yoyoor.”
The service will be launched in Hangzhou in the coming months and will expand to Shanghai later in the year. In the long-term, Shen hopes to roll it out across China, and eventually overseas, as well as offering a similar service for Chinese travelers abroad.
DOWNLOAD DILEMMA
However, with Chinese networks poised to roll out 3G technology and working on compatibility with US handsets, and with an increasing number of mobile users now owning sophisticated smartphones — sales totaled 36.5 million units worldwide in Q3 2008, an 11.5% year-on-year increase according to IT research and advisory firm Gartner — the market for handset rentals seems set to diminish.
Zhu is aware that the company’s long-term future may well lie in offering its software and services as a downloadable package, rather than forcing users to rent a separate handset while they are in China. “People’s phones are dear to them, they like to use them and hang on to them, so we have to make all of our software compatible with all the different operating systems,” Zhu adds.
WHO YA GONNA CALL?
One firm that has a head-start in terms of offering services to existing phone owners is One2Call, a Dutch-owned company headquartered in Singapore, which offers telephone-based interpretation, personal-assistant and concierge services to foreigners in China.
One2Call owns and maintains a database covering 15 major cities in China and listings for more than 20,000 merchants, from bars and restaurants to shops and airlines. Included in the many details are the longitude and latitude, to allow for detailed proximity-based searches for export to handheld GPS devices, particularly useful for smartphone users.
According to managing director Harm Hindriks, “This is a very exciting time − 2008 was boom-time for us and I think 2009 will be even better.” He adds that the service is aimed not only at visitors, but also at “longer-term expatriates who have been here some time but who, without being disrespectful, have not learned the language sufficiently, like myself. I often use the service in fact.”
At a time of corporate downsizing and expenditure cuts, Hindriks also identifies the cost-saving aspect for companies with foreign staff in China, which are then able to dispense with the services of a full-time interpreter.
The call center is manned by a full-time staff of 34 and 100 part-timers, all of whom undergo three-months’ training before starting work. “You can ask our people absolutely anything and they will be able to help you,” Hindriks claims. “Out of every 100 people we train, only 10 make it through the three-month course. We deal with VIPs who are used to having problems solved and we have to be able to guarantee a high level of service at all times.”
With China likely to become an increasingly important destination for both business and leisure travelers, and with sales of smartphones soaring worldwide, the market for location-based, mobile tourism services appears set to grow. The challenge for contenders such as Yoyoor and One2Call is to find the right business model, both for advertisers and, more importantly, for customers.
Shopper's Market: 12/7: Skateboarder Tony Hawk changes the 'game'
Shopper's Market: 12/7: Skateboarder Tony Hawk changes the 'game'
Stopping Heel Pain: Q&A with Dr. Manny: I have plantar fasciitis, how can I stop the pain in my heels?
Stopping Heel Pain: Q&A with Dr. Manny: I have plantar fasciitis, how can I stop the pain in my heels?
Monday, December 07, 2009
Great Resource: On the Job Hunt: Public libraries help unemployed search for work
Great Resource: On the Job Hunt: Public libraries help unemployed search for work
US 'Carbon Is Danger To Public Health'
Saving the planet... in less than a fortnight. As the Copenhagen climate summit gets underway the US says carbon emissions are a risk to public health while others seize upon alleged leaked emails as evidence global warming is not happening.
Islands Disappearing Beneath The Waves
Jonathan Samuels reports from the Kiribati Islands in the Pacific, where the effects of climate change have already had a drastic impact on the inhabitants.
Road To Retirement, Part 2: Advice on planning for retirement, including Social Security, annuities and reverse mortgages
Road To Retirement, Part 2: Advice on planning for retirement, including Social Security, annuities and reverse mortgages
Blair Told UK Was Entering Iraq Unprepared
A senior British officer tells the Iraq war inquiry that two days before the invasion Tony Blair was urged to delay the offensive because Britain was not prepared for the aftermath. Sky's Mark Stone reports.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Tales From the Toilet:
Tales From the Toilet: Dr. Manny talks about a new book overflowing with information about the inner workings of the body and the mysteries that it holds
Friday, November 27, 2009
Welcome Home: Space shuttle Atlantis lands safely at Kennedy Space Center
Space shuttle Atlantis lands safely at Kennedy Space Center
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The White House shows off place settings and silverware for the big fete.
The White House shows off place settings and silverware for the big fete.
'Success Story': Rep. Weiner says Medicare is holding down costs better than private plan
'Success Story': Rep. Weiner says Medicare is holding down costs better than private plan
Rep. Weiner says Medicare is holding down costs better than private plans
Tax havens & currency speculation Pt.4
November 24, 2009
Tax havens & currency speculation Pt.4
Sony Kapoor on the rise of Goldman Sachs and the need to democratize the economy
Transcript
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. And we're talking to Sony Kapoor. Sony is the managing director of Re-Define, Rethinking Development, Finance & Environment, international think tank. Used to work for Lehman Brothers and some of the other institutions on Wall Street. Thanks for joining us again, Sony.
SONY KAPOOR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, RE-DEFINE: Thank you for having me.
JAY: Our conversation has brought us to the big G, Goldman Sachs, which is becoming such a massive entity unto itself. It's really, especially out of this most recent crisis, emerged no longer one of many financial institutions but clearly more than the gorilla on the block. Goldman not only controls—or its people are allies, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve. But it's a ridiculous thing even to talk about insider trading when you talk to Goldman. They have people connected to them, probably, on every important board of most of the major companies in the world. They have board-level information when they decide what to trade and not to trade. Talk about the rise of Goldman and what that means in terms of the democratization of the economy.
KAPOOR: Well, there are two aspects to this. One, there was this perception, even before the crisis actually happened, that Goldman was somehow first amongst equals. One reason behind that was, unlike most of its other competitors, such as Lehman, etc., Goldman stayed having a partnership structure for much longer. It was only recently—I think it's in the past decade or so—that the partnership was dissolved and it became a public holding company. What that meant was that it was much more closely knit than other financial institutions. What it also probably did was it helped Goldman weather the crisis better than the other financial institutions, because if you're a partnership, your capital and money's tied up with everybody else's, and you stand to lose personally, which employees of Lehman and some of the other banks didn't. The worst that would happen to them would be that they wouldn't get their salary or bonus—they didn't actually actively lose any money. And what that meant was that the risk-management practices within Goldman, where everybody was peeking over everybody else's shoulder, still had some residual footprint from those partnership days, even though the structure had changed. And I think it helped Goldman be more vigilant going into the crisis. The second aspect is—.
JAY: Let me just interrupt for a sec. But that vigilance also meant they were betting against their own advice to their own clients. As we know, they were insuring with AIG on investment properties on the downside that they were selling to their clients without disclosing this, so that risk management had very little to do with any kind of responsibility other than their own quick profit.
KAPOOR: That is true. And I think there's shades of gray between what is legally permissible and what is ethical or not. And to my judgment, this was all above board and legal, but not necessarily ethical. The important thing is that in many of these big banks—there were parts of Lehman Brothers which seriously recognized the gravity of the situation and which were asking the management of the firm to get out of this real estate business and to try and reduce their exposure and to try and buy insurance the way Goldman did. But there were other parts of Lehman Brothers which were making so much money out of this that they wanted the party to continue. And we know which side won. And I think that this aspect of thinking of these big financial institutions as one cohesive-whole entity is a little bit mistaken. So it is quite possible, actually, that different parts of Goldman were pulling in different directions. And it's not to say that the people dealing with the customers and selling them those products were not aware of what the other side was doing.
JAY: Sony, you worked with these people on Wall Street. This idea of "too big to fail", that if this whole house of cards comes falling down, that the state is going to have to come in and bail us out, were they betting on that all along?
KAPOOR: Not explicitly, especially if you look at the institutions that failed. The two institutions, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, they were actually out of the big Wall Street banks, the institutions which had the highest amount of employee ownership. So if you look at it from the incentive perspective, that these are the people who are running the bank who actually own 50 percent or 40 percent of the bank, they knew that in the event of any failure it's the bondholders who mostly get bailed out, but the shareholders mostly were going to lose a lot of money, and they were aware of that.
JAY: But Lehman must have been in shock that they didn't get bailed out. I mean, Paulson and others were trying to get the Brits to bail out Lehman. They must have been a little surprised, in fact. But it's an ex-Goldman guy that kind of decides whether they live or die. I mean, Goldman must have been betting they weren't going to go down.
KAPOOR: At one level, perhaps. But, again, if you look at the individual employees, the calculations they make are very simple. So if you're an employee of Lehman Brothers and you own maybe, you know, 0.5 percent of Lehman Brothers or something, if you're a senior employee, but the amount of bonuses that you can get by betting the bank every year, year after year, are probably significantly higher than the amount you would lose if the whole bank failed. So, from an individual perspective, it is still rational to bet the bank without counting on government bailouts. But collectively it's disastrous, and what you had is a failure of this decision-making. So, yes, the awareness that these banks would be bailed out was really important. And the way it works is that these banks would not have been able to raise the financing through bonds that they did at fairly cheap rates if the bondholders who were investing in these banks, who were lending these banks money, did not think that these banks would be bailed out. So it's not within the institution that this decision-making happens, but it's the awareness of the possibility or the likelihood of bailout means that these institutions can take much more risks than they would otherwise be able to do, 'cause otherwise bondholders would penalize them.
JAY: Right. Now, there's two kind of proposals that have been talked about as possible reforms. One is, if it's too big to fail, break it up into something smaller. Is breaking up of Goldman—I know it's not being seriously talked about, but is it something that should be being talked about?
KAPOOR: I think absolutely, yes. If you look back in the United States to when, for example, Standard Oil was broken up, there was a lot of controversy at that point of time about whether this was the right thing to do, and this was a successful business, etc. But in retrospect it proved to be a good decision, and the sum of parts was greater than the whole. And I think that if Goldman and some of the other big, large, too-big-to-fail banks were broken down, either by geography or, more likely, by function, what you would have is a sounder financial system, a financial system where the society will not be forced to bear the risks of profits being privatized by these institutions, where they would be politically less powerful. And even investors in these institutions would benefit, because the sum of parts would be bigger than the whole.
JAY: Now, the other option, or maybe an option that goes with this, is—the logic goes like this: if the public option is necessary and useful for keeping the health-insurance business in line, then why not the public option for the finance sector?
KAPOOR: There is a possible role for the public sector. And in the United States, what you have is already a significant public-sector presence, for example Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And in many developing countries, you have development banks. And there was a tradition for that here: you had banks dedicated to agriculture lending, dedicated to small and medium sector. The most important thing we need to think about is to build up a diverse financial system and a competitive financial system. What we had was increasing uniformity in the financial system, where every bank was chasing the exact same kind of investments, lending to the exact same people, and not lending to the exact same group. A good bank is one which lends to someone that nobody else lends to, but does not lend to someone that everybody else is lending to. And what we've had over the years is exact reversal of this doctrine, where those who have a good credit score, for example, get twenty envelopes through their door offering them credit, and those who actually need the credit are not able to access it. What you need to do is integrate this social goal of providing credit, enabling financial services which allow people to participate in society and grow, and combine that with the idea of having diverse financial institutions fulfilling real sector needs. And this combination is more stable.
JAY: And what we're seeing is probably the opposite. We're seeing increased concentration of ownership on Wall Street, the rise of the monolith, Goldman, and in the public sector we're seeing the strengthening of the role of the Federal Reserve, which also strengthens the hand of the big banks. So we're not seeing more diversity; we're seeing more concentration of control.
KAPOOR: Absolutely. And this is why when we're discussing the changes we need to do. We need to not just reverse what has happened in the past one or two years of this increasing concentration, but go much further than that, in actively fostering diversity, in actively imposing a more competitive landscape. And that is why breaking up these too-big-to-fail institutions is extremely crucial to this idea of building up a stable financial system and a prosperous society.
JAY: So maybe one thing people watching might do when they choose who they're going to vote for is vote for people who aren't getting any money from the finance sector. They might be a little more likely to have a little backbone on these issues, 'cause most people in Congress are getting some kind of money from the finance sector, and certainly President Obama was one of the more bigger recipients of that.
KAPOOR: I'm not familiar enough with the landscape, but I think that the whole concept of lobbying and of campaign contributions from the sector that you are being elected to regulate and oversee is a flawed concept, and there might need to be a broader governance reform around public funding of election campaigns on much smaller budgets.
JAY: And you also might want to have some rules about people stepping out of Goldman right into public office. There could at least be, like, a five-year moratorium or something between going back and forth between so-called private sector and public sector.
KAPOOR: Absolutely. This whole revolving-door concept is—you know, it begs questions around possible conflicts of interest. That's a very serious problem.
JAY: So I guess what we're really saying, to all of us, we'd better understand this stuff—it isn't that complicated—because we're being taken to the cleaners in the name—this looks so complicated you can't really take a stand on it. But once you dig into it, it isn't rocket science. It's fairly Ponzi scheme-ish.
KAPOOR: Absolutely. The whole concept where, throughout the years, the banks, the bankers, and the regulators, everybody said this is too complicated and this is rocket science, you won't understand it, don't tinker with it or the whole system, the whole financial system, will go bust. And the fact of the matter is we actually haven't touched it, and it's gone bust anyways. And it's really, really, really not complicated. And this complexity was used as an example to reduce accountability. What we need to do as individual citizens, as unions, as consumer associations, as civil society, is to understand that this is not rocket science, make an effort to participate in the reforms and try and get our voice heard. The only voices you're hearing in the financial regulation discussion are the big investment banks, the big commercial banks, some hedge funds, and some private equity voices. It's not just that the individuals, the consumers, are missing from the debate and the taxpayers are missing from the debate, but also the big pension funds, the big reinsurance firms, the savings banks, the community banks, all these parts of the financial sector.
JAY: Well, that's a whole 'nother story, because why the union pension funds, which are enormous and big, big players in the economy, why the unions don't use the clout of their pension funds is beyond me, but they don't.
KAPOOR: This is one of those problems we've revisited this interview series of collective action. Now, if you're an individual pension fund, CalPERS [California Public Employees' Retirement System] or one of the others, you need to make a decision: okay, how much realistic return can I expect on my investment? Most US pension funds have been factoring in returns of 9 or 10 percent. Now, if you're a small investor in a big economy growing at 2 percent, you can generate 9 or 10 percent year after year. But if you're the whole financial system, if you're a big pension fund, if you are the financial system, you cannot generate returns of 10 percent or 9 percent. And we need to recognize that that is not a sustainable thing to do. And the way these pension funds have been thinking is that, well, we think we're smarter than the others and we will be able to choose the right hedge fund investments, the right private equity investments, the right derivatives or commodity investments which will earn us a higher return. Individually everybody is thinking this, but collectively it's impossible. That is why there is a very important need for the unions and the pension funds and the bigger investment community and the government to start this honest discussion of what is possible and what isn't. We actually have a massive pension black hole, and it's time to recognize that and take that into account in the discussions on reforming the financial system.
JAY: Thank you again, Sony, for joining us. Sony Kapoor from Re-Define. And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network. And don't forget our financial reform, which is the donate button. It's here. I'm pointing here. Or there. Somewhere on this page is a donate button. And if you want us to keep doing economic news—and, I think, uncompromisingly—then you got to hit "donate". Thanks for joining us on The Real News Network.
Tax havens & currency speculation Pt.4
Sony Kapoor on the rise of Goldman Sachs and the need to democratize the economy
Transcript
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. And we're talking to Sony Kapoor. Sony is the managing director of Re-Define, Rethinking Development, Finance & Environment, international think tank. Used to work for Lehman Brothers and some of the other institutions on Wall Street. Thanks for joining us again, Sony.
SONY KAPOOR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, RE-DEFINE: Thank you for having me.
JAY: Our conversation has brought us to the big G, Goldman Sachs, which is becoming such a massive entity unto itself. It's really, especially out of this most recent crisis, emerged no longer one of many financial institutions but clearly more than the gorilla on the block. Goldman not only controls—or its people are allies, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve. But it's a ridiculous thing even to talk about insider trading when you talk to Goldman. They have people connected to them, probably, on every important board of most of the major companies in the world. They have board-level information when they decide what to trade and not to trade. Talk about the rise of Goldman and what that means in terms of the democratization of the economy.
KAPOOR: Well, there are two aspects to this. One, there was this perception, even before the crisis actually happened, that Goldman was somehow first amongst equals. One reason behind that was, unlike most of its other competitors, such as Lehman, etc., Goldman stayed having a partnership structure for much longer. It was only recently—I think it's in the past decade or so—that the partnership was dissolved and it became a public holding company. What that meant was that it was much more closely knit than other financial institutions. What it also probably did was it helped Goldman weather the crisis better than the other financial institutions, because if you're a partnership, your capital and money's tied up with everybody else's, and you stand to lose personally, which employees of Lehman and some of the other banks didn't. The worst that would happen to them would be that they wouldn't get their salary or bonus—they didn't actually actively lose any money. And what that meant was that the risk-management practices within Goldman, where everybody was peeking over everybody else's shoulder, still had some residual footprint from those partnership days, even though the structure had changed. And I think it helped Goldman be more vigilant going into the crisis. The second aspect is—.
JAY: Let me just interrupt for a sec. But that vigilance also meant they were betting against their own advice to their own clients. As we know, they were insuring with AIG on investment properties on the downside that they were selling to their clients without disclosing this, so that risk management had very little to do with any kind of responsibility other than their own quick profit.
KAPOOR: That is true. And I think there's shades of gray between what is legally permissible and what is ethical or not. And to my judgment, this was all above board and legal, but not necessarily ethical. The important thing is that in many of these big banks—there were parts of Lehman Brothers which seriously recognized the gravity of the situation and which were asking the management of the firm to get out of this real estate business and to try and reduce their exposure and to try and buy insurance the way Goldman did. But there were other parts of Lehman Brothers which were making so much money out of this that they wanted the party to continue. And we know which side won. And I think that this aspect of thinking of these big financial institutions as one cohesive-whole entity is a little bit mistaken. So it is quite possible, actually, that different parts of Goldman were pulling in different directions. And it's not to say that the people dealing with the customers and selling them those products were not aware of what the other side was doing.
JAY: Sony, you worked with these people on Wall Street. This idea of "too big to fail", that if this whole house of cards comes falling down, that the state is going to have to come in and bail us out, were they betting on that all along?
KAPOOR: Not explicitly, especially if you look at the institutions that failed. The two institutions, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, they were actually out of the big Wall Street banks, the institutions which had the highest amount of employee ownership. So if you look at it from the incentive perspective, that these are the people who are running the bank who actually own 50 percent or 40 percent of the bank, they knew that in the event of any failure it's the bondholders who mostly get bailed out, but the shareholders mostly were going to lose a lot of money, and they were aware of that.
JAY: But Lehman must have been in shock that they didn't get bailed out. I mean, Paulson and others were trying to get the Brits to bail out Lehman. They must have been a little surprised, in fact. But it's an ex-Goldman guy that kind of decides whether they live or die. I mean, Goldman must have been betting they weren't going to go down.
KAPOOR: At one level, perhaps. But, again, if you look at the individual employees, the calculations they make are very simple. So if you're an employee of Lehman Brothers and you own maybe, you know, 0.5 percent of Lehman Brothers or something, if you're a senior employee, but the amount of bonuses that you can get by betting the bank every year, year after year, are probably significantly higher than the amount you would lose if the whole bank failed. So, from an individual perspective, it is still rational to bet the bank without counting on government bailouts. But collectively it's disastrous, and what you had is a failure of this decision-making. So, yes, the awareness that these banks would be bailed out was really important. And the way it works is that these banks would not have been able to raise the financing through bonds that they did at fairly cheap rates if the bondholders who were investing in these banks, who were lending these banks money, did not think that these banks would be bailed out. So it's not within the institution that this decision-making happens, but it's the awareness of the possibility or the likelihood of bailout means that these institutions can take much more risks than they would otherwise be able to do, 'cause otherwise bondholders would penalize them.
JAY: Right. Now, there's two kind of proposals that have been talked about as possible reforms. One is, if it's too big to fail, break it up into something smaller. Is breaking up of Goldman—I know it's not being seriously talked about, but is it something that should be being talked about?
KAPOOR: I think absolutely, yes. If you look back in the United States to when, for example, Standard Oil was broken up, there was a lot of controversy at that point of time about whether this was the right thing to do, and this was a successful business, etc. But in retrospect it proved to be a good decision, and the sum of parts was greater than the whole. And I think that if Goldman and some of the other big, large, too-big-to-fail banks were broken down, either by geography or, more likely, by function, what you would have is a sounder financial system, a financial system where the society will not be forced to bear the risks of profits being privatized by these institutions, where they would be politically less powerful. And even investors in these institutions would benefit, because the sum of parts would be bigger than the whole.
JAY: Now, the other option, or maybe an option that goes with this, is—the logic goes like this: if the public option is necessary and useful for keeping the health-insurance business in line, then why not the public option for the finance sector?
KAPOOR: There is a possible role for the public sector. And in the United States, what you have is already a significant public-sector presence, for example Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And in many developing countries, you have development banks. And there was a tradition for that here: you had banks dedicated to agriculture lending, dedicated to small and medium sector. The most important thing we need to think about is to build up a diverse financial system and a competitive financial system. What we had was increasing uniformity in the financial system, where every bank was chasing the exact same kind of investments, lending to the exact same people, and not lending to the exact same group. A good bank is one which lends to someone that nobody else lends to, but does not lend to someone that everybody else is lending to. And what we've had over the years is exact reversal of this doctrine, where those who have a good credit score, for example, get twenty envelopes through their door offering them credit, and those who actually need the credit are not able to access it. What you need to do is integrate this social goal of providing credit, enabling financial services which allow people to participate in society and grow, and combine that with the idea of having diverse financial institutions fulfilling real sector needs. And this combination is more stable.
JAY: And what we're seeing is probably the opposite. We're seeing increased concentration of ownership on Wall Street, the rise of the monolith, Goldman, and in the public sector we're seeing the strengthening of the role of the Federal Reserve, which also strengthens the hand of the big banks. So we're not seeing more diversity; we're seeing more concentration of control.
KAPOOR: Absolutely. And this is why when we're discussing the changes we need to do. We need to not just reverse what has happened in the past one or two years of this increasing concentration, but go much further than that, in actively fostering diversity, in actively imposing a more competitive landscape. And that is why breaking up these too-big-to-fail institutions is extremely crucial to this idea of building up a stable financial system and a prosperous society.
JAY: So maybe one thing people watching might do when they choose who they're going to vote for is vote for people who aren't getting any money from the finance sector. They might be a little more likely to have a little backbone on these issues, 'cause most people in Congress are getting some kind of money from the finance sector, and certainly President Obama was one of the more bigger recipients of that.
KAPOOR: I'm not familiar enough with the landscape, but I think that the whole concept of lobbying and of campaign contributions from the sector that you are being elected to regulate and oversee is a flawed concept, and there might need to be a broader governance reform around public funding of election campaigns on much smaller budgets.
JAY: And you also might want to have some rules about people stepping out of Goldman right into public office. There could at least be, like, a five-year moratorium or something between going back and forth between so-called private sector and public sector.
KAPOOR: Absolutely. This whole revolving-door concept is—you know, it begs questions around possible conflicts of interest. That's a very serious problem.
JAY: So I guess what we're really saying, to all of us, we'd better understand this stuff—it isn't that complicated—because we're being taken to the cleaners in the name—this looks so complicated you can't really take a stand on it. But once you dig into it, it isn't rocket science. It's fairly Ponzi scheme-ish.
KAPOOR: Absolutely. The whole concept where, throughout the years, the banks, the bankers, and the regulators, everybody said this is too complicated and this is rocket science, you won't understand it, don't tinker with it or the whole system, the whole financial system, will go bust. And the fact of the matter is we actually haven't touched it, and it's gone bust anyways. And it's really, really, really not complicated. And this complexity was used as an example to reduce accountability. What we need to do as individual citizens, as unions, as consumer associations, as civil society, is to understand that this is not rocket science, make an effort to participate in the reforms and try and get our voice heard. The only voices you're hearing in the financial regulation discussion are the big investment banks, the big commercial banks, some hedge funds, and some private equity voices. It's not just that the individuals, the consumers, are missing from the debate and the taxpayers are missing from the debate, but also the big pension funds, the big reinsurance firms, the savings banks, the community banks, all these parts of the financial sector.
JAY: Well, that's a whole 'nother story, because why the union pension funds, which are enormous and big, big players in the economy, why the unions don't use the clout of their pension funds is beyond me, but they don't.
KAPOOR: This is one of those problems we've revisited this interview series of collective action. Now, if you're an individual pension fund, CalPERS [California Public Employees' Retirement System] or one of the others, you need to make a decision: okay, how much realistic return can I expect on my investment? Most US pension funds have been factoring in returns of 9 or 10 percent. Now, if you're a small investor in a big economy growing at 2 percent, you can generate 9 or 10 percent year after year. But if you're the whole financial system, if you're a big pension fund, if you are the financial system, you cannot generate returns of 10 percent or 9 percent. And we need to recognize that that is not a sustainable thing to do. And the way these pension funds have been thinking is that, well, we think we're smarter than the others and we will be able to choose the right hedge fund investments, the right private equity investments, the right derivatives or commodity investments which will earn us a higher return. Individually everybody is thinking this, but collectively it's impossible. That is why there is a very important need for the unions and the pension funds and the bigger investment community and the government to start this honest discussion of what is possible and what isn't. We actually have a massive pension black hole, and it's time to recognize that and take that into account in the discussions on reforming the financial system.
JAY: Thank you again, Sony, for joining us. Sony Kapoor from Re-Define. And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network. And don't forget our financial reform, which is the donate button. It's here. I'm pointing here. Or there. Somewhere on this page is a donate button. And if you want us to keep doing economic news—and, I think, uncompromisingly—then you got to hit "donate". Thanks for joining us on The Real News Network.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Talks Josh Silver demos adjustable liquid-filled eyeglasses
Josh Silver delivers his brilliantly simple solution for correcting vision at the lowest cost possible -- adjustable, liquid-filled lenses. At TEDGlobal 2009, he demos his affordable eyeglasses and reveals his global plan to distribute them to a billion people in need by 2020.
I'm going to tell you about one of the world's largest problems and how it can be solved.
I'd like to start with a little experiment. Could you put your hand up if you wear glasses or contact lenses, or you've had laser refractive surgery? Now, unfortunately, there are too many of you for me to do the statistics properly. But it looks like -- I'm guessing -- that it'll be about 60 percent of the room because that's roughly the fraction of developed world population that have some sort of vision correction.
The World Health Organization estimates -- well, they make various estimates of the number of people who need glasses -- the lowest estimate is 150 million people. They also have an estimate of around a billion. But in fact, I would argue that we've just done an experiment here and now, which shows us that the global need for corrective eyewear is around half of any population. And the problem of poor vision, is actually not just a health problem, it's also an educational problem, and it's an economic problem, and it's a quality of life problem.
Glasses are not very expensive. They're quite plentiful. The problem is, there aren't enough eye care professionals in the world to use the model of the delivery of corrective eyewear that we have in the developed world. There are just way too few eye care professionals.
So this little slide here shows you an optometrist and the little blue person represents about 10,000 people and that's the ratio in the U.K. This is the ratio of optometrists to people in sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, there are some countries in sub-Saharan Africa where there's one optometrist for eight million of the population.
How do you do this? How do you solve this problem? I came up with a solution to this problem, and I came up with a solution based on adaptive optics for this. And the idea is you make eye glasses, and you adjust them yourself and that solves the problem.
What I want to do is to show you that one can make a pair of glasses. I shall just show you how you make a pair of glasses. I shall put this in my pocket. I'm short sighted. I look at the signs at the end, I can hardly see them. So -- okay, I can now see that man running out there, and I can see that guy running out there. I've now made prescription eyewear to my prescription. Next step in my process. So, I've now made eye glasses to my prescription. Okay, so I've made these glasses and ... Okay, I've made the glasses to my prescription and ... ... I've just ... And I've now made some glasses. That's it.
(Applause)
Now, these aren't the only pair in the world. In fact, this technology's been evolving. I started working on it in 1985, and it's been evolving very slowly. There are about 30,000 in use now. And they're in fifteen countries. They're spread around the world.
And I have a vision, which I'll share with you. I have a global vision for vision. And that vision is to try to get a billion people wearing the glasses they need by the year 2020. To do that -- this is an early example of the technology. The technology is being further developed -- the cost has to be brought down. This pair, in fact, these currently cost about 19 dollars. But the cost has to be brought right down. It has to be brought down because we're trying to serve populations who live on a dollar a day.
How do you solve this problem? You start to get into detail. And on this slide, I'm basically explaining all the problems you have. How do you distribute? How do you work out how to fit the thing? How do you have people realizing that they have a vision problem? How do you deal with the industry? And the answer to that is research.
What we've done is to set up the Center for Vision in the Developing World here in the university. If you want to know more, just come have a look at our website. Thank you.
(Applause)
Je vais vous parler d’un des plus grands problèmes au monde et de comment le résoudre.
Je voudrais commencer avec une petite expérience. Levez la main s’il vous plaît ceux qui ont des lunettes ou des lentilles de contact, ou qui se sont fait opérer par laser. Là, malheureusement, vous être trop nombreux pour que je fasse les statistiques correctement. Mais il semble -- je suppose -- qu’il doit y en avoir environ 60% parmi vous parce que c’est grosso modo la fraction de la population du monde développé qui ont une quelconque correction visuelle.
L’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (OMS) estime -- en fait, ils font diverses estimations du nombre de gens qui ont besoin de lunettes -- l’estimation la plus basse est de 150 millions de personnes. Il y a aussi une estimation d’un milliard. Mais en fait, je dirais que nous venons de faire une expérience à l’instant, qui nous montre que le besoin global en matière de correction visuelle se chiffre à la moitié de toute population. Le problème d’une mauvaise vue n'est pas juste un problème de santé, c’est aussi un problème pour l’éducation, pour l’économie, pour la qualité de vie.
Les lunettes ne sont pas très chères. Elles sont disponibles en quantité. Le problème est que, il n’y a pas assez de spécialistes dans le monde pour reproduire le modèle de distribution de corrections visuelles que nous avons dans le monde développé. Il y a bien trop peu de spécialistes.
Cette diapositive vous montre un optométriste et le petit personnage bleu représente 10 000 personnes, c’est le ratio au Royaume-Uni. Voici le ratio d'optométristes en Afrique sub-saharienne. En fait, il y a certains pays d'Afrique sub-saharienne où ce rapport est de 1 optométriste pour 8 millions de personnes.
Comment faire? Comment résoudre ce problème? J’ai trouvé une solution à ce problème (sur l’écran : faites le vous-même), et j’en suis arrivé à la conclusion d’une solution optique adaptative. L’idée est de fabriquer des lunettes, ensuite de les régler vous-même et le problème est résolu.
Je vais vous montrer que l’on peut fabriquer une paire de lunettes. Je vais vous montrer comment vous pouvez fabriquer une paire de lunettes. Je mets ça dans ma poche. Je suis myope. Je regarde les symboles au fond, je peux à peine les voir. Donc -- ok, maintenant je peux voir cet homme qui court de ce côté, et je peux voir cet homme qui court de ce côté. J’ai désormais des lunettes à ma vue. Prochaine étape de mon processus. Bon, maintenant j’ai des lunettes à ma vue. Ok, donc j’ai fait ces lunettes et ... Ok, j’ai fait ces lunettes à ma vue et ... ... J’ai juste ... Et maintenant j’ai fabriqué des lunettes. C’est tout.
(Applaudissements)
Maintenant, ce n’est pas la seule paire au monde. En fait, cette technologie évolue. J’ai commencé à y travailler en 1985, avec une évolution très lente. Il y en a environ 30 000 en usage à l’heure actuelle. Et ce dans 15 pays. Le tout réparti dans le monde entier.
Et j’ai une vision, et je vais la partager avec vous. J’ai une vision globale pour la vision. Et cette vision est d’essayer de parvenir à avoir un milliard de personnes portant les lunettes dont ils ont besoin d’ici à 2020. Pour ce faire -- ceci est un exemple primaire de la technologie. La technologie est développée plus avant -- le coût doit être réduit. Cette paire, en fait, coûte actuellement environ 19 dollars. Mais le coût doit être réduit. Il doit être réduit parce que nous nous adressons à des populations qui vivent avec un dollar par jour.
Comment résoudre ce problème? Vous commencez à rentrer dans le détail. Sur cette diapositive, j’explique brièvement tous les problèmes que nous avons. Comment les distribuer? Comment les ajuster? Comment faire que les gens se rendent compte qu’ils ont un problème de vue? Commet s'organiser avec l’industrie? La réponse à tout ça s’appelle la recherche.
Nous avons créé le «Center for Vision in the Developing World» (Centre pour la Vision dans le Monde en Développement) ici à l’université d’Oxford. Si vous voulez en savoir plus, allez faire un tour sur notre site. Merci.
(Applaudissements)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
