Vanity Fair Top 100 – a cheat sheet for the fashionable rich and powerful

For the past 16 years, Vanity Fair has published an annual list of the “100 most influential people of the Information Age”. Here’s our little cheat – the list only – as well as some observations.

Our few useless observations:

• The list is very US-centric. It’s an American magazine, so perhaps this is to be expected. At least it doesn’t claim to be the “world’s” most influential people. It isn’t.
• Where are the women? Lady Gaga is the first female entry at 23 and following her there are another 13 women. Only eight, however, manage to make it in as a solo name; the other six are all listed with men. Is it really 2010?
• Is it really 2010? The overwhelming domination of this list by rich white men makes it a depressing read. It’s all the usual suspects. We were hoping for a little surprise, but none emerged.
• We understand it’s all about the “Information Age” but we are failing to understand what luxury fashion has to do with it? Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Prada, Ralph Lauren, Tom Ford, John Galliano, Burberry – they’re all listed. I mean, I don’t know how much influence you think these brands have over you, but over me? Nil. Perhaps it’s just a list for Vanity Fair’s core readers.
• Johnny Depp, Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Angelina and Brad. Really?
• This is actually a very narrow view of the world. In categories, 37 are from the film/TV/entertainment industry; 15 from the media; 13 from  banking/finance; 13 from luxury fashion; 14 from internet/technology and four from the arts or cultural industries.

Having said all that, we love a list and it’s worth reading, if only to know who the fashionable rich and powerful people think the rich and powerful people are. Um, maybe these people really do run the world?

The 100 most influential people of the Information Age

1. Mark Zuckerberg; Facebook

2. Steve Jobs; Apple

3. Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt; Google

4. Rupert Murdoch; News Corporation

5. Jeff Bezos; Amazon

6. Bernard Arnault; Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton

7. Michael Bloomberg; New York City Mayor, Bloomberg L.P

8. Larry Ellison; Oracle

9. Evan William and Biz Stone; Twitter

10. John Malone; Liberty Media

11. Warren Buffett; Berkshire Hathaway

12. Brad Bird, Pete Doctor, John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton; Pixar, Disney

13. Jeff Bewkes; Time Warner

14. Bob Iger; Disney

15. Larry Fink; Blackrock

16. Ralph Lauren; Polo Raph Lauren

17. Francois-Henri Pinault; PPR (Gucci Group)

18. Jonathan Ive; Apple

19. Mickey Drexler; J. Crew

20. Johnny Depp; Actor

21. Brian Roberts; Comcast

22. Jeffrey Katzenberg; Dreamworks Animation

23. Lady Gaga; Singer

24. Ronald Perelmen; MacAndrews & Forbes

25. Tom Hanks; Actor Producer Director

26. Bill Keller; New York Times

27. Robert Thomson; Wall Street Journal

28. Dan Doctoroff; Bloomberg L.P.

29. Jon Stewart; The Daily Show

30. Jamie Dimon; J.P. Morgan Chase

31. Carlos Slim Helú; América Móvil

32. George Bodenheimer; ESPN, ABC Sports

33. Richard Plepler, Sue Naegle and Michael Lombardo; HBO

34. Oprah Winfrey; Harpo Productions

35. Bono; Singer, Humanitarian

36. James Cameron; Lightstorm Entertainment

37. Sheryl Sandberg; Facebook

38. Steve Burke; Comcast

39. Karl Lagerfeld; Chanel, Fendi, Karl Lagerfeld SAS

40. Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenburg; IAC, DVF

41. Ryan Kavanaugh; Relativity Media

42. Arianna Huffington; The Huffington Post

43. Matthew Weiner, Janie Bryant and Amy Wells; Mad Men

44. Mark Pincus; Zygna

45. Ted Forstmann; IMG Worldwide

46. Steve Ballmer; Microsoft

47. Sean Parker; Internet entrepreneur

48. Jason Kilar; Hulu

49. Lorne Michaels; Saturday Night Live

50. J.J. Abrams; Writer, Director, Producer

51. Chris Meledandri; Illumination Entertainment

52. Tyler Perry; Director, Producer, Actor, Writer

53. Mike Allen; Politico

54. Gretchen Morgenson; New York Times

55. Ryan Murphy; Glee

56. Miuccia Prada; Prada

57. Diego Della Valle; Tod’s

58. Jay-Z; Roc Nation

59. Howard Stringer; Sony Corp

60. Jann Wenner; Wenner Media (Rolling Stone)

61. Angela Ahrendts and Christopher Bailey; Burberry

62. Charlie Rose; Charlie Rose

63. Tom Freston; Firefly3

64. Leslie Moonves; CBS

65. David Zaslav; Discovery Communications

66. George Clooney; Actor, Writer, Director, Producer, Activist

67. Philippe Dauman; Viacom

68. Judd Apatow; Writer, Director, Producer

69. Bill Gross; Pimco

70. Gao Xiqing; China Investment Corporation

71. Vinod Khosler; Khosler Ventures

72. Brian Grazer and Ron Howard; Imagine Entertainment

73. Tadashi Yanai; UNIQLO

74. Jeff Skoll; Participant Media

75. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt; Actors, Humanitarians

76. David Tepper; Appaloosa Management

77. Frank Rich; New York Times

78. Matt Blank; Showtime

79. Vivi Nevo; NV Investments

80. Marissa Mayer; Google

81. Seth MacFarlane; Writer

82. Michael Moritz; Sequoia Capital

83. Marc Jacobs; Marc Jacobs, Louis Vuitton

84. William McDonough; Architect

85. Craig Venter; Synthetic Genomics

86. Larry Gagosian; Gagosian Gallery

87. Andrew Wylie; The Wylie Agency

88. Rich Gelfond; IMAX

89. Chris Anderson; TED Conference

90. Reed Hastings; Netflix

91. John Galliano; Dior

92. Harvey and Bob Weinstein; The Weinstein Company

93. Nikki Finke; Deadline Hollywood

94. Jean Pigozzi; Investor, Art Collector

95. Chris Albrecht; Starz Media

96. Tom Ford; Fashion Designer, Filmmaker

97. Ron Conway; SV Angel

98. Wang Chuanfu; BYD

99. Rob Friedman and Patrick Wachsberger; Summit Entertainment

100. Lloyd Blankfein; Goldman Sachs

Read more:

Vanity Fair, The Vanity Fair 100, October 2010

From barren to breadbasket

How Brazil transformed its desolate cerrados into the ‘cornbelt of the world’

Next month, the Africa-Brazil Agriculture Innovation Marketplace will meet in Brazil to announce the funding of seven projects that will transfer farming knowledge from Brazil to Africa.

So how did it come to be that Brazil – a country that imported most of its food just 30 years ago – is training others about farming and food production?

The 1970s oil crisis caused a crisis of confidence in food security in Brazil. For how much longer could it afford to import food to feed its people while subsidising largely inefficient farmers? Brazil’s leaders responded in a (then) rare moment of long sightedness by cutting subsidies and establishing Embrapa, the Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, or the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation.

The result, 30 years later, is the transformation of Brazil’s barren cerrados (savannahs) into what the Economist now calls the “cornbelt of the world”.

Brazil has been able to achieve this miracle through a combination of scientific research, long-term planning and innovative farm management practices. But it has not been an easy challenge.

The soil of the cerrados – which take up more than 20 per cent of Brazil’s land mass – was for a long time considered useless and Brazil’s small farms were largely unproductive. It has been a combination of four factors that has revolutionised farming in Brazil and turned it into one of the most efficient farming countries on earth.

Four steps to breadbasket

1. They turned poor soil into good soil

The high acidity of the cerrado soil made it virtually impossible to grow crops there. Embrapa’s solution was to pour vast quantities of lime over it. They also bred varieties of a bacterium called rhizobium, which they fed to the soil to reduce the need for fertilisers.

2. They got grass from Africa and made it better

Embrapa spent years crossbreeding a grass from Africa to eventually create a variety that produced far more grass feed per hectare than both the native cerrado grass and that of the original African variety. This enabled the massive expansion of Brazil’s beef herd and the country recently overtook Australia as the world’s largest beef exporter.

3. They turned soyabeans from a temperate to a tropical crop (and they did it twice a year)

Most importantly, perhaps, Embrapa turned soyabeans into a tropical crop. Native to north-east Asia and naturally a temperate crop requiring four distinct seasons, Embrapa was able to breed a variety of soyabean that would grow in the tropical cerrados. And not only that, they managed to develop a variety with a faster growing cycle that made it possible to grow two crops a year. Brazil is now the world’s second largest producer of soyabean.

4. They developed innovative new farm management techniques

Along with the advances in scientific research, Embrapa has pioneered new systems in farm management, vastly improving efficiency and productivity. One of the most ingenious methods is “no-till” agriculture. Basically, this means that crops are cut high on the stalk and the soil is not ploughed. The stalk and remaining plant rot and form an organic mat on the soil, which retains more nutrients. The next season’s crop is planted directly into that organic soil matter.

Sharing the bounty

This combination of factors has made Brazil an indomitable force in world agriculture. Between 1996 and 2006 the total value of the country’s crops rose from 23 billion reais ($23 billion) to 108 billion reais, or 365 per cent, reports the Economist. It is the world’s largest exporter of beef, poultry, sugar cane and ethanol, and the second largest exporter of soyabeans and maize. And what’s more, it didn’t have to deforest any of the Amazon to achieve this. It is true that deforestation of the Amazon has occurred for other reasons, but the pace has slowed almost to a halt in recent years.

It is also important to note that Brazil’s subsidies to farmers are among the world’s lowest. “According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), state support accounted for 5.7% of total farm income in Brazil during 2005-07. That compares with 12% in America, 26% for the OECD average and 29% in the European Union,” reports the Economist.

As the population of the world continues to increase at an exponential rate and food security is an increasingly urgent issue, it seems the world may have a lot to learn from Brazil. That’s why Brazil’s philosophy of promoting knowledge and co-operation among the southern hemisphere is so important, especially in light of Africa’s problems. The Africa-Brazil Agriculture Innovation Marketplace is just one example of this knowledge transfer and while Africa’s savannahs lack the rainfall of the Brazilian cerrados, Africa may still have a lot to learn from Embrapa’s systematic, long-term approach to agriculture management.

Read more:

The Economist, The miracle of the cerrado, 26 August 2010

SciDev.Net, Africa and Brazil to cross-fertilise agricultural ideas, 27 July 2010

China v. India: How will history judge the West in our response?

Gary’s thought for the month

During August, China became the world’s second largest economy, overtaking Japan, and the Economist published an excellent feature on the China-India relationship.

The feature pointed out a largely unacknowledged fact: that until 1800 China and India made up half the world economy. We like to act like these two behemoths are the new kids on the block. They’re not.

In the West, there are rightly concerns about human rights, freedom and access to relative prosperity in both countries, but it would be a mistake for us to make judgments based entirely on these concerns.

The debate should not be about whether the rise of these economies is good or bad. It is neither of those things.

The question is really whether we see the emergence on the world stage of these two ancient economies as an opportunity or a threat. History will judge us on how we react now, whether we work with the new world order, or against it, to bring freedom and prosperity to everyone.

Read more:

The Economist, China and India: Contest of the century, 19 August 2010

Google: Anyone can buy “Louis Vuitton”. (So what?)

Google has announced this month that it is changing its search policy in Europe to allow advertisers to buy trademarked brand names as keywords. Here’s a rundown, in the simplest terms, of what this story is all about.

What does the decision mean in practice?

It means that advertisers that do not own the brand name can buy and use trademarked brand names as keywords in their paid search ads. For example, it you’re a second hand fashion store specialising in designer goods, you can now buy the keyword “Louis Vuitton” to use it in your pay-per-click advertising.

Why does the decision only affect Europe?

Google has been allowing third-party advertisers to buy trademarked brand names as keywords since 2004 in the USA and Canada. It extended this policy to Britain and Ireland in 2008.

The decision to extend this policy in Europe follows a European Court of Justice ruling in March that found Google had not broken any trademark law by allowing advertisers to bid for keywords corresponding to third party trademarks.

Why was it in court?

The French luxury goods manufacturer LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton, and a group of other brand owners, took Google to court in France, saying that Google breached trademark law by showing other sources in search results when internet users searched for “Louis Vuitton” on Google. In other words, Louis Vuitton believed that only Louis Vuitton or other authorised sites had the right to purchase its name for use in search results.

The French court originally ruled in its favour, but the appeal at the European Court of Justice overturned the ruling.

What do the brand owners say about the change in policy?

Brand owners feel that third party ads confuse customers and make it difficult for them to determine the origin of the goods and services. They feel they should be able to protect their brand identity.

Dominic Batchelor, a corporate partner at the legal firm Ashurst based in London, told the New York Times that the decision “will come as a blow to rights holders” in the battle “over policing content in a challenging online environment.”

“The onus will be on rights holders to monitor and assert their rights,” he said.

“How readily Google responds to complaints about infringing use remains to be seen.”

What does Google say about it?

Trademark owners who still feel that third-party ads are confusing customers will have the right to file a complaint with Google and Google has agreed to take down ads that they agree are confusing to customers.

Google also says it remains determined to work with brand owners to ban ads for counterfeit products.

Ben Novick, Google’s communications manager in Europe told the New York Times that “users will benefit from seeing more relevant ads following a search on Google,” because selling brand names as ad keywords to third parties allows customers to find product reviews, sellers of second-hand goods and other information.

When does the change in policy come in to affect?

14 September 2010.

Read more:

New York Times, Google Will Sell Brand Names as Keywords in Europe, 4 August 2010

BtoB Magazine, Google to sell brand-name keywords in Europe, 5 August 2010

The Telegraph, Google ‘can sell brand names to other advertisers’, 22 September 2009

10 tech trends that will change business forever

There is no doubt that technology is changing the way we work. It’s so old-hat, it’s a cliché. But what is in doubt, it seems to me, is that this new technology is changing business for the better. The collaboration and innovation this new technology enables will irrevocably change the way organisations are structured and how business is done.

McKinsey Quarterly’s feature, Clouds, big data, and smart assets: Ten tech-enabled business trends to watch, is an excellent start to getting your head around these trends and what your business should be doing about them.

“The rapidly shifting technology environment raises serious questions for executives about how to help their companies capitalize on the transformation under way. Exploiting these trends typically doesn’t fall to any one executive—and as change accelerates, the odds of missing a beat rise significantly. For senior executives, therefore, merely understanding the ten trends outlined here isn’t enough. They also need to think strategically about how to adapt management and organizational structures to meet these new demands,” reports McKinsey.

The 10 tech trends you can’t afford to miss are:

1. Distributed co-creation

Otherwise known as ‘crowdsourcing’ , this is basically the ability to “organise communities of web participants to develop, market and support products and services”. It is no longer happening just on the fringes of business. Facebook and P&G have had considerable success with this and McKinsey estimates that when customer communities handle an issue, the per-contact cost can be as low as 10 per cent of the cost to resolve the issue through call centres.

2. Making the network the organisation

Tapping into talent across business units and even outside the organisation is the way to solve problems. Many global companies, such as Dow Chemical, are already building social networks of experts across their organisations, and even including ex-employees, such as retirees, in these networks. One global energy services firm was able to speed up service delivery while improving quality by 48 per cent by using web technologies to set up innovation communities and expand access to experts across the business.

3. Collaboration at scale

The ability to increase the productivity of knowledge workers is crucial, and collaboration is the way to achieve that. Video and web conferencing are just the start. Open-collaboration workspaces for documents, databases and the like, such as wikis and blogs, are an important first step. Global engineering firm Bechtel has reported lower launch costs and faster delivery times through the use of a centralised, open-collaboration database of design and engineering information.

4. The ‘Internet of Things’

Most easily explained as “when assets themselves become elements of an information system, with the ability to capture, compute, communicate, and collaborate around information”. We are only at the tip of the iceberg in terms of how these smart assets will radically improve processes, efficiency and enable new business models. Already car insurers are offering to install sensors in customers’ cars so that price can be determined by driving behaviour rather than demographic information. Medical sensors are being worn by patients for reporting changes in health to physicians.

5. Experimentation and big data

The amount of data now available – for a relatively small price – is astonishing. Many companies are already using live data, such as customer purchases and visits to websites, to adjust pricing and specials daily. To make the most of this data, however, companies need to experiment – to be brave and adjust the way they make decisions. They also need the expertise to analyse the data and make smart business decisions based on that. UK supermarket Tesco uses its loyalty card programme to make decisions on pricing, promotion and shelf allocation as well as to spot new business opportunities with customers.

6. Using technology for environmental sustainability

The growing demand for information technology is producing greenhouse gases equivalent to those produced by the whole of Argentina. McKinsey research predicts, however, that the use of IT in areas such as smart power grids, efficient buildings and better logistics planning could eliminate five times the carbon emissions that the IT industry produces.

7. Imagining anything as a service

“Technology now enables companies to monitor, measure, customize, and bill for asset use at a much more fine-grained level than ever before. Asset owners can therefore create services around what have traditionally been sold as products. Business-to-business (B2B) customers like these service offerings because they allow companies to purchase units of a service and to account for them as a variable cost rather than undertake large capital investments. Consumers also like this ‘paying only for what you use’ model, which helps them avoid large expenditures, as well as the hassles of buying and maintaining a product.” Streetcar in the UK and Zipcar in the US are classic examples, allowing as they do, consumers to rent cars by the hour rather than buy a car themselves.

8. Multisided business models

This is, simply put, a business model that has more than one type of interaction with its customers or more than one type of revenue. Advertising is the classic example: newspapers sell content to readers but the majority of their revenue comes from a third party: advertisers. Online businesses have been quick to capitalise on this; think about Skype and Flickr, which are both free for most customers but supplemented by premium fee-paying accounts and advertising. Other companies, such as Sermo – a social networking site for doctors – offer free services to members but then sell anonymous data collected from the site to pharmaceutical companies and healthcare organisations.

9. Innovating from the bottom of the pyramid

Multinational companies need to stop concentrating so much on how to expand their business model into emerging markets and start looking at how extreme conditions in these markets are producing truly innovative, technology-led solutions to the unique problems of these markets. Safaricom in Africa, for example, is now offering a service whereby virtual cash is loaded onto the mobile phones of people who find it difficult to get a bank account from traditional institutions. Multinational enterprises need to be establishing networks of local entrepreneurs and suppliers to come up with new solutions to local problems.

10.Using technology for public good

The role of governments in shaping global economic policy will expand in coming years. How governments can work with technology providers, citizens and NGOs to make use of the nine trends outlined above to improve services and sustainability will inevitably help improve the lives of citizens.

Read more:

There are reading lists and multiple examples of all the above trends in the article. I highly recommend a read:

McKinsey Quarterly, Clouds, big data, and smart assets: Ten tech-enabled business trends to watch, August 2010

Europeans more positive than Americans about economy

The August results of McKinsey’s regular global economic conditions snapshot are out now and reveal some interesting differences of opinion between European and US executives.

The good news is that, globally, executives’ expectations for national economies and corporate prospects have remained more positive than negative and that the financial services reforms recently passed in the US have been well-received.

Top line results include:

European executives are more positive about the economy than their North American counterparts

Overall, executives have remained positive about their countries’ economic prospects, although there has been no significant improvement since the last survey in June 2010, following a year of steady improvement.

One major change, however, is that European executives are now more positive than North American executives about their countries’ prospects. In the June survey, this trend was the reverse.

US financial services reform has been generally well received

While the reform of US financial services has been generally well received, executives outside the US were more positive about it than those with headquarters in the US.

• 73% of executives outside the US say reform was a necessary step towards economic stability
• 61% of executives within the US say reform was a necessary step towards economic stability
• 66% say the global economy would be less prone to crisis with a global regulatory framework (see our post on global company reporting standards)
• Overall, 62% say they expect that governments will continue taking legislative action to regulate their financial services industry and that they think regulation is a good idea. When broken down, the figures stand at 69% for European executives and for North Americans, the figure falls to 49%.
• 34% of executives think that the US financial services industry law will have a somewhat positive effect on the competitiveness of the US financial services sector. When broken down, that figure stands at 25% of US executives and 46% for the rest of the world.

Companies are investing for the future

• 50% of all executives surveyed expect demand for their companies’ goods or services to increase by the end of the year
• 40% of executives expect demand to remain stable
• 75% of respondents expect their companies’ profits to rise this year
• 30% of executives expect to expand their workforce by the end of the year and a further 51% expect it to remain the same

Read more:

McKinsey Quarterly, Economic Conditions Snapshot, August 2010: McKinsey Global Survey results, August 2010

Industry-funded clinical trials more likely to have positive results

A new study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, has found that clinical trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry are more likely to report positive results than trials funded by government sources or NGOs.

The study examined 546 trials that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and carried out between 2000 and 2006. Of the trials, 63 per cent were funded by industry, 14 per cent by government sources and 23 per cent by non-profits and other organisations.

The major findings include:

• 85.4 per cent of industry-funded trials reported positive outcomes
• 50 per cent of government-funded trials reported positive outcomes
• 71.9 per cent of trials funded by non-profits or other non-governments organisations reported positive outcomes

Clinical trials without industry backing were also more likely to publish results.

“The rate of publication within 24 months of completion ranged from 32.4 percent among industry-funded trials to 56.2 percent among nonprofit or nonfederal organization–funded trials without industry contributions,” reported Pharmalot.

So, does this mean that industry-funded trials are biased? Not necessarily. After all, 88.7 per cent of the industry-funded trials examined in the study were in Phase III or IV – a higher rate than the non-industry funded trials, which tended to be in the earlier stages of the drug’s development.

A PhRMA spokeswoman said the following in the statement to Pharmalot: “While our review of the study continues, it is important to note that the authors acknowledge that industry-funded trials tended to be for later stages in the lengthy drug development process. As the authors note, ‘Later-phase trials may be more likely to have positive outcomes, because there is more certainty about the drug’s efficacy and safety at this advanced stage in the drug-development cycle.’

The study’s authors, however, insist the findings point to the need for greater transparency.

“This raises concerns that the findings may, in part, be related to biases in trials – the design or the way they are reported to the public,” said Florence Bourgeois, a faculty member in the division of emergency medicine at Children’s Hospital in Boston, and one of the researchers. “We don’t know for sure, it may be other things that could sway results. It could be the questions that investigators choose to ask or the type of patient selected or how long the patient population is followed. All of these may impact results.

“The findings raise questions about whether the system is providing sufficient oversight,” she told Pharmalot. “More oversight is needed and additional information is needed about the way the trials are designed. This would be critical in examining these factors.”

Read more:

Pharmalot, Industry Sponsored Clinical Trails & Biased Reporting, 3 August 2010

New global company reporting standards: can it work?

A new initiative to overhaul international company reporting standards in the wake of the financial crisis is getting all the right support, but will it work?

The International Integrated Reporting Committee is a coalition of businesses, regulators, accountants, securities exchanges and not-for-profit groups campaigning for a radical overhaul of global reporting standards in the wake of the global financial crisis, which called into question the value of company reporting.

The Financial Times reports:

“The crisis has raised concerns about the value of company reporting, with the annual reports and financial statements of banks especially criticised for having failed to alert investors to the risks companies were running.”

The committee seeks to develop reporting standards that “would not only address companies’ financial statements but will also consider management commentary, governance, remuneration and environmental and social issues,” says the Financial Times.

So far, the initiative has the support of Nestle, Aviva, EDF, HSBC, Tata, (crucially) the Big Four auditors: PwC, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and KPMG, the UK’s top 100 finance directors, business schools (including Harvard), the Global Reporting Initiative, the Accounting for Sustainability Initiative, the International Accounting Standards Board, the US Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions.

That’s an impressive roll call of support, as I’m sure you’ll agree, and I see it as an example where globalisation can do good for all. The cynic in me, however, wonders if, even with this groundswell of support, something this big can be pulled off. I mean, hasn’t this been tried before? Numerous times?

We’ll watch this story with interest and report back. The first step is the publication of a framework for a global integrated reporting model that would make annual reports comparable across borders. This will be presented to the G20 next year. G20 support is considered crucial for the initiative’s success.

What do you think: Another international committee with no teeth? Or an initiative with real promise?

Read more:

Financial Times, Initiative to overhaul global reporting standards, 1 August 2010

International Integrated Reporting Committee website

Watch:

Committee member, Paul Druckman, interviewed on CNBC, 2 August 2010

Change that follows a recession: A look back

McKinsey has produced a fascinating look at the financial crises of the past 250 years and the changes that they heralded.

For companies to understand what may come next (following the most recent financial crisis), the report’s author, Robert Wright, suggests that history has three lessons:

1. “Reforms followed every major US financial crisis that led to an economic downturn.”
2. “The length and severity of the postcrisis recession have historically been approximately proportional to the degree of change that follows the recession.”
3. “The resulting shifts commonly extend well beyond the financial-services sector.”

And the changes are no small events. For example, Wright posits that the real estate crisis of 1764-68 had a direct impact on the Declaration of Independence.

Similarly, the Panic of 1857 and the subsequent recession helped bring on the Civil War and some historians believe that during the Great Depression, the federal government averted rebellion thanks only to the extraordinary changes ushered in by the first New Deal.

Take a look at the map to see the causes and effects of the USA’s biggest financial crises since 1764. It’s a couple of years old, but still relevant and interesting.

Read more:

McKinsey Quarterly, Financial crisis and reform: Looking back for clues to the future, December 2008

Poll: recruiting for clinical trials in Asia

Go to LinkedIn to vote in our poll!

When recruiting for clinical trials in Asia, your campaigns should be:

• translations of existing campaigns
• culturally customised but not 100% unique
• completely unique to the region

Click here to vote: http://polls.linkedin.com/p/98429/yfcvu