FORTUNE+ VIDEO SPONSORED CONTENTS ADVERTORIALS FORTUNE AUDIO Fortune Careers New TRADE AFRICA New

Fortune Logo

Month: June 2022

The Present’s Not Irrelevant. The Future Less So

Posted on by Web Master

The world does not discuss artificial intelligence (AI) enough given its potential to disrupt every aspect of our lives on a scale that will make the introduction of the internet look like child’s play. The restraint is understandable. In the end, the technology has not developed fully and reached as wide accessibility as expected. There is still no Blade Runner-level artificial consciousness or invented programmes that are finding cures to cancer.

It is not unheard of for technologies to fizzle out. Humankind put a man on the moon in 1969 but has not had much to show in space exploration since. Today, we are seeing in real time the hopes for decentralised currency get dashed as the likes of Bitcoin fail to prove that they are a hedge against inflation or stock market volatility. And no one talks about the 3D printing revolution any longer. Very few things are inevitable.

But some developments make AI unique: the sheer breadth of the technologies it can apply to, its nearly unparalleled potential, and its philosophical dimensions. Recently, a conversation a Google engineer had with an AI being developed in-house was a whole level of eerie in how the latter expressed its emotions, outlooks and fears about “dying.” It was chilling.

There are breakthroughs inducing fewer existential questions. Take the programme DALL-E, accessible to any user on its website. Using any text prompt, it can generate images – one of the more popular has been an image of Donald Trump as the baby from the famous Nevermind album cover by Nirvana. In many cases, the generated images being shared on social media are very clear and look like they were professionally animated.

What does this mean for the entire profession of graphic designers and animators? Given the amount of data on the internet being fed to this AI programme, how long before I could type “Die Hard but starring Joe Biden,” and I would get a generated video that swaps Bruce Willis for the sitting American president for the entirety of the film?

The question is, who will make the best out of this situation. And why bring up this issue now?

We need to maintain a long-term focus. Humanity is entering a stage in where technologies and systems are radically changing at a rapid pace. Tomorrow is more uncertain than ever. Only societies that can adapt, relearn and focus could cross the bridge. Others, unable to transform their societies in that direction, may remain culled, like the countries that could not manage to industrialise or practice farming.

No doubt that we have our problems and frustrations today in Ethiopia. These are supercharged by social media to appear that nothing else matters. We have revolutionised short-termism to the extent that our DNA has mutated and we have grown short-sighted – many cannot see long-term even if they tried. This is a problem for two reasons.

To start with, the problems that so concern us and take up the most energy may not even matter in the long term. In the 17-year civil war that began in 1974, every political movement and force swore by Marx and Lenin. Now, there is no single movement or force that takes communism seriously. It is simply not in fashion anymore. There are issues we obsess over today but most likely will become irrelevant tomorrow, just as there are matters (like AI) we barely pay attention to now but will consume our lives later.

Short-sightedness will also leave us unprepared in the long term. We like to blame everyone else but ourselves for our present situation. It is either capitalism, communism, neo-liberalism, the Bretton Woods institutions, American hegemony, Chinese encroaching or whatever excuse we manage to come up with in the future. Far be it from me to claim that these did not have an effect but Ethiopia’s, and Africa’s, failures are mainly due to the fact that we have had a hard time comprehending that there is a world outside our immediate sphere. We bicker and fight over every single inch of land, wrongdoing and slight. Once the dust settles, we are surprised and indignant to find that the rest of the world has advanced and left us in the darkness. It is a piece of history played on repeat.

The Internet Gives More than It Takes

Posted on by Web Master

It is not talked about as much. But the age we live in offers unprecedented access to a world of information. For those willing to learn, there is no shortage of knowledge.

I recently attended a class by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); it was a lecture posted on YouTube. Its topic was on how an aeroplane flies. The course was facilitated by a young Indian professor. As admitted by many who watched (or attended), who know nothing about flying, after watching this presentation from start to end, we now have useful knowledge of the principles of flight. Moreover, through her intelligible well-researched explanations, she enjoined the need for more resources to be available for free to make it accessible for the most amount of people.

In the lecture video, for every question a professor poses in the classroom, there are equally amazing answers from many of its students. Yet, it was not 100pc. There were some ill-conceived answers from the classroom that fueled her ire. In her words, much of these flawed views on science propagate on the internet in the form of misinformation. Her scathing commentary against what is hardly surprising these days was that they were being made by people that were plainly wrong or deliberately concealing facts to gain an advantage.

This is not to say that helpful knowledge only comes from academia. The age of the internet is only supercharging the historical experience of laymen and women figuring things out. Take William Banting, an overweight cabinetmaker and undertaker. Convinced by his own discomfort, and perhaps from his undertaking activities, that many deaths resulted from overeating, he went on a strict diet. He is said to have lost 20Kg and taken 30 centimetres off his waist. As so many dieters do, he then wrote a book about his experience, setting forth his method of losing weight.

“Bantingism” called for a meat diet and abstention from practically everything else with carbohydrates in it. It was not popular at the time; it was at least a century too soon for the diet revolution.

This all was reminiscent as I brought the issue up with my niece after we met in front of Cinema Ethiopia. As our talks immediately shifted to today’s computer world, which is thought to value usable and immediate information to public access, we began discussing Elon Musk’s threat to walk away from his 44 billion dollar bid to buy Twitter. We shared our fret about the latest sign that his plan to overhaul the social media platform may really be starting to tumble, allegedly because Twitter is unable to give him information about the amount of bots, computer programmes that simulate human social media activity accounts. It would be a tragedy because he could bring much-needed energy to the platform. Last week, Twitter’s board of directors voted unanimously to sell the company.

We discussed concerns regarding the freedom of speech, expressing oneself with what is termed rudimentary or reduced version or interpretation of an issue, thing, or prior version. No doubt we are in the age of hyperbole. Manoeuvring one’s way efficiently through the electronic multimedia landscape amidst a wealth of information is increasingly becoming a complex and tasking act. It needs care and attention.

At the same time, the amount of knowledge and information freely available to people at the touch of a finger is unprecedented in human history. It is up to us individually to make the best out of it. It would be like going to MIT without actually doing so as the platforms and systems continue to modernise.

Fact-Checking the Deglobalisation Narrative

Posted on by Web Master

The Chilean poet Nicanor Parra claimed, “the left and the right united shall never be defeated,” and the current debate over deglobalisation illustrates the point. So-called progressives never liked fast growth in world trade and now greet any reversal with cries of “I told you so!” Globalisation-supporting conservatives, on the other hand, react to the smallest setback with Chicken Little-like cries that “the sky is falling!”

Both camps have an interest in exaggerating the extent of deglobalisation. The result is a widely accepted narrative of decline: After repeated financial crises, a nativist reaction, the COVID-19 pandemic, and now Russia’s war on Ukraine, globalisation’s days are numbered.

It is an eye-catching claim. But is it true?

Trade in goods and services as a share of global GDP fell from a peak of 61pc in 2008, just before the global financial crisis, to 52pc in 2020, according to the World Bank. But this figure is still very high by historical standards – the trade-to-GDP ratio averaged just 42pc in the 1990s, when critics were already complaining about hyper-globalisation. Once final data are available, they will show that trade recovered in 2021 and 2022 as the pandemic receded.

More interestingly, the all-out tariff war predicted by trade sceptics never erupted. Starting in 2018, then-US President Donald Trump increased tariffs on some Chinese goods, China retaliated, and the dispute spilt over into a handful of other markets. President Joe Biden initially found it expedient to keep some of Trump’s tariffs, but now plans to roll them back in an attempt to reduce US inflation.

A worldwide escalation in tariffs and quotas will not happen, for the simple reason that voters do not want it to happen. In rich and poor countries alike, a parent can buy a pair of Chinese-made children’s sneakers for 10 dollars or less. A generation ago, the only option in most places was a locally-made pair costing several times that.

Protectionism is supposed to be popular with voters, but the reality is subtler. As any pollster will tell you, the statement “government should do what it can to protect local businesses and local jobs” typically elicits overwhelming support. The statement “government should protect local industry even if that means much higher prices for consumers” meets with widespread derision.

Three big changes are afoot in world trade, but none of them need imply widespread deglobalisation.

The first change is the reconfiguring of global supply chains. As the media have reported in gory detail, first the US-China tensions, then the pandemic, and now the Russia-Ukraine conflict caught many global firms – in sectors ranging from cars to baby formula – without a Plan B to source the inputs they need. So, they are now switching from “just-in-time” to “just-in-case” supplies. “Resilience,” “near-shoring,” and “friend-shoring” are the buzzwords du jour.

The expansion of world trade over the past two decades resembled the Gold Rush or the dot-com bubble of the early 2000s. Firms that found the lowest-cost supplier internationally, with little regard for the risks involved, could make big money. Other companies followed suit because their competitors were doing it. Eventually, something had to give.

While the dot-com crash took away Pets.com, it gave us Facebook, Amazon, and Netflix. This time around, crises are causing firms to diversify suppliers and draw up plans B, C, and D. Costs will increase, but so will safety and reliability. Crucially, most supplies will still come from abroad. Apple recently decided to move some of its assembly operations from China to Vietnam, not to Arkansas or Alabama. As I wrote in a previous commentary, Guangdong’s loss could well be Guadalajara’s gain.

The second big change is a gradual but unmistakable shift from trade in goods to trade in services. Manufacturing’s share of total output is falling almost everywhere, and the drop has been particularly sharp in China. Unsurprisingly, trade in manufactures is declining as a share of global GDP. Services will likely make up the slack, but trade in services is hampered by all kinds of political, regulatory, and cultural barriers. There is no need for customers to speak the same language as the people who make their smartphones. But they are right to expect their doctor, architect, asset manager, or airline pilot to be able to communicate with them in a more-or-less comprehensible version of a shared language. And that takes time.

Yet, by forcing people to hold business meetings across a computer screen, the COVID-19 pandemic has given services trade an unexpected shot in the arm. Why not use similar technology to sell services around the world? Radiologists in Bangalore were already reviewing X-rays produced in Boston or Birmingham before the pandemic. Now architects in Buenos Aires design housing projects for Beijing, and programmers in Bangkok write code for firms in Brussels.

The economist Richard Baldwin has described globalisation as a sequence of “great unbundlings.” The first occurred in the late nineteenth century when steam power cut the expense of moving goods internationally. The second came in the late twentieth century when information technology radically lowered the cost of moving ideas across borders. A third great unbundling beckons, predicts Baldwin, as digital technology makes it cheap and easy to move people across borders – without making them leave their bedroom or kitchen.

The final change is political. Until now, globalisation has largely shaped governments’ policy options. Today’s policymakers rightly want to shape the paths that globalisation follows. International flows of hot money can be destabilising and need to be regulated (as even the International Monetary Fund now recognises). Similarly, the direction of technological change is not preordained; as Harvard’s Dani Rodrik and Stefanie Stantcheva have argued, it can be shifted to create jobs rather than destroy them. A growing number of essential global public goods – from climate control to pandemic relief – also call for more activist policies.

If governments get it right, a more subdued, but also more sustainable and longer-lasting kind of globalisation will emerge. Peddlers of deglobalisation theories may then need to change jobs and re-skill. Fortunately for them, that is easier to do in an open and growing world economy.

How to Fuel Inflation, then Harm the Environment

Posted on by Web Master

Inflation has become a hot-button political issue worldwide. In the United States, the consumer price index increased at an annual rate of 8.6pc in May, and EU inflation is not far behind. The root cause of the problem is that too much money is chasing too few goods.

Consumers saved more than usual when they cut back on expenditures during the COVID-19 pandemic, then increased their purchases after the lockdown restrictions were lifted. But supplies increased more slowly, because it took time to ramp up production again, and because many workers were still becoming ill. While shipping bottlenecks and labour shortages further constrained production levels, increasing fiscal deficits and continued ultra-loose monetary policies put further pressure on prices until 2022.

Now, US President Joe Biden says his top priority is to “bring inflation down.” Yet in a recent speech on the issue, the Washington Post notes that he “laced into oil corporations and shipping conglomerates,” accusing them of “chasing excessive profits instead of lowering prices for consumers.” Not only have oil companies failed to boost output, but “the ocean shipping cartel,” Biden claims, has operated as an oligopoly, raising “their prices by as much as 1,000pc.”

Although the war on inflation must be waged largely through monetary and fiscal policy, there is much the administration could do to help reduce inflationary pressures. But scapegoating specific sectors is not the answer. In fact, the administration risks adding even more inflationary pressure to the mix. Given the widespread expectation that the world is shifting away from fossil fuels, oil companies can hardly be expected to invest in additional capacity. And even if they did rapidly increase investment, it would take a long time before production could increase. More investment, with output coming only years later, would intensify today’s inflationary pressures.

Other efforts to reduce prices at the pump have been equally misguided. For example, the Biden administration has waived environmental rules to allow for more ethanol to be added to gasoline, claiming that this will reduce fuel prices over the summer. But a higher proportion of ethanol reduces a vehicle’s fuel economy. Motorists who drive the same distance as they otherwise would have will face higher costs. Making matters worse, the increased demand for corn (the grain used to produce ethanol) will increase corn prices, prompting farmers to shift more land from wheat to corn production, and further increasing food prices overall.

On the shipping front, more competition would certainly lower prices in the long run. But the real problem is that the century-old Jones Act prevents foreign ships from competing with domestic ones for maritime shipping between US ports. Foreign ships arriving at US ports are required by law to offload their cargo, and trucks must then be matched up with the containers. These unnecessary processes have created port congestion and caused delays. And those delays have further increased costs for businesses whose operations were disrupted by the unavailability of key inputs.

American-built ships are estimated to be six to eight times more costly than those built in Asia, and American crews are paid three to four times more than their counterparts on foreign vessels. But US shipping companies have not had to worry about this lack of competitiveness, because they are protected from foreign competition. The cost of this protection is ultimately borne by US consumers. Higher-cost ships manned by higher-cost crews tend to raise shipping costs between ports, as well as forcing more cargo to be transported to its final destination by truck or rail, which both cost more than marine shipments.

Obviously, relaxing or repealing the Jones Act would increase competition and reduce costs. And this is hardly the only option available to the Biden administration. For example, by eliminating former US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, Biden could increase the average American household’s annual purchasing power by an estimated 797 dollars.

Similarly, raising the cap on the number of foreign workers permitted legally to enter the US could have eased key bottlenecks. Throughout the pandemic recovery, employers have complained that they cannot find enough workers with the appropriate skills. If the US foreign-born population had grown at the same annual rate over the past three years as it did between 2010 and 2018, the US labour force would have 1.6 million more workers today, enabling businesses to fill vacancies more rapidly and reducing the shortages induced by delivery delays.

The Biden administration also could have removed tariffs on solar panels. Instead, the tariffs were merely suspended (after much debate) for two years, causing an estimated loss of 100,000 jobs and a reduction in the number of solar panels that are expected to be installed. Even America’s disastrous baby-formula shortage could have been significantly mitigated had more imports been allowed and if states had not been granted monopoly production rights within their borders.

Not only has the Biden administration misidentified the sources of inflation; it is even adding to the inflationary pressure. As if that was not bad enough, many of its recent actions – ethanol requirements, increased oil output (if it could be made to happen), tariffs on solar panels, more carbon-intensive truck and rail shipping – are detrimental to its professed climate and environmental objectives.

Inflation reduction and environmental improvements are worthwhile goals. But achieving them will require frank acknowledgment of the contributing factors, and realism in finding means to ameliorate them. Unfortunately, that has not been the Biden administration’s formula so far.

In Polite Society, Split the Bill

Posted on by Web Master

Some live in a distant universe where they are oblivious to norms. There are unspoken rules. For instance, if two friends dine together, unless one of them insists on paying, they usually split the bill. Many times, one friend suggests they treat the others. It is different with close friends because whoever has the money automatically pays and might not ask the others to chip in on the bill.

A friend of mine recently experienced an incident. She met a woman for work purposes and the lady suggested they eat lunch afterwards. My friend agreed, so they ended up going to a restaurant. The lady, not being from around there, did not know the price range. I do not know if they failed to check the price of the foods before they ordered or if they ignored to discuss prices, but when the bill came they were both surprised.

The lady kept looking at my friend to pick up the bill even though she was the one who asked to have lunch in the first place. My friend said the bill was a bit expensive to be covered by one person alone, so asked to split it.

“But I don’t have money on me. I thought this was your treat,” the lady replied.

“I don’t know where she got the idea of a treat when it was her who insisted we should have lunch,” my friend later told me. “Why would you ask someone to have lunch with you when you don’t have the money to pay for it? The person you asked could get the wrong idea that you would be treating them, not the other way around.”

To put things in perspective, that was the first time my friend and the lady met in person. Before then, they talked on the phone a few times and had brief interactions. Somehow the lady had the audacity to ask my friend to pay close to 1,000 Br by herself?

“This is not to mention that the lady ate most of the food,” my friend added, annoyed.

Let us assume somehow the lady did not have money on her but is she not supposed to mention that before they order or even head to a restaurant?

It is not every day we walk around carrying wads of cash in our pockets. Sometimes we carry around only enough for taxi fares and leave the rest at home so we will not spend all of it or we grab our ATM cards instead. We also cannot fully rely on ATM machines, thanks to power outages, among other reasons. Not having electricity is becoming a widespread phenomenon, especially around where I live.

For a person who does not carry cash or even does not have that kind of money to spend on a single meal, running short on money and not being able to pay would have been embarrassing. Perhaps worse is spending money without a plan just because someone else made a bad judgment. The lady in my friend’s case assumed she was rolling in cash and was a walking ATM. In the lady’s defence, most people presume that my friend is well off.

Luckily, my friend had some money she kept aside for another purpose, so she ended up paying and getting more money at the nearest ATM.

“I’m sorry, I didn’t think it would be that expensive. Let me pay you back,” the lady said after all of the damage she had done.

I am not too fond of people who say stuff like that when they could have avoided the mess in the first place. They say it mostly because they know we will not agree to their request. They can tell the rest of us are not as shameless as they have chosen to be in that encounter.

My friend learned a lesson that day – always pay attention to prices on the menu and agree on a payment arrangement beforehand. People change their minds so often that we have to ask them multiple times to be sure. Usually, when we know we do not have the money, we exclude ourselves from such events unless those who asked us in the first place were someone who is close. We do not do that to an acquaintance, especially in a time of inflation.

Life Offers No Graduation Party

Posted on by Web Master

Last year, I met a young and charming medical doctor through a mutual friend. Our friendship quickly grew. She told me about her engagement before she informed anyone else.

I was happy for her. The following weekend, I met her fiancé, the man I had heard many great things about from her. He was friendly, calm, and looked decent. As if we had known each other for long, we chatted and laughed. I have been kept up to date about their wedding preparation ceremonies. We were exchanging ideas as it happened; they were scheduled for a wedding a few months after mine.

Her fiancé also becomes close with my husband. He was with my husband supporting him during our wedding preparation, going out of his way on several occasions. We imagined how loving, kind, and caring he is to her. We were grateful to have them in our life. We planned regular get-togethers at our house and theirs when they got married.

Only a few weeks left to their wedding, invitations sent out, and their families and everyone who knew them counting down to their big day, a bombshell dropped. She told me that not only had the wedding been called off but they had also broken up. I could not believe my ears.

What could possibly go wrong for the seemingly perfect couple who seemed smitten with one another?

Those of us who knew them were puzzled to find out that domestic abuse was occurring. Behind closed doors, they were abuser and victim rather than a loving couple. Her fiancé had been verbally degrading her all the time I knew her.

He had never supported her or listened to what she had to say. He played nice in public and was there for others except for her. He eroded her self-confidence and dreams in life, telling her she did not deserve anything good. He was said to have intimate relationships with other women and even brought them to meet her. She has been asked to share him with other women, which he forced her to accept. He threatened to disfigure her with acid when she told him she would leave him.

The abuse that came to light shocked me to my core. His public and private personas are entirely contrary. To his credit, he did not deny his actions, although he is not remorseful and willing to change for the better. Even when elders intervened to help him get better and save his relationship, he refused and held on to his destructive and dangerous behaviour.

He thought manhood was about making bad choices and sticking to them. He said he could do anything he wanted as a man and thought there was nothing wrong with his actions. He blamed his actions on his fiancé, saying she was the one who needed to change and accept his lifestyle. One of his recurring excuses was that he could not control his actions. This is untrue because he managed to control his actions in front of others.

How can a medical doctor who understands the damage such a relationship causes stay in one? Why did she keep the abuse from her family and friends?

The experts have the answer. Most victims placate and appease an abuser to de-escalate tension and the risk of more harm. But such initiative rarely works and the abuse typically continues. Victims stay in such relationships due to love, dependency of any kind, control, shame, and lack of self-esteem destroyed by the relationship. Victims also hope the partner will change, confused by the good times between episodes of abuse.

Just like in my friend’s case, sometimes it’s difficult to know if someone is going through abuse. Every situation is unique, making it more challenging to recognise. They may stay silent and choose not to tell others about the abuse, including authorities. Often this is due to fear of judgment and exposing the abuser. Helping them with wisdom is critical.

My friend can be an example to those women and men trapped under various forms of abuse. It was brave of her to say “enough” and seek help from family and friends. I admire her for cancelling her wedding to save herself from a destructive, abusive relationship. She is wise to know what she saw now is what she will get in marriage. Choosing wisely can save us a lot of heartache.

My friend realised that people could gossip about her cancelled wedding for a week or so, but she spared herself a lifetime. She also gave the man a good lesson that victims of abuse will eventually speak out. Thinking about their story reminds me of Mother Teresa, who once said, “[to promote world peace] go home and love your family.”

Everything starts in a family. We cannot mistreat our family and love the world. This would only be deception.

Ministry Revokes Hundreds of Mining Concessions

Posted on by Web Master

The Ministry of Mines has revoked the licenses of 972 for alleged non-compliance with the terms of their exploration and production permits, and involvement in illicit trade.  Among those on the receiving end of the measure is Kefi Gold, a firm that has been conducting gold exploration in the Western Wellega Zone of the Oromia Regional State for over a decade. The 2,000hct exploration area is estimated to hold deposits of close to 50,000Kg of gold.

Last week, the National Bank of Ethiopia approved an increase in premiums paid to artisanal gold miners. Miners who supply over five kilogrammes of bullion will receive premiums of 35pc above the international market rate, a six percent growth. The move comes after recommendations from experts at the Ministry of Mines, who hope to see the improved premiums curb contraband trade and encourage small-scale miners to sell directly to one of the nine gold transaction centres run by the central bank.

Close to 514 million dollars was generated from the export of gold over the first 11 months of the financial year, according to Takele Uma, minister of Mines.

World Bank, Fed Agree on $715m in Funds to Fight Food Insecurity

Posted on by Web Master

The World Bank Group and the Ministry of Finance have signed an agreement for 715 million dollars to go towards fighting food insecurity.

Most of the financing (600 million dollars) is earmarked for the implementation of a Food Systems Resilience Programme. A third of the amount is in the form of grants, while the balance is credit.

An additional 115 million dollars is pledged for improving access to financial services and bolstering economic activity in pastoralist areas. The areas targeted are mostly in the country’s south and east, where a severe drought has put millions of people at risk of starving.

Earlier this month, the World Food Programme (WFP) warned the Horn of Africa could face “unprecedented” levels of food insecurity in 2023. The UN agency said armed conflict, climate change, drought, and supply disruptions brought on by Russia’s war in Ukraine bode ill for the region.

Two months ago, the World Bank provided the federal government a 300 million dollar grant to help people affected by the armed conflict in the country’s north.

DISRUPTION HOPEFULS

Posted on by Web Master

Youths checkout a booth at the AddisRupt Expo 2022, which was hosted at Safari Hotel on June 25, 2022. The expo focused on technological and entrepreneurial work, showcasing over 20 startups to visitors. The promoters of the expo aimed at connecting startups with investors and was organized by firms such as LinkUp Addis, Profit Marketing and Afromile Trading.

HEINEKEN’S BERTAT

Posted on by Web Master

A circus team performs at the launch ceremony for an energy drink being launched by Heineken at the Inter-luxury Hotel on June 21, 2022. One of the biggest brewers in the country, the energy drink it has introduced is malt based and non-alcoholic.