Elections - One More Time

If you've been following along here - and there are not many of you - you would know that I despair of the US election system ever working properly. When the yard signs go up, I absolutely despair. If you think I am going to vote for someone because you put a piece of cardboard in your yard - you are seriously deranged. And if you think negative attack ads work on me, think again. It's way to easy to say negative things - give me some idea what you stand for.

The evidence is that most elections are decided by the LOOK of the candidate. A square jaw and confident smile can win the day most of the time. I wrote a bit more about that in this blog entry:
   http://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2012/11/i-hate-elections.html

And, even longer ago, in 1996 I made a good case for indirect elections. If we are so driven by our emotions and gut instincts, then we need to buffer our citizenry with a layer of truly representative officials. At the very least, I thought this might get rid of political parties.
  https://sites.google.com/site/carlscheider/carl-s-papers/face-to-face-democracy

It is highly unlikely that any nation will ever adopt that approach. It smacks a bit too much of the "soviet" system!  Than just today I stumbled on a wonderful article that gave me at least a glimmer of hope.
     http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

It's a little long, but it's a very nice piece contrasting the US form of democracy with that adopted by most other democracies - the parliamentary form. It had not occurred to me that the other approach might actually work better, given the culture propensities of our nation. The author has a good grasp of history, and he at least holds the hope that we might be able to transition to another form. It's well researched, and it makes some sense to me.

After Citizens United, and all of the money thrown down the drain by our 1% to persuade our irrational voters, I may just be grasping at straws here. See what you think. and let me know.

A bit of Personal Wisdom on Negotiation and Listening

A bit of Personal Wisdom on Negotiation and Listening 2015.02.28

I used to be an arrogant SOB! Really. I had a real insight into that one day, and it taught me a serious lesson. I’ve put that story at the end of this note – read it if you want. But right now, I want to impart some wisdom about how not to be an arrogant SOB! Not that you are, mind you, but I have discovered that a lot of us have some of that going on.

It’s not that we are arrogant – it’s that we are RIGHT, damn it. And we know it. And the other person knows we think we are, and they think they are right, and they get ticked off that we think that, and it rapidly escalates.

It has taken me years to learn a more mature way to discuss issues and problems with people. This came through 10 years of teaching 7 Habits, and 15 years of teaching a University level course on negotiation. I also picked up a bit of wisdom from a Mayo seminar on stress reduction. So, listen up, this might help you deal with those problem people you keep encountering.

There are three parts to this procedure.

1.      Become someone who is not easily threatened by others. This was my basic problem, and it took me a long time to get around it. It’s called growing up, maturing, self confidence, recognizing that life is not a competition, and that we are all in this together. If you get this part right, the rest of this is simple. I would be sitting in a city council meeting, and someone in the audience would be trying to present an issue. They might accuse me personally of taking bribes, or trying to murder their children with an intersection design, and I would take it all personally. I would get upset, and respond in kind. It took me a while to recognize that they are not really after me. They have a concern, and they are trying to express it as clearly as they can – which often comes across as a threat of some sort. Besides, I had the power. Unless they tried to jump over the table and attack me, I had the vote. I had to grow up. I had to realize that I am a person of value and insight – I do not need to feel threatened by their concerns. I can choose how to respond. It literally took me about 10 years to get over this thing once it was brought to my attention. You can do it – or you may be one of those priceless individuals who come by this naturally.

2.      Wish them well.When you talk with someone, or they present you with an issue or a problem, just silently wish them well. Recognize that they have a life and concerns, they have loved ones, problems, issues. Wish them well with all of that. You don’t need to say it – just think it. It will change how you approach them, it will change how you look, it changes everything. And the amazing thing is, they will recognize it, and respond in kind. There is excellent research on this, and it works! Trust me on this. And this step is key – if you try to do the next step without this one, it will come off as a phony manipulative technique. Been there, done that.

3.      Seek First To Understand. That is 7 Habits and Steven Covey. Put aside your arguments and responses, and try to understand exactly what the other person is trying to tell you. Hear their emotion, their concern. Wish them well, and try to express to them exactly what you are hearing. Try to state their problem better than they did, with the same emotion and concern. If you are successful, you will immediately lower the tension and emotion of the exchange. They will not feel threatened. They will recognize that you certainly understand them, even if you may not agree with them. If they are understood, they can lower their level of concern and emotional content. This was so difficult for me in the beginning that I used to take written notes on what I was GOING to say when they were done, instead of really listening.Once you give that response, and they agree, now you can express your opinion – but couch it in their framework, in their terms, so they can really hear it. Do not make it an attack. Make it an informational exchange by pointing to facts or other examples. Again, there is great research on all of this. See the references at the end.

My Story

At the start of this piece, I mentioned my own gift of insight in this. A long time ago, I received a significant promotion at work. The very next Monday, I attended the senior management meeting of my division for the first time, as the youngest and newest member. I wisely sat on one end of this long table, and the boss sat up there at the head. The more senior members also sat closer to him. It’s kind of amazing how that stuff works.

At some point in this meeting – my very first in this group, remember – the boss brought up a controversial subject, and asked for our input. He wisely started the discussion with a person on the other side of the table from me, so that I would likely get to comment last. He was letting me see how this all worked. I honestly do not remember what the topic was. But, after 3 people commented, one of the senior members of his staff, the one sitting next to him, made some comment which I disagreed with. Let’s say his name was Al. I immediately interjected and stated clearly what I thought was wrong with what he said. At that point, the boss changed the topic of conversation, and stopped the round table discussion. I thought that was a bit strange, but, hey, I’m a new kid, what do I know.

A few days later, during I had my regular one on one with the boss. At the end of the meeting, he said, “Oh yeah, I want you to go and apologize to Al.” And I said, “Why should I apologize to Al?” And he said, “You really insulted him in our staff meeting when you said so and so.” I said, “What?! No I didn’t. That’s crazy.” After a few more words like that, my boss stood up, leaned into me, shook his finger at me and said, “Go apologize to Al!” I said, “Yes sir.”

I left his office, and immediately walked up a flight of stairs to Al’s office. I stuck my head in his door, and asked if he had a minute. I went in, and I apologized for whatever it was that had offended him at the staff meeting. He was so gracious and accepting, I realized that I really had offended him. I was astounded. I had offended a senior staff person in a meeting, and I did not even realize it. What was going on?

When I went home that night, I recounted this story to my wife at the dinner table, and she just rolled her eyes at me. And I said, “What?!” She said, “You do it all the time”. But what, what do I do? She didn’t use these exact words, but she let me know that I frequently come across as an arrogant SOB, who knows everything while the people around me know nothing.

Man. That set me back. The next day in my own staff meeting, I shared this whole experience with my managers, including my wife’s comments. I asked for their help in recognizing the problem and solving it. They were so gracious and kind about it, that I realized that they knew it too. In fact, everyone I dealt with knew it. Everyone but ME!

So, I set about working on the problem. I discovered that I had a very deep seated inferiority complex. I grew up in a dysfunctional household, with an alcoholic father, and a lot of physical and emotional abuse, both for myself, and for my brother and my mom. I survived, primarily because of the support and love of my mom, but it left me with a tremendous sense of inferiority. I had difficulty just going to the grocery store and asking for something. I had difficulty just walking down the street without feeling like an idiot. I overcame this all by being really, really smart! At least I thought I did. My genetics gave me a pretty good level of intelligence, and I used it mercilessly to compete with everyone. I would mentally measure up anyone that I met, and I would find them to be less smart. It made me feel good, it let me function somewhat capably. I began to realize that I was walking around weighing every single person, and finding them wanting. I did it walking down the street to strangers. What a crazy way to look at the world. And, that internal measuring leaked out of me as arrogance.

So, the first step was to overcome this inferiority thing. That probably took me 10 years. I was exposed to the Covey 7 Habits course, and I eventually understood that I am in charge of me. I am not the result of my upbringing, of your opinion of me, of my genetics. I am in charge of me. And I can choose how to respond to you. I do not need to be threatened, I do not need to be self conscious. I am what I am, and I am just fine – trust me on this. Unless you are physically waving a weapon in my face, I can choose not to be threatened, even if you are screaming and yelling at me. One of the things that helps is to look at things from YOUR perspective, and wish you well. If you are threatened, if you are insecure, you are more likely to be waving your arms and yelling than not. I can wish you well, and try to help. I am already on the second step above.

References:

• Covey, Stephen R, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
  
        See especially Habit 1, Being Proactive – you are in charge of yourself and your responses. And Habit 5, Seek First to Understand.
• Fisher, Roger, and Ury, William L, Getting to Yes.This is the amazing product of the Harvard Negotiation Project, on how to negotiate any problem.
• Thompson, Leigh L, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator.This is a textbook full of hard research information on negotiating tactics – things that really do work. And it is fundamentally based on “Getting to Yes”. It’s pricey, so buy an older edition.
• Sood, Amit, MD, The Mayo Clinic Guide to Stress Free Living.This author introduced me to the idea that how I think about people affects how I act toward them, and also how they respond to me. Wish them well!

OMG - The World Bank Has Figured Out Behavioral Economics

If you have been following along here, you have seen this about development and “culture”,
  See this post Culture is Key to Development. 

And about behavioral economics and our “irrational” behavior.
  See this post on Thinking, Fast andSlow.

The World Bank has wrapped these together with great results. Check out this report summary:

  http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/12/02/world-development-report-2015-explores-mind-society-and-behavior

David Brooks commented on this in his column, as “smallmiracles”.
  http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/opinion/david-brooks-in-praise-of-small-miracles.html

I think this is a BIG DEAL! The UN Millennium DevelopmentGoals were intended to eliminate world poverty. They were based on research by Jeffrey Sachs and others, and the premise that people just need a bit of help getting over the “hump” as it were, in order to develop their own economic well being. But it did not work out so well. People really do not make “rational” economic decisions. In important things like economics, food, and our general well being, we make emotional decisions. And we make them quickly and with firm commitment. Appealing to our rational self actually makes us even more entrenched in those decisions. The UN has undertaken a new effort now to create Sustainable Development Goals. The UN has developed a very challenging set of goals, and some wonderful graphics for them. 

This World Bank study is very much in support of this new approach. It adopts the behavioral economists’ approach of “nudging” or “going with” and “using” our built in psychological propensities, instead of arguing against them. This could work!

Just for one example, cited by Brooks:

Too many people die in auto accidents. When governments try to reduce highway deaths, they generally increase safety regulations. But, also in Kenya, stickers were placed inside buses and vans urging passengers to scream at automobile drivers they saw driving dangerously.

The heckling discouraged dangerous driving by an awesome amount. Insurance claims involving injury or death fell to half of their previous levels.

AND – gold stars work better than economic incentives:

In Zambia, hairdressers were asked to sell female condoms to their clients. Some were offered financial incentives to do so, but these produced no results. In other salons, top condom sellers had a gold star placed next to their names on a poster that all could see. More than twice as many condoms were sold. This simple change was based on an understanding of the human desire for status and admiration.

The summary introduction to the report actually says it more positively and clearly:

To inspire a fresh look at how development work is done, the Report outlines three principles of human decision making: thinking automatically, thinking socially, and thinking with mental models. Much of human thinking is automatic and depends on whatever comes to mind most effortlessly. People are deeply social and are influenced by social networks and norms. Finally, most people do not invent new concepts; rather they use mental models drawn from their societies and shared histories to interpret their experiences.  (Page 2)

Outstanding. Automatic thinking – the FAST brain. Social influence – culture and psychological defense. Mental Models – world view, tradition, conservatism, risk avoidance. I love it. Finally, we might get somewhere with all of this.

Here’s one example of a study on the affect of poverty in children. It’s not just the nutrition!

Poverty in childhood, which is often accompanied by high stress and neglect from parents, can impair cognitive development, according to the report, so public programs that provide early childhood stimulation are critical. A 20 year study in Jamaica found that a program aimed at altering the way mothers interacted with their infants led to an increase in earnings by 25 percent once those children became adults, as compared to others who did not participate in the program.

The full report is also available at the web page cited above. If you care about world poverty, about development, about economics – give it a look! At 200 pages, it is going to take me a while to digest this. I'll share more insights as we go along here. Do you have some? 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOW – if we could just figure out how to persuade people to make better political decisions. How might that be done?

Joseph Stiglitz - How Inequality Is Killing the American Dream

This is just a short piece to point you to this article, by Joseph Stiglitz. It will likely NOT change your opinion about all of this, but it is a fine piece, with good information from a Nobel Prize winning economist.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-inequality-killing-american-dreamand-what-we-can-do-about-it?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

I say it won't make any difference, because I realize that any information provided to you that goes counter to what you believe, just serves to reinforce what you believe. BUT  . . . that said, I can't give up on trying to persuade you otherwise. That's the emotional energy that drives me.

I posted this on Facebook already - but I was afraid the few and the brave that actually follow this blog might miss that.

I found the article interesting because he points out an implication of this income inequality that I had not even considered. I thought it remote that we would descend to the class revolution that the French author Pickett seems to be predicting. I thought we might muddle through over time, with gradual shifts in tax and spending policies. Stiglitz thinks this disparity is much more dangerous. It could destroy the very things that make our place on the planet so valuable. We are likely to use our REAL power, our REAL influence - that we are something that others can strive to become. Military might is not the source of our power. The real source is that we represent the hope and inspiration of the huddled masses. And we are losing that. The Scandinavians seem to have figured it out.

As to his ideas as how to overcome it - they are all good. But they are all doomed to fail. They are based on rational thinking, factual ideas. People do not respond to that. We are emotional animals, we are selfish, we are protective of our sense of self, of our beliefs and biases. We do not gladly accept information counter to those.

What do you think?

Rational Decisions and Politics – or NOT – A Proposal

Rational Decisions and Politics – or NOT – A Proposal

You are Now Less Dumb

I’ve been reading a little gem of a book, You are Now Less Dumb, by David McRaney. He also wrote You are Not So Smart, which I also like. He takes psychological research and turns it into stories and narratives that are very understandable and readable. If you liked Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman, you will like these. Kahneman is the scientist, and McRaney the populist, but the information they provide is priceless. Jonah Lehrer does similar work.

Why Are we ALL So Stupid?

As McRaney points out, we are not so smart. I have been puzzled for some time with how “stupid” people seem in the mass. I mean really stupid. As a people, as a country, as a crowd, we make absolutely idiotic and stupid decisions. Recently a consultant for the Affordable Care Act was severely criticized for saying that the electorate is basically STUPID. He was not polite, but he was right. As a whole, as a crowd, we, the American public, are making totally STUPID decisions. We hold irrational beliefs, we do DUMB things.

We Make Emotional Decisions

The good or bad of that is that this has basically always been the case. It is how human beings are wired. We are not wired to make rational decisions – we are wired to make emotional decisions. It’s a genetically evolved, rapid decision making framework that stood us in very good stead when we had to avoid the tiger in the path, or the enemy with the spear. Our irrational brain, our emotional one is great at quick decisions. The rational part, the slow brain, does work – but it takes a long time, and it takes a lot of effort. We can do it – but we have to be well rested, not threatened, and calm about it. You don’t find that atmosphere much in topics that relate to important decisions, such as those around politics, economics or religion.

Now, if your irrational self chooses to NOT believe what I have just said here, I am not sure what I can do about it. You are opting to NOT believe a set of rational facts and research. I can point you to the books, to the research, but even if you read it – which I very much doubt – facts which are opposed to your basic beliefs only tend to reinforce those beliefs. Honest – it works that way. Psychologists call this the “backfire effect”, or the “self defense” mechanism, or “identity protective cognition”.

See: https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/self_defense.pdf.

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_cognition  or
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=fss_papers

If Offered Facts Contrary to Our Belief that Reinforces Our Belief.

The basic mechanism here is that we have a defensive reaction to anything which threatens our sense of self, our identity, or our membership in a group. Here is a bit of a long quote from the last reference listed above – p.8.

Group membership, it has been shown, “can affect how people process information about nearly all categories of stimuli in the social world” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 504). Individuals tend to adopt the beliefs common to members of salient “in-groups.” They also resist revision of those beliefs in the face of contrary factual information, particularly when that information originates from “out group” sources, who are likely to be perceived as less knowledgeable and less trustworthy than “in group” ones (Mackie & Quellar, 2000; Clark & Maas, 1988; Mackie, Gastardoconaco & Skelly, 1992).

Identity-protective cognition is one proposed mechanism for this set of dynamics. Individual well-being, this account recognizes, is intricately bound up with group membership, which supplies individuals not only with material benefits but a range of critical nonmaterial ones including opportunities to acquire status and self-esteem. Challenges to commonly held group beliefs can undermine a person’s well-being either by threatening to drive a wedge between that person and other group members, by interfering with important practices within the group, or by impugning the social competence (and thus the esteem-conferring capacity) of a group generally. Accordingly, as a means of identity self-defense, individuals conform their appraisals of information in a manner that buttresses beliefs associated with belonging to particular groups (Cohen, Aronson & Steele, 2000; Cohen, 2003; Cohen, Sherman, Bastardi, Hsu, McGoey & Ross, in press).

When offered information which is contrary to this sense of self, this opinion or belief, we tend to reaffirm our belief and hold it even more tightly. So, we have Republicans and Democrats, atheists and believers, Christians and Muslims, creationists and evolutionists, global warming disputants, and the like with no way to really communicate. If one side offers information or factual research to the other side, it just provides another argument in support of their firmly held belief.

We believe things because our group does, or our identity requires us to as a defensive mechanism. And no amount of contrary facts or information is going to dissuade us. What – you don’t believe that? Well, what can I say – that is the proof of the pudding.

How Do We Get Out of This

My question is, how the heck can we get out of this? How did we get out of it in the past? If it were not for Martin Luther, we would probably all still be in some form of the Holy Roman Empire or a similar monarchy, and think that the earth was the center of the universe. There would have been no enlightenment, no scientific method, no industrial revolution. But we did break with that past – albeit with considerable difficulty. Quite a few very creative humans lost their lives in that struggle. The cost today is still counted in lives lost in the religious wars, and in billions of dollars of squandered resources, and in the ultimate threat to the planet itself when global warming becomes too great to stop.

There HAS to be a way to persuade our irrational selves about the FACTS that we clearly know from modern science. Our advances in psychology alone indicate that we CAN figure this out. How do we get that into the popular opinion?

One on One Conversation Technique

The only thing I have seen that purports to help here is in a one to one discussion. Argument does not work – ever. It just pushes the other side to deepen their convictions. What does seem to work somewhat is mutual exploration. If you can establish a relationship of trust with the other person, you can then explore with them their own ideas and beliefs. If they explain them to you, in a trusted relationship, without threat, it does appear that they CAN get to a place where they are somewhat rational about the information they can accept. It is NOT easy – I have NEVER managed to move anyone to share my beliefs about the deity or the wave nature of the universe – or even about the “free market”.

I think the mechanism here is the relationship of trust creates a safe place to explore things that might be seen as threatening. Creating that trust relationship is key, and that is also not a trivial undertaking.

I also wonder if it is even possible for any individual to acquire such a sense of self that they can be independent of the opinions of their group, or of the need for their own opinions to be valid. I would like to think that I have arrived at that pinnacle of mature sense of self – but how the heck would I know? And how does anyone ever get there? I taught Steven Covey’s 7 Habits for 10 years. That helped me a bit. I am pretty sure that if we put that basic curriculum in every grade school, we would have a lot less problems when those kids are adults. The course gives you the sense that you are in charge of yourself, that you are capable, and it teaches tools for communicating with others.

Self Esteem Priming

There is research that indicates that if you PRIME people to a more positive image of self, they are then more open to considering information which is counter to their beliefs. The simple exercise of having people reflect on positive past experiences seems to open their minds to opposing ideas. One study had participants read an article on capital punishment. One version of the article presented research and facts in favor of capital punishment, while another version took the opposite tack. Each participant was given the version of the article which was counter to their established belief. The control group had no preconditioning. The other groups were primed by asking them to describe 3 or 4 personal experiences where they felt very good about some personal skill or value. The control group reacted as expected – they did NOT change their beliefs. In the other groups, more people reported that the article had changed how they saw the problem – in both directions.

The research also indicates that this works in negotiation. If both sides are primed with self-worth ideas, then they are actually more open to considering compromise with the opponent. The good news is that the priming, the focus on self-worth does not prime someone to simply accept the information presented. Rather it appears to enable them to make a more objective evaluation of the information presented. Who can argue with that?

It also appears that a single session of self-affirmation can have long term effects when coupled with an educational experience. The increase in self-esteem appears to remain. This experiment involved educational sessions about the danger of unprotected sex, and measures to reduce exposure. The affirmed individuals reported later that their positive activities in response to the training continued at a higher rate than the control group.

One has to be careful here. If the affirmation that is given touches on the issue at stake, it can cut the other way entirely. Subjects who were primed to consider themselves as not being prejudiced were much more likely to engage in prejudicial actions. The same was true for high moral values and ethically questionable actions. Too much of a good thing, etc.

Application to Real World Problems

OK, so how would this work in the real world? Well, we could require our elected officials to complete 2 days of self-worth classes, and then put them together with the other side for 2 days of mutual trust building before we let them meet and govern. I think that might actually work. M. Scott Peck said as much in his book, The Different Drum. He cites many cases where the parties spent 3 days just getting to know each other, before they attempted any negotiation.

But how do we get warring groups in Ukraine and Russia together, or Isis Islamic Militants and the people they are killing in order to “convert” them. Just how would that work? Israel and Palestine? Personally, I would be happy if we could get the two major political parties, Republicans and Democrats, to stop calling each other names.

Start With the Kids

Bottom line – I don’t think there is any way out of this problem for our adult society. We need to start with the kids. We need to raise children that have enough self-esteem that they do not feel attacked when presented with information that is counter to their beliefs and values. With enough self-esteem, they can evaluate the information rationally, and we can get on with growing the potential of human kind. We need unthreatened, mature adults running things.

A Modest Proposal

Here’s my proposal. We might start by electing only mature adults to public office. But how do we do we determine who the mature adults are? My simple minded rule for this is:

Vote ONLY for people who offer constructive ideas. NEVER vote for anyone who offers criticism of their opponent, especially if they do not offer a real, positive alternative. It is simply too easy to criticize, and it indicates a juvenile approach to problems.

What we need is a simple minded acronym or expression that becomes a “meme” that people will remember when they watch the millions of dollars poured into political advertising. If the news media would pick this up – someone beyond Jon Stewart – we might actually be able to make some progress here. Which one of these do you think might work?

• Adults offer ideas, children call each other names.
• Name calling is for children.
• Be an Adult, offer an Idea, not a criticism.
• Only idiots only criticize.
• Negatives do not move us forward.

And if you don’t like any of those, give me a better one.

It’s a thought. I’m just saying . . . 

You Want to Help Someone: Shut Up and Listen

I am partial to Italians. It's my "other" heritage. I love their passion and feeling. Here's an Italian speaker talking about how he helps people in developing countries. Respect. Serve. Listen.

And he is funny! Great speaker.
    http://on.ted.com/Sirolli

It works. See what you think.
He is focused on entrepreneurship - which is key to real economic development.
His story about NYC is just great!

I think this could be modified a bit. The sitting and talking is always a great start.
The organizing and putting people in touch with each other is the next step for community organizing.
We can do this.

Remember, we're all in this together, and I'm pulling for you.

The $20 phone, mobile money and development

If you have been following along here, and I am sure you have, you know that I am fascinated by things "economic" and the development disparities among nations. If you share these interests, especially about Africa, you should read this piece: http://qz.com/218988

The article is titled:
How to manage all your financial affairs from a $20 mobile phone.

One of Jeffrey Sachs measures for the success of his anti poverty effort called Millennium Villages, is the use of cell phones. Turns out, cell phone usage is going up everywhere, with or without the Millennium Village investment. My good friend out on the Serengeti has a smart phone - an iPhone! His neighbors generally use a much cheaper variety. You can buy one at Walgreens for $20 - it is my only cell phone!

You need to know that there is NO electrical service yet on the Serengeti! The cell phone companies have towers and generators out there. The customers use solar chargers - either one they own, or one a neighbor lets them use for a price! Why the push for cell phones in such a poor area? Well, think about it. You are a Masai herdsman, and you want to make a deal for some cattle, or some corn. The nearest market is, say, a day's walk away. One day you discover that you can use a cell phone to talk to the seller, or buyer, and actually close the deal, in less than a minute. You can negotiate the price, and actually MOVE the money. Using a very simple cell phone with some text capability. 

As the article points out, Tanzania has some of the most sophisticated systems in the world for moving money via cell phone. In the US, just try moving money from one bank to another person's account in a different bank with your cell phone. Or try moving it across a national border. I can't do it using the WWW without major problems and fees. And I know how to use PayPal! See this piece: NY Times - Hard To Send Money to Friends

And yet this same approach is NOT working in India, a much more developed part of the world. See this piece: Why Mobile Money has failed to take off in India. Turns out it is the regulators and banks that are inhibiting things. It seems the banks are focused on making money, not encouraging development. If it hurts them, they are agin it. Imagine that!

Darn that big government. Another key factor for development is a governmental structure that actually supports it. That does not mean NO government, it means one positive to development. A simplistic approach to NO government gives you Somalia. Not a place economic development is flourishing.

One of the key ingredients for development is a stable, trustworthy business system. Carrying $100 from here to there in Tanzania is not without some risks. Carrying $10,000 has a LOT of risks. 

Two other key ingredients for development are credit and savings. If your only means for saving money is to hide it under your bed - you are at considerable risk. If you have to PAY the bank to open a savings account, and the bank is 2 hours away - guess what happens to savings. 

In most developing countries, there is also no such thing as a credit bureau, or a credit rating. If you want to make a major purchase on time in Esteli, Nicaragua, the local merchants have a cooperative reporting scheme. They check with each other as to whether or not you have an outstanding payment with any one else, and how you made those payments. A credit system at a very local level.

Banks do not lend money to people who have NO money. That is not how the system works. That's why micro credit works. It is a type of forced savings account, that provides some form of credit. The average micro credit loan rate around the world is 27%. It's true. (http://www.cgap.org/) I can walk down to my local bank here and get a line of credit for 3.99%. That 23% is a considerable drag on economic development and risk taking.

As I have stated here before, the real root of our economic disparities lies in our world view. But there are many mechanisms we can use to help change that world view. Putting someone in charge of their own finances, giving them easy access to real credit, enabling financial transactions all help do that.

I am persuaded there is no magic bullet to solve the wealth disparity, and we just have to keep doing the hundred little things that work. When Tanzanians can get a bit more efficient and effective, we all benefit. I have more hope for sub Saharan Africa than all of the middle east. They are so buried in their religious oligarchy and sectarianism that they are just going to keep killing each other for the foreseeable. It actually works better if there are so many different tribes or groups that no one group can dominate. They have to work together - or NOT!

 Remember, we're all in the together, and I'm pulling for you.