Divided by a Common Language

"England and America are two countries divided by a common language."

Nobody is really quite sure who said this.  Some say it was Winston Churchill, others attribute it to Oscar Wilde.  Most sources I've found give George Bernard Shaw credit, though there's no written documentation of Shaw's having said this.  But, he could have.

While looking this morning for background material on Egypt (which will be part 3 of the CIVETS series), I found an article on the BBC entitled "Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English."  That ended up as a lost hour......

One of the points of particular interest in this article is that, when Americans (USAians ?) use specific Britishisms ((such as "colour" for "color" or "centre" for "center"), that they don't come across as sophisticated, just pretentious.

Picture from Memphis Flyer


The BBC article linked to this page (Not One-Off Britishisms).  I thought I'd read the first few entries, but got totally sucked in.  The author here also skewers the pretentiousness of some US uses of British idioms, but makes an additional point, which is that language in the US is enriched by the addition of British words and phrases for which there is no specific American equivalent.  One I am particularly fond of is the verb "to vet," meaning "to look into," with the implications of determining a person's suitability for a position and of digging for the dirt before the opposition can do so.

Example #1
Example #2

Then, there's my new favourite British news source, The Guardian.  One of their columnists decided to tackle the subject of British English vs. US English. The article is interesting, but the comments are even better.  Some people take their language very seriously.  Other commenters drifted down the byways of Spanish Spanish vs. Cuban Spanish.....

Then, just to make things Even More Complicated, remember that it's not just US English and British English.

• "Hinglish: Not same, very different" (English with a Hindi flavour)
• "G' Day mate: A guide to Australian language" (from a British source)
• "South African English" (Bring on the  vuvuzelas.  And, for evidence that there are people with entirely too much time on their hands.... )

This is enough.

NYSE Euronext merger with Deutsche Boerse blocked by EU (BBC News)

This is a very appropriate news item, for us at least. On the agenda for tomorrow (Friday) is a discussion of economic and legal systems.

Today's business climate is one of mergers and acquisitions, though those mergers don't always meet with the approval of governments interested in enforcing antitrust laws (see here for a brief refresher on antitrust).

In class, we'll take a look at Microsoft and their troubles in the EU.

The BBC article deals with a proposed merger that's been going on for a while now. Like a lot of these, it goes beyond the merely complex.

NYSE Euronext is a merger (dating back to 2007 or so) of the New York Stock Exchange and Euronext, which was itself a merger of a number of European exchanges (not, however, including either London or Frankfort).

At one point, Deutsche Börse (Germany, based in Frankfort) wanted to buy Euronext, but was beaten out by the NYSE.

So, in early 2011, Deutsche Börse decided that they were going to acquire NYSE Euronext. At the time, the expectation was that the merger would happen fairly quickly. Per a Wall Street Journal article from a year ago:

A deal could be announced as early as next week, according to people familiar with the situation, though a host of regulatory challenges await on both sides of the Atlantic, according to competition experts.

Well, the deal isn't going to go through. The European Commission announced yesterday that the merger would violate EU antitrust provisions.

But, the US didn't have a problem with the merger, approving it in December of 2011.

The difference between the EU and the US is that EU regulators appear to be somewhat more aggressive in their enforcement of antitrust. For example:

The day after blocking the merger of NYSE Euronext (NYX) and Deutsche Boerse AG (DB1), the European Union’s antitrust chief vowed to veto other deals that hamper competition. The EU will continue to block deals “whenever necessary,”
Joaquin Almunia said in prepared remarks for a speech in Brussels today.

So, what does this all mean? There will most likely be additional consolidations in the world's markets; the London Metal Exchange is looking to be bought out soon. It does mean that, as a company looking to raise money in the equities market, that there'll be less choice as to where to list one's stock. Does that matter? In reading through the EU's press release on the NYSE Euronext / Deutsche Börse merger, they keep saying "competition is good," but it's not clear just why competition among financial marketplaces is a good thing.

Ok. Having nothing else to do, I decided to see if I could find out why. What I found was a very long and complex paper written by academic economists in 1998. I ran out of steam on about page 6 (out of 50), but if I'm reading this right, there's no good economic reason for a lot of competition. Also, prior to a single European currency and increased cross-border ownership of securtities, most world exchanges were already monopolies within their countries:

The presence of many exchanges in reality is not incompatible with this view, as exchanges were not competing with one another, at least in Europe, until a decade ago, due to different regulations and currencies that let them be monopolist in their relevant markets. In fact, in each country, either only one exchange existed or only one was dominant and absorbed the small regional ones (as in France, Italy, Spain, and Germany).

Today's story has been widely reported, but the more I think about it, the impact on businesses in general will most likely be a limited one. It's still an interesting story, especially when you look at the history behind it.

September Trade Deficit Numbers -- Not Good

U.S. September Trade Deficit Widens to Record $66.1 Billion

The various analysts and company spokespersons quoted in this article don't seem to be especially worried; they attribute the "record" deficits to one-time events, such as the Boeing strike and the September hurricanes. Ok, the Boeing strike is settled, and planes are shipping again, but the impact of the hurricanes isn't going to just vanish overnight.

ALso, the administration is trying to put pressure on China to (1) limit clothing exports to the US and (2) allow the yuan to float (a floating yuan will make Chinese exports more expensive in the US, and should reduce our trade deficit with China). Maybe I'm a professional pessimist, but this doesn't exactly cheer me up.

Incidentally, what's driving that $20 billion + traded eficit with China??? According to the US Census Buraeu (who tracks this information), we're buying "primarily toys, games, and sporting goods; TV’s and VCR’s; stereo equipment; and computers."

Your thoughts ?

WTO Hong Kong Meeting: Setting the Bar Low

Following arecent meeting of the trade / commerce ministers from the US, EU, Brazil, India and Japan, a general consensus was reached -- that the December meetings of the WTO in Hong Kong will likely not result in much in the way of new agreements. The issue of US / EU agricultural subsidies will be on the agenda, but is unlikely to be resolved, while the richer nations will proabably ask for concessions from the lesser developed countries in areas such as access to markets.

Trade ministers dampen down expectations

The question is, though -- is this necessarily a Bad Thing? One's automatic reaction is to say, yes, that we want diplomatic talks (be they military, political or economic) to move towards resolution of conflict.

However. WTO / GATT negotiating rounds have been on a more-or-less continouius basis for over 50 years now, and there's no question but that progress has been made. The trade barriers we saw prior to WWII just aren't there any more.

[We'll leave out here the deeper philosophical issues over whether free trade is a Good Thing].

Ok. So GATT / WTO has moved slowly, yet continued to make progress. But I'd also make the argument that the issues being negotiated are important ones (the US agricultural subsidies have been around since the 1930's; the EU's agricultural subsidies are driven, by part, from famine expereinces in WWI and WWII). If these are important issues, doesn't it make some sense to move slowly, so that whatever solution is ultimately arrived at is one that all parties concerned can live with? The ag subsidies are an important issue. But, are they such an important issue that we need to rush to settle the issue or is it so important that we need to move slowly, so that whatever answer we reach is the best one?

Your thoughts????

Corruption Perceptions Index 2005 Released

This is the index from Transparency International, which the folks from the international business class should recall.

And the winners this year.....

Bangladesh is, again, the most corrupt, followed by Chad. The three most honest -- Iceland in first place, with Finland and New Zealand tied for second. The US comes in at #17.

BBC NEWS: South Asia: Bangladesh tops most corrupt list

Transparency International

Employment Discrimination in Sweden

This was on Yahoo's front page, so I thought it might be a good idea for me to note a few things. First, this case is in Sweden. As the International Business folks have gotten very tired of hearing, culture and laws differ. True, there have been employment discrimination cases in the US where height requirements and other physical requirements have been struck down (as I recall, some were on gender and others I think on ethnicity). However, in the US cases, the finding was that the requirement wasn't something actually needed for the job [Note 1]. From what was reported here, it sound as though the minimum height requirement was a job requirement -- if a US employer could establish that efficiency or safety really did require the minimum heights, the employer would, I think, probably win the suit.

[Note 1]. The interesting case was with firefighters. Traditional selection requirements for that job included the ability to lift, I think, 250 or 300 pounds. When this requirement was challenged, and a job analysis actually performed, what came out was that the ability to lift that amount of weight wasn't essential; what was essential was the ability to carry a lesser amount over a distance. In other words, endurance rather than strength. Women actually do better on endurence than men. That doesn't mean that many women will qualify as firefighters -- it's not office work. But, if you think through it, doesn't it make sense to take the time to find out what the job really requires, and find people who meet those qualifications?

China and Oil

Ok. The last question I asked you Monday night was this -- where is China going to get the oil needed to fuel (so to speak) its economic growth? They don't produce it themselves. There's oil in Iraq, there's oil in North Central Asia. But, there's lots of folks who want this oil -- the US and Europe, for one; India is also in the market.

China and India Vie for Kazakhstan Oil (8/16)
China Ups the Ante in Its Bid for Oil (8/22)
Uncertain Saudi Supplies Hold Key to China (8/23)

So, is everything gloom-and-doom? Not necessarily. One of the world's 5 most populous countries (China, India, Brazil, and the US being the others) has found an alternative.

Homegrown Fuel Supply Helps Brazil Breathe Easy (6/15)

Your thoughts ??????