Entries from December 2007 ↓

Reading this week, Andre Comte Sponville philosophical works in relation to Time, reminded me of the NLP Time orientation. Our spatial representation of Past – Present- Future is linked to the vision and out look of our being. A change in the representation will certainly change our outlook thus operate a corresponding change in our behavior. Do you want to be a more future oriented person? Do you want to have a better Time Management? Read below an extract of the book: Change your mind and keep the change, by Connirae and Steve Andreas, my NLP tutors. It is one of the NLP books which I cherish.

Time Orientation
Let’s talk a little bit more about past-, present-, and future-oriented people, and how their orientations relate to their time sorts. For example, one person that I worked with had the past right behind her, the present directly in front of her, and the future going out ahead. Now, what kind of person was she with respect to time? If you try on that timeline, what will your orientation be?

Al: I’m not sure. It’s confusing.

Well, can you see the future?

Al: No, not really.

Not unless your pictures are transparent, and hers weren’t! If the present is right in front of you and the immediate future is behind that, so you can’t see it, what is your time orientation?

Sally: Present.

Right, and for her it was the immediate present. When she said “right now,” she really meant right now–this split second! Five minutes from now would be in the future for her. She had a very narrow sense of the present.

Now try this out. What if your future goes off to your right at an angle, so you can see most of what’s in each picture, and it gets bigger and brighter as it goes forward in time? The far future will be more important for you. You would tend to live for the far future, and respond less to the present and past.

If the near future or the present were bigger and brighter than the far future, you might experience difficulty with long-range planning or thinking about the consequences of your behavior, but be very good at planning immediate future events. Investigating your timeline can often give you some clues about how to change it in a useful way.

Carol: I started out being very present-oriented. My present was big, bright, and close, and both future and past were small and dim. We changed it so that I could keep all that wonderfulness of the present, but move some of that brightness into the next several weeks also, so that I’d respond more to the immediate future and get more done.

That sounds like a useful change. Here’s another timeline you can all try out. One man had his past on a line straight in front of him. His future went way off to the right. You know the phrase, “My past flashed in front of my eyes?” This man lived that way all the time. What does that do to your experience? It certainly focuses your attention on the past. Depending upon whether your past was wonderful or horrible, you might like it or not, but you wouldn’t pay much attention to the present or future. This is the kind of person for whom using the Change Personal History pattern will be very impactful, because he responds so strongly to representations of the past.

Carl: I’ve noticed that in certain circumstances I can focus a lot on the past. My past was right up here in front of me. So I just moved it over there to my left, and went, “Beep. Bang!” and slammed the door.

And how does that work for you?

Carl: Well, I don’t know yet.

If you now take this new timeline into future situations, you can get a good idea of how it will work, and if any adjustments need to be made. The ideal is to have some flexibility with your timeline–to be able to move the past where you can see it when that’s useful, and move it out of the way when you want to be more present- or future-oriented.

I think you are all getting the idea that in general, whatever is right in front of you and noticeable–big and bright, colorful, etc.–will be most compelling and you will pay most attention to it.

Fred: I’m interested in hearing about some useful timelines.

Well, the question is always “Useful for what purpose?” or “Useful for whom?” You’re getting a sense of what the possibilities are. Let me tell you some fairly standard ones. Most people have some kind of gentle, open curve, the way Linda has. The past is usually a line off to the left, the present right in front of you, and the future in a line to the right. Images may be stacked behind one another, but they’re usually offset or arranged at an angle, so that part of each successive picture is visible.

Deciding whether a timeline is useful or not depends on what your personal outcomes are, and what’s ecological for you. Saying “this is the right timeline” is like saying “this is the right way to be, and there are no other useful ways to live in the world.” A person’s timeline can make him unique. But if it gets him into trouble in certain situations, or if a different timeline would allow him to do things that he can’t now do with his own, then it might be appropriate to explore alternatives, at least for specific contexts.

Timeline Spacing

It’s often useful to find someone you think is very capable and skilled, investigate how she sorts time, and try it out. For example, people who are good long-range planners tend to have the future close in front of them rather than off to the side. We know a man who teaches business people long-range planning, and he’s very good at it. He has both his five-year and his ten-year plans right there in front of him, very detailed, and quite close. Ten years is only about two feet away. That works fine for him, and he really likes it, but when I try it, the future seems to press in on me too much. I want the future a little bit farther away and less detailed, so that I have more room to move in the present.

What difference might it make in a person’s life if his future timeline is really e-x-p-a-n-d-e-d instead of compressed, like that of the long-range planner I just mentioned? Try putting tomorrow halfway across the room, next week down the hall, and next month so far away on the horizon that it’s barely visible. What might be the behavioral consequences of having such an “expanded” timeline?

Anne: I wouldn’t be very motivated to do something that was way out there someplace! I’d feel as if I had a lot of time to kill before getting around to it.
Mike: How true! When I was writing my dissertation, finishing it was quite a way off in the future. There was lots of room to add other projects between the present and the completion date of my dissertation, so I kept taking on new jobs and putting off the dissertation. When I finally realized what was happening, I “reeled in” the deadline until it was so close to the present that there wasn’t enough room to add anything in between. Any new projects had to get added on after the dissertation was done.
Nice! That’s a good illustration of how compressing a timeline can help someone meet deadlines.

Lars: I think I need to do the opposite. My future is all bunched up close, and I always feel like the future is pressing in on me. When I spread it out a little more, I feel much more relaxed.

You look as if that might lower your blood pressure 30 points. Let’s check carefully for ecology, though. Imagine taking this new spread-out timeline with you through the next day . . . and the next week . . . Can you still get the things done you want to get done? Or are you too “laid back”?

Lars: No, not at all. In fact I think I can plan and schedule better. Before, my future was so bunched up that I couldn’t really see it to plan very well.

That sounds good. We’ve also noticed that for some people, having a long-range future that is filled with big bright goals literally gives them “something to live for” and they’re more apt to stay alive! One study on cancer patients found that survivors are apt to be future-oriented, whereas non-survivors are past-oriented.

Bob: I used to be much more future-oriented than I am now. In the past couple of years I’ve slowed down, and my future seems to be less clear than the way it was before. There are obviously advantages and disadvantages.

Absolutely. If you are too fixated on the future, you may not be taking care of things in the present. You may not notice that you’re having a lousy time now, and that your family’s having a lousy time, too. On the other hand, if all your attention is on having fun in the present, you won’t notice the future consequences, and your future won’t be as enjoyable as it could be. Depending on the consequences you ignore, it could be a lot shorter, too!

Peter Drucker’s Story of Two Vice Presidents (Why What Everybody Knows Is Frequently Wrong) I enjoyed that piece of wisdom so much that I had to blog it for you.

In 1975  William Cohen was among the first students in legendary management guru Peter Drucker’s Executive Ph.D. program at what was then Claremont Graduate School and is now The Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management at Claremont Graduate University. In the following excerpt from his new
book A Class with Drucker: The Lost Lessons of the World’s Greatest Management Teacher (AMACOM, 2007), Cohen describes a lesson he learned in the fall of 1975 during his first class with the master.

The Story of the Two Vice Presidents
Drucker  began with a story about a company he had observed. As the president of the company grew older, he knew that he should begin thinking about succession. Fortunately, he had two vice presidents, both equally outstanding, and of the right age, and each with a record of outstanding prior accomplishments with this firm. He increased the responsibility of both subordinate executives and gave them each the new title of executive vice president. He called them in together and announced that he intended to retire in five years and that one of them would be named to succeed him as president.

Both men thanked the president for the opportunity. The president had confidence that he had picked the right candidates. Although both were ambitious, he knew that both would put the company before themselves in whatever they undertook. He knew that either would make an excellent replacement.

Over the five years of their apprenticeship a differing pattern began to emerge from each of the prospective presidents-to-be. Although both men did well in every task given them and were equally successful in accomplishing their assignments, the process each followed was quite different. One would be given a task by the president. He would request the information needed and would ask when the job was to be accomplished. He would go off, gather his subordinates together, and would invariably present the president with a completed job well done days, weeks, or months later. Unless he needed some specific information or permission to do something a little out of the usual process, he would do this without ever bothering the old president.

The other executive vice president took an entirely different approach. Given a project by the president, he too would organize his subordinates to complete it successfully. However, there was a big difference. The first candidate worked independently and didn’t bother the president with the details of what he was doing unless specific help was needed. However, the second candidate met periodically with the president to discuss the project and frequently requested additional meetings, continually seeking the president’s advice.

“Now,” asked Drucker, “when the president retired, which candidate did he pick to succeed him: the executive who was always successful without bothering him or taking his time, or the one who continually seemed to seek his help and approval?”

Many hands shot up, including my own. Drucker called on several students. Each stated his opinion that the president picked the executive who was able to succeed on his own without having to report back until the job was done unless there was a specific problem. This was my opinion too. Our thinking was that the new president would need to operate on his own and would not have the old president’s counsel to fall back on.

Drucker  asked for a show of hands as to how many agreed that the president selected the executive who demonstrated that he was able to operate independently and without the president’s ongoing approval. A large majority agreed with the students Peter had previously called on. Only a few thought that the second executive who constantly bothered the former president had been the one selected.

Drucker  stated the results: “Most of you are wrong. The former president selected the candidate who continually consulted with him.” The class was in an uproar. This went against everything we knew about management and leadership. Everyone knew that the candidate who demonstrated that he could make decisions on his own should and would be selected.

Drucker’s Lesson: Question Your Assumptions
“What everybody ‘knows’ is frequently wrong,” Peter responded. “We are dealing with human beings. Most top managers want to feel that their policies and legacies will be continued. The constant contact and interaction with the second manager gave the president that confidence.

“Both executives were outstanding, but while the president felt that he knew and understood the executive who maintained contact, he was less certain about the other executive and he was less invested in his success. After picking candidates based on accomplishment, he went with his gut instinct, a perfectly correct way in which to make such an important decision after considering all the facts. Unless the president’s preferred style was to let those who reported to him operate independently, the first executive should have tried to adapt his preferred method to what his boss preferred, even though ‘everyone knows’ that continual consultation with a higher manager is less desirable.”

Drucker was right, and I should have known better. I was in the process of losing the confidence of my then boss by behaving exactly like the executive who operated independently. That in itself is an important lesson, but the idea that what everyone knows is frequently wrong proved even more important to me, and I think many other of Drucker’s students. Over the next few years, I heard Drucker say this quite a few times.

Maybe through repetition I finally began to think more deeply about what the words really meant. This seemingly simple and self-contradicting statement is amazingly true and immensely valuable, and not only in business. What Drucker wanted to emphasize was that we must always question our assumptions no matter from where they originate. This is especially true regarding anything that a majority of people “know” or assume without questioning. This “knowledge” should always be suspect and needs to be examined much more closely. In a surprisingly high percentage of cases, the information “known to be true” will turn out to be false or inaccurate, if not generally, then in a specific instance. This can lead to extremely poor, even disastrous management decisions.
Things Once “Known to Be True” Are Now Known to Be False
Of course there are many old “truisms” once thought by everyone to be true which we laugh at today. “The world is flat.” “The earth is the center of the universe.” The ancient Greeks knew that everything was made up of only four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. Of course, in modern times we learned that they were mistaken. When I took chemistry in high school, I learned that a Periodic Table of Elements had been formulated by a fellow named Mendeleev and that it had been established that there were exactly 93 elements, no more, no less. We got an “A” if we could name them all. Today, there are 102 elements—or so “everybody knows.”

Questions Raised by 100% Agreement
Interestingly, Drucker’s lesson goes back over the millennia. In ancient Israel, the highest court was called the Sanhedrin. It corresponded roughly to the U.S. Supreme Court today, although it had a lot more power. The Sanhedrin tried the most important cases, and it had the power to exact capital punishment. In this high court, there were no prosecuting or defense attorneys and no appeals. The Sanhedrin court consisted only of judges. Some historians say 71 judges, others 23. The actual number is unimportant to some factual points.

The judges could examine the defendant, the accusers, and any witnesses either side brought before it. To exonerate a defendant required a majority of one, while to find him guilty required a majority of two. But perhaps the most interesting aspect of this ancient Jewish legal body was that if all judges found the accused guilty of a capital crime, he or she was allowed to go free! This was because the ancient Hebrews were convinced that there is a defense to be argued for every individual accused, regardless of the gravity of the crime and the persuasiveness of the evidence. If not a single judge thought that the defendant’s case had merit, then it was clear that no matter how heinous the crime, something was wrong in the situation and it was likely that the accused was innocent. In other words, when every judge “knew” something to be “true,” it probably wasn’t.

In modern times, the impact of mass agreement about an issue has been addressed and confirmed in psychological research. In one experiment, subjects were asked to rate the attractiveness of individuals depicted in selections of photographs. However, there was only one real subject and the results were rigged. Unknown to the subject, the other participants were part of the scientist’s team of experimenters. These participants were to agree about the most attractive individual depicted in any particular set of photographs at random. It was found that the subject could usually be influenced to agree with any photograph that the group selected, regardless of merit. This experiment demonstrates the influence of social proof, while it confirms one reason why Drucker’s theory that what everyone knows is frequently wrong is correct. Accepting what everybody knows without any examination will often result in faulty decisions.

© 2008 William A. Cohen.

Why were Koung Koung and Popoh YIPTONG reluctant to the marriage of my father Pak Lin to my mother Cecette? To be able to answer the question, it would be necessary to get to the background story to situate the scene and place us in the context of the time and place.

We were just passed the 40’s war, time were tough for all the inhabitants of the island. Employment was scare, even food was rationed. Came the end of the war, in 1945 the troops were demobilized and the normal activities of the country restarted.

Koung Koung YIPTONG was amongst the notable of the Chinese community and had done economically well for himself and his lot. He was a merchant, owning a high street wholesale business. In those days the wholesalers were not only the suppliers of goods of the retailers, they were also the fund provider (almost the banker) of the retailers. He himself started off in 1907 as a countryside retailer attached to a wholesaler until he had enough capital to open shop as a wholesale trader. Having saved enough wealth, he was about to fulfill his mission: a return back to China to resettle with his family.

Koung Koung YIPTONG was owner of several properties which were rented; was a prominent member of the community and was part of the Chinese unofficial leaders’ club: he commanded respect and was in the lime light of the community as an example of success and wisdom to follow. He was often called to arbitrate on litigious issues between members of the community, which in a way was a sort of arbitration court of the community.

To grow his business, on the recommendation of another wealthy merchant Chong Kwan, Koung Koung employed as correspondence clerk the latter’s relative: Ignace AHLIM an ex army sergeant who was recently demobilized. Ignace, though educated, came from a poor family background. Of Chinese Cantonese father and half Chinese mother, Ignace was orphan at age 16 and had to work to look after his mother, brother and sisters. Koung Koung liked the industrious qualities and the honesty of Ignace and later recruited his younger brother Laval to work in the business and her younger sister Cecette to help on a part time basis his growing children in their schooling. The duties of Cecette demanded that she spent long hours at the YIPTONG’s house.

With time and frequent meetings love between Cecette the learning tutor of the family and the eldest son, Pak Lin of the family developed.

How could the model Hakka family allow his eldest son marry a non Hakka?

It was traditional in those days that Chinese parents would select their daughter in law for acceptance by their son. Could the family accept a departure from the tradition?

Besides there were practical aspects to the issue: Popoh did not speak any other language than Hakka, Cecette could not communicate with her; how would her future daughter in law survive when they will be settled back in China and further more Cecette did not have the Chineseness expected from the traditional Hakka family.

Soon as the news of the love affair of the tutor of the house with the eldest son broke, Cecette lost her employ. Pak Lin was  told to severe the relationship. The lovers continued to meet in spite of the restrictions. Koung Koung even threatened to disinherit him if he would dare marry his love one. Pak Lin would not change his mind: he even left his job in the family business to become a taxi driver to the horror of his father.

Seeing that Pak Lin will not change his mind, Koung Koung in his wisdom finally gave in: he accepted the marriage under the condition that the married couple would settle in China soon after. Meanwhile, the 3^rd son Yook started dating another Chinese girl which did not receive the consent of Popoh as the tradition would dictate.

QUELS CAPITALISMES POUR LE 21ème SIECLE ?

Déclaration finale du Cercle des économistes
Aix-en-Provence,

Le capitalisme a triomphé. Saura-t-il surmonter sa victoire ? Les rencontres économiques d’Aix en Provence 2007 se sont interrogées sur l’existence ou non de capitalismes divers, sur leur convergence éventuelle et les modalités de cette cohabitation. Le cercle des économistes juge que la domination du capitalisme anglo-saxon n’est pas une certitude. Bien au contraire, c’est une pluralité de capitalismes qui s’imposera. Les économistes se doivent donc de s’interroger sur les conséquences de cette diversité durable. Même si les capitalismes, aujourd’hui comme hier, se nourrissent de valeurs communes, rien ne permet d’assurer que leur concurrence ne créera pas de tensions difficiles à surmonter. C’est à la recherche d’une gouvernance mondiale, de règles du jeu efficaces et équitables, tant dans les domaines économiques, financiers, sociaux et environnementaux que cette déclaration tente d’apporter des réponses.

I. LES CONSTATS

Le capitalisme a pour noyau dur la propriété privée des moyens de production, la coordination par les marchés et le respect des droits de propriété. Au-delà, il prend des formes très différentes ainsi, l’économie sociale de marché, longtemps caractéristique de l’Europe continentale, donne un rôle aux parties prenantes – Etat et syndicats notamment – dans la conduite des affaires et attend de l’Etat qu’il corrige les inégalités. Le libéralisme anglo-saxon, lui, met l’accent sur la responsabilité de chacun – y compris dans la richesse ou la misère – et sur la liberté de circulation des hommes, des biens et des capitaux. Le contrôle de l’Etat sur les entreprises est faible dans les pays anglo-saxons, important en France, très fort en Russie ou en Chine, deux pays qui ne s’affichent pas comme capitalistes mais qui, de fait, le sont devenus.

Les rencontres d’Aix-en-Provence ont permis de dégager cinq constats dont certains sont inattendus.

1. Il n’y a pas de capitalisme sans valeurs
Ces valeurs sont diverses : le capitalisme n’a pas grandi dans un terreau unique qu’il soit religieux ou laïc. On peut en déterminer trois catégories :

• Les premières, dont la diversité doit être respectée parce qu’elles n’affectent pas les autres. Un bon exemple en est le poids de l’Etat dans le capital des entreprises.
• Les deuxièmes, dont les différences peuvent nuire aux autres. L’absence de transparence des entreprises et des marchés l’illustre bien.
• Les troisièmes que nous considérons comme des valeurs universelles avec lesquelles il n’est pas possible de transiger, par exemple le respect de la personne humaine et de l’environnement. Ces valeurs sont d’autant plus indispensables que le capitalisme, quelle que soit sa forme, est créateur d’inégalités, particulièrement élevées aujourd’hui. Dans les sociétés démocratiques, le processus politique fondé sur des valeurs partagées permet de déterminer le degré acceptable d’inégalités et donc le niveau de la protection sociale. Ceci n’est pas le cas ailleurs.

2. Les formes de capitalismes sont diverses.
Elles mutent dans des directions que personne n’avait anticipées. Contrairement aux attentes, le capitalisme de marché n’est pas devenu le seul modèle. Le capitalisme familial prospère, de l’Europe du Sud au Mexique. En Chine, en Russie, au Moyen-Orient naît un nouveau capitalisme d’Etat, financé par les excédents des paiements courants, qui jette son dévolu sur les entreprises européennes et américaines.

3. Les capitalismes devront coexister.
La coexistence des capitalismes est régie par des dynamiques complexes. Certes, il y a des forces de convergence, notamment sous la pression des marchés financiers. Mais, il y a aussi, évidemment, une concurrence entre capitalismes et une forme de sélection naturelle. Le modèle dominant ne sera pas forcément le plus efficace, ni le mieux accepté socialement.

4. La coexistence pacifique des capitalismes n’est pas garantie.
Parce que le progrès naît de la différence, parce que l’économie doit respecter la diversité des valeurs, parce que nous croyons au rôle positif de la concurrence, nous pensons que la diversité des capitalismes est une chance. Mais nous craignons que leur coexistence ne suscite des tensions croissantes et peut-être un jour ne déclenche des conflits. La première mondialisation, qui avait vu un développement sans précédent des échanges et du bien être, s’est brisée en 1914.

5. Il n’y a pas d’autorité supranationale pour organiser cette coexistence.
La gouvernance mondiale est aujourd’hui, on le sait, cruellement insuffisante. Dans nombre de domaines, comme l’environnement, la concurrence ou la propriété intellectuelle, il n’y a pas d’autorité globale. Et les institutions existantes – Fonds monétaire et Banque mondiale notamment – manquent de légitimité politique. Au total, il n’y a pas de règles du jeu communes aux différentes formes de capitalisme. Une entreprise chinoise peut lancer une OPA hostile avec de l’argent public ; en Europe, c’est presque impossible. L’Europe s’interdit de manipuler la valeur de sa monnaie, le Japon ou la Chine le font en utilisant leurs réserves de change, les Etats-Unis avec les déclarations de leurs dirigeants.

*

La lecture du document cité ci haut m’a permis de réfléchir sur le cas de notre Maurice. Ma compréhension de la vision des dirigeants politiques semble ne pas être clair ou définissable. L’incompréhension du capitalisme même à l’intérieur du parti politique au pouvoir serait il la source des conflits continuels apparents des différents factions du gouvernement ? Ou serait- il le manque de cohésion de éléments divers du gouvernement et le manque de cohérence du leadership des capitaines qui dirigent, les causes d’un parcours en zig zag dans l’action ? Des quels capitalistes le parti Labour prône t il ? Qu’il existe à Maurice un capitalisme familial sur lequel le pays a progressé pendant des siècles, personne ne peut nier. Que le parti au pouvoir veut mettre en place un capitalisme de l’état pour une meilleure répartition de la richesse, c’est son droit. Mais bon sang dites le, clairement et ouvertement. En France, pour corriger le poids une richesse historique, sa transmission est lourdement pénalisée par les taxes de succession. En tout cas, nous resterons dans le capitalisme en recherche d’un modèle hybride à mettre en place pour convenir au contour d’une meilleure repartition de richesse. Nous savons à l’avance que la gestion et la création de valeur par les entreprises d’état ont été jusqu’à ce jour un échec. La voie d’un capitalisme d’état ne sera réalisable que quand la compétence de gestion de l’état soit à un niveau acceptable et une gouvernance sans faille en opération. Il reste du chemin à parcourir.

D’autre part, J’ai un trop plein de cette segmentation de richesse par groupe ethnique que je lis sur le media. Ne sommes nous pas tous Mauriciens à part entière ? Pourrions nous dorénavant être segmentés pour les besoins d’analyse par notre quantité de richesses sans référence à notre origine ethnique ?

L’économie de la santé est un secteur que nous entrepreneurs à Maurice devrait étudier pour trouver des opportunités. Le cercle des économistes français ont étudié la question et ont publié un cahier.

Déjà dans notre secteur tourisme, une part grandissant des services est orienté vers la santé et le bien-être à travers les centres de spas. Pourrions nous être plus pointu dans le secteur santé ? Comment pourrions nous à Maurice détourner une partie des dépenses de santé des pays riches à être dépensé chez nous ? Pourrions nous offrir à une clientèle nantie des soins dans des établissements de convalescence ? Des pays comme Inde, la Thaïlande offrent déjà des services de santé à l’international avec de la technologie au standard européen.

Je cite un extrait du cahier signé par Marc Guillaume :

Il faut s’attendre à un fort développement de nos dépenses de santé dans les prochaines décennies. Et s’en réjouir, même si cela pose de redoutables problèmes de financement. S’en réjouir d’abord parce que la santé est un bien inestimable. Mais aussi parce que le secteur de la santé, replacé dans l’ensemble de l’économie et dans la perspective de la mondialisation est au cœur des nouvelles orientations d’un développement qualitatif et durable. C’est un moteur de croissance stratégique compte tenu des emplois qui sont liés à ce secteur de services. Et aussi un secteur industriel soumis aux contraintes de compétitivité sur le marché mondial et donc aux enjeux de technologie et de recherche associés à ces contraintes. L’économie de la santé contribue grandement à la santé de l’économie !

Nous montrons en premier lieu que les dépenses de santé s’inscrivent dans la perspective d’un développement qualitatif et durable, en cohérence avec les nouvelles orientations de la croissance. Qu’elles constituent un puissant moteur de croissance compte tenu de la densité des emplois liés à un secteur de services. Compte tenu aussi des contraintes de compétitivité et des enjeux de recherche associés à ces contraintes. En ce sens, certaines dépenses de santé sont aussi des investissements, et des investissements stratégiques. Cette analyse globale est ensuite illustrée et précisée sur un secteur particulièrement important et exemplaire, celui de la pharmacie et des biotechnologies qui est soumis à une intense concurrence mondiale.

Il apparaît ainsi clairement qu’une réflexion sur l’économie de la santé ne peut pas s’enfermer dans le cadre français, ni même européen. L’intensification de la concurrence et des échanges invite à la confrontation des systèmes nationaux et à une réflexion sur la gouvernance mondiale de la santé. C’est pourquoi une contribution de ce Cahier est consacrée au système de santé américain. Elle met en évidence l’importance que les Etats-Unis accordent au secteur de la santé et les spécificités, ainsi que les difficultés, de son financement. En conclusion, ce Cahier s’attache à un thème à la fois essentiel et d’actualité, celui de l’économie des brevets et des médicaments génériques et, plus généralement, celui des urgences sanitaires mondiales.

Marc Guillaume

SOMMAIRE

Avant-propos de Marc Guillaume I. Le paradoxe de la santé Marc Guillaume

II. Déplafonner les dépenses de santé : modalités et conséquences Patrick Artus

III. Les effets de la santé sur la croissance économique Jean-Hervé Lorenzi et Mathieu Baratas

IV. Les nouveaux modèles de l’industrie du médicament Michel Didier

V. Les dépenses de santé aux États-Unis et leur financement Jacques Mistral et Bernard Salzmann

VI. Du bon usage des épidemies : mondialiser le progrès sanitaire Marc Guillaume

Mt 24,37-44.
L’avènement du Fils de l’homme ressemblera à ce qui s’est passé à l’époque de Noé. A cette époque, avant le déluge, on mangeait, on buvait, on se mariait, jusqu’au jour où Noé entra dans l’arche.
Les gens ne se sont doutés de rien, jusqu’au déluge qui les a tous
engloutis : tel sera aussi l’avènement du Fils de l’homme.
Deux hommes seront aux champs : l’un est pris, l’autre laissé.
Deux femmes seront au moulin : l’une est prise, l’autre laissée.
Veillez donc, car vous ne connaissez pas le jour où votre Seigneur viendra. Vous le savez bien : si le maître de maison avait su à quelle heure de la nuit le voleur viendrait, il aurait veillé et n’aurait pas laissé percer le mur de sa maison.
Tenez-vous donc prêts, vous aussi : c’est à l’heure où vous n’y penserez pas que le Fils de l’homme viendra.

Pierre de Blois (vers 1130-1211), archidiacre en Angleterre nous parle des  trois avènements du Christ :   Il y a trois avènements du Seigneur, le premier dans la chair, le second dans l’âme, le troisième par le jugement. Le premier a eu lieu au milieu de la nuit, suivant ces paroles de l’évangile : « Au milieu de la nuit un cri s’est fait entendre : voici l’Époux ! » (Mt 25,6) Et ce premier avènement est déjà passé, car le Christ a été vu sur la terre et a conversé avec les hommes (Ba 3,38).

Nous sommes maintenant dans le second avènement, pourvu toutefois que nous soyons tels qu’il puisse venir ainsi à nous, car il a dit que si nous l’aimons, il viendra à nous et fera sa demeure en nous (Jn 14,23). Ce second avènement est donc pour nous une chose mêlée d’incertitude, car quel autre que l’Esprit de Dieu connaît ceux qui sont à Dieu (1Co 2,11) ? Ceux que le désir des choses célestes ravit hors d’eux-mêmes savent bien quand il vient ; cependant, ils « ne savent pas d’où il vient ni où il va » (Jn 3,8).

Quant au troisième avènement, il est très certain qu’il aura lieu,
très incertain quand il aura lieu, puisque rien n’est plus certain que la
mort et rien de plus incertain que le jour de la mort. « Au moment où l’on parlera de paix et de sécurité, c’est alors que la mort apparaîtra soudain, comme les douleurs de l’enfantement au sein de la femme, et nul ne pourra fuir » (1Th 5,3). Le premier avènement a été donc humble et caché, le second est mystérieux et plein d’amour, le troisième sera éclatant et terrible. Dans son premier avènement, le Christ a été jugé par les hommes avec injustice ; dans le second, il nous rend justice par sa grâce ; dans le dernier, il jugera toutes choses avec équité — Agneau dans le premier avènement, Lion dans le dernier, Ami plein de tendresse dans le second.

 

C’est bien le troisième avènement que l’Evangile de ce matin me pointe le doigt. Si je vis comme « Les gens (qui) ne se sont doutés de rien », le premier avènement du fils de l’homme aurait été vain. Jésus me recommande la vigilance pour l’heure de son avènement mais mieux encore c’est dans la mesure que je Å“uvre continuellement vers ma destiné dans mon quotidien que je serai épargné. « Deux hommes seront aux champs : l’un est pris, l’autre laissé. Deux femmes seront au moulin : l’une est prise, l’autre laissée. »

Merci Seigneur de m’avoir averti et de me mettre dans cette conscience. Je te demande de me donner la grâce d’être toujours prêt à Ton troisième avènement et de garder le cap vers mon retour vers Toi, qui est mon ultime destination. Augmente en moi jour après jour le désir  et en temps opportun, d’être reçu par Toi, mon créateur. Comme le désir pourrait être motivé par le manque : fait Seigneur que mon manque de Toi soit encore plus grand.

Last week at the Rogers house there was the launching of the biography of Amede Maingard, Behind enemy line with the SAS. He was the visionary who founded the Tourism industry and Air Mauritius.

I had the privilege to have known the man and worked for him. Before I finished school because of the friendship which bonded my Dad and Amede Maingard, I was asked by my Dad to go and visit Amede Maingard in his office at Rogers which in those days was at Sir W. Newton Street. It was the 13^th December 1966; I met him for the first time. He was a man with a smile on his face with an impressive look. Man of only a few words, I was impressed by the way he would look at me. I would sense a lot of sympathy in his glance whilst at the same time I could make out that he was a great strategist with a calculating mind. On that very day, I joined Rogers & company where I spent 38 years of enjoyable service until my retirement.

Amede Maingard commands respect as he would only express his views after having heard all the opinions and done his own thinking. Always calm in his manners, he was a no time waster. He was the authority and would not accept to be contradicted. His war years gave him an aversion to anything German. I recall how he reacted when we spoke of the operation of Lufthansa to Mauritius. He left this world too early and did not see the fruit of his work at Air Mauritius with the operations of B747 SP and the boom of the Tourism industry in the years past the 80’s. He planted the seeds, saw to it that the buds got off the ground but did not live to see the fruit of his determination and vision.