Khin Maung Nyo (Economics) - MBA in person

Economic crisis

Economic history

There is a myth that no one knew the recent economic crisis would come. In fact, many economists foresaw it. They were quick to point out that the world was in a state of flux and that financial reforms were needed.

Compared to the global economy of the past 200 years, the global economy of the past 10 years is going to be a disaster. There will be a recession, financial institutions will collapse, international trade tensions will arise, and politics will dominate finance. Some people have been predicting since 2002 that at least one banker will end up in prison, so how do you know?

In fact, it is not difficult at all, no new techniques or complicated tools are needed, and a little knowledge of history is enough. Except for one global cycle that came to a standstill in 1914, all previous global cycles have the same ending pattern. The latest global cycle is also fundamentally no different from the previous ones.

Many economists, bankers, and policymakers have been puzzled by the crisis, but those with a solid understanding of economic and financial history have realized that it is inevitable.

Therefore, while teaching economics, students should be proficient in mathematics, but not overly focused on it. They should also teach economic history. Economic history does not only refer to the past twenty or thirty years.

Those who are passionate about history also predict that if the US financial world continues to be bombed with free subsidies, there will be more crises and recessions in the future. We should not forget the role of forests in making countries rich thousands of years ago. The current crises are caused by the depletion of available resources, he points out.

When people say we should re-teach economic history, there don't seem to be many professors of economic history. If we were to start teaching it now, we'd have to wait a long time. And economists themselves are accused of exterminating those who are different from us.

In fact, they suggest that we should study not only history, but also the irrational nature of people and the limitations of their knowledge. If we study history carefully, we can understand the irrationality of people and the limitations of their knowledge.

Many people seem to forget to look at the complexities of the real world when analyzing economic structures. The financial crisis and subsequent economic downturn are seen as a good time to rethink not only how economics is taught, but also how people think about it.

When setting up economic models, numbers are not included in the calculations, the unexpected, and the model cannot take everything into account, so it cannot be relied upon too much. It is necessary to consider history, culture, society, and politics.

Another problem is that academics who are good at staying in theory are not interested in the outside world, making policies, or educating the public. In fact, politicians themselves need to understand economics and business, and they need people to teach them. They also need people to teach the public.

Economics is better understood when it is related to the lives of real people.

Some critics argue that it is important to learn not only economic history but also other historical subjects, so that we can see the current situation in a balanced way.

In the end, as the saying goes, "Before it's extinguished, the fire will flare up again." They criticized the fact that they had to work hard and be arrogant before anything happened. Therefore, when studying economics, they should also understand the destructive nature of greed and ego.

Is it fun?

There is a TV show called “Crazy” that was made in the 1960s about the advertising industry. After watching the show, I realized that the way offices work has changed dramatically over the years. The most obvious one is that women are no longer treated as inferior, second-class citizens. But another change is not so good: they are no longer happy in offices.

There were many simple pleasures for advertisers in the 1960s. You could sit at your desk and drink all day. You could mingle and mingle with your colleagues. You didn't hang out to bond with each other, you hung out to drink.

These days, many companies are getting into the fun. In Silicon Valley, computer software companies have walls in their living rooms that are like climbing rocks.

Blow-up dolls are placed in offices. Walmart tells cashiers to always smile. The idea of ​​having fun is spreading like a virus. One American company even appoints a Chief Fun Officer. One Canadian-owned American subsidiary sends out groups of people in fancy dress to scare its successful employees.

Happiness programs in the workplace have become a business now. Companies are teaching executives happiness techniques, business skills. They should have fun at work. They should play games during lunch.

Google's offices have volleyball courts. They've added bike lanes. They've paved sidewalks. They've even added dinosaur toys. There are other toys. Twitter gives employees cowboy outfits. They have people assigned to make other people happy. For example, on a hot day, they have to go to the ice cream parlor. They say making employees happy is one of the company's main responsibilities.

The boss shaves his head and devotes his time to studying the science of happiness. He even jokes that the Walt Disney Company's advertisement that their place is the happiest place on earth is a slanderous advertisement and that he wants to sue them. He chooses one of the noisy workers and gives him a promotion. How to give him a promotion. The promotion is made by making him wear a hat for a whole week.

These outrageous actions did not occur without reason.

It emerged under the management slogans of empowerment, self-involvement, and creativity. Many companies boast about delegating work to frontline workers. However, according to employees, only 20 percent of employees are deeply involved in their work.

Creativity is even less likely. If managers make employees happy, they will be more involved and try harder. They expect more creativity. The problem is that if you treat something that should be fun as a chore, it won't be fun. It can even become boring. It's also bad to force people to do fun things.

A pizza company rewards its employees for being the best and happiest. There is a cruel side to the rewards. The company wants to be better than its competitors. They want to increase productivity by working together as a team. They want to be happy, productive, and proud of being a company that works hard.

There are also some very common issues. How do you make people happy in a company where smokers are treated like criminals and thrown out of the office, and drinks are not allowed even during breakfast and lunch?

Many companies cannot tolerate romances between high and low-ranking employees. There was even a CEO who was fired after being accused of sexual harassment.

It seems to create fake happiness rather than real happiness. It is not surprising that they are opposed. There is a lot of opposition to the forced smile issue, the issue of preventing colleagues from laughing with each other. In 2006, a large department store left Germany. But in general, the forced happiness issue is still very common. The one thing that is ridiculous about the forced happiness issue is probably fun. They do not seem to be very happy that fun is treated as a management issue.